Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Volume 5 of 7 - Draft Environmental Impact Report - EIR - Bo
City of Huntington Beach CITY CLERK'S COPY - Comment Regarding: DRAFT' ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT prepared by the Orange County Environmental Management Agency with respect to The Bolsa Chica Project Local Coastal Program (County Project No. SSi; State Clearinghouse No. 93-7106Q Submitted by: ERVIN, COHEN & JESSLTP, as special counsel to the City of Huntington Beach On Behalf of: THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Volume V February 17, 19% EC.I Ervin, Cohen&Jessup,9401 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 900, Beverly Hills, California 90212 11 1 r Fiscal Impacts of Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Program on ' City of Huntington Beach ' Prepared by: February 14, 1994 PUBLIC ECONOMICS, INC. 2100 E. Katella Ave., Suite 195,Anaheim,CA 92806,Tel: (714) 937-0806 Fax: (714) 937-1804 Table of Contents I. Conceptual Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pagel ' A. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 1 B. Summary of Conclusions . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 3 ' C. Specific Fiscal Impacts . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 4 VII. Analysis of Fiscal Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 13 , A. Summary of Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 13 ' VIII. Major Assumptions and Methodology . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 16 IX. Recurring Fiscal Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 19 A. Analysis of Recurring Revenues .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 19 , B. Analysis of Recurring Costs . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 26 XI. One-Time Fiscal Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 33 ' A. Types of One-Time Fiscal Impacts . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 33 B. One-Time Fiscal Impacts Under the Three Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 34 r i r LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX A Analysis of Recurring Fiscal Impacts ' SCENARIO #1 - ANNEXATION PRIOR TO DEVELOPMENT - Scenario #1 - City Budget Analysis APPENDIX B Analysis of Recurring Fiscal Impacts ' SCENARIO #2 - ANNEXATION DURING PROJECT DEVELOPMENT ' APPENDIX C Analysis of Recurring Fiscal Impacts ' SCENARIO #3 - PROJECT REMAINS IN COUNTY, WITH NO FIRE COST IMPACTS - Scenario #3 - Project Remains in County, With Fire Cost Impacts - Scenario #3 - City Budget Analysis APPENDIX D One-Time Fiscal Impacts SCENARIO #1 - ANNEXATION PRIOR TO DEVELOPMENT ' APPENDIX E One-Time Fiscal Impacts ' SCENARIO #2 - ANNEXATION DURING PROJECT DEVELOPMENT APPENDIX F One-Time Fiscal Impacts SCENARIO #3 - PROJECT REMAINS IN COUNTY APPENDIX G Project Description Information r L Conceptual Framework _ 1 A. Introduction A.1 Overview As proposed in the draft environmental impact report ("DEIR") prepared by the , County of Orange ("County"), implementation of the Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Program ("LCP" or "Project") will have significant adverse environmental effects on t the City of Huntington Beach ("City"), including changes in public services and community facilities resulting from the Project. The adverse fiscal impacts, or net ' marginal costs of these environmental effects. include both recurring and one-time impacts from development of the LCP, which calls for construction within the 1,604 acre LCP area of 4,286 new residential dwelling units over a 12 to 22 year period. r The entire LCP area is located within a pocket of unincorporated County, and is completely surrounded on the east, west, and north by the City and on the south by , Pacific Coast Highway and Bolsa Chica State; Beach. In addition, the Bolsa Chica project will also include 598 dwelling units within the City on 367 acres adjacent to and contiguous with the LCP area. ' A.2 Nature of Fiscal Impacts ' Fiscal impacts include both recurring and one-time costs and revenues: • Recurring costs arise from the need to provide public services to Project residents, and include the costs of police and fire protection, street and ' drainage maintenance, maintenance of parks and parkways, operation and maintenance of library and recreation programs, general government operations, etc. ' • Recurring revenues include recurring tax,f te, and other payments made by Project residents, as well as related State subventions and other public ' revenue • One-time costs include the costs of infrastructure, community facilities, and other public improvements required to serve the Project, both on-site and off-site ' Fiscal Impacts of Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Program 02115/1994 on City of Huntington Beach Page I , i ' • One-time revenues include developer fee payments and exactions, as well as net bond proceeds from Mello-Roos or public financing programs used tfor capital facilities One-time costs and revenues are typically generated during Project construction. ' For large scale projects like Bolsa Chica, recurring costs and revenues will be generated in each year of construction through Project buildout, and in every year ' following Project buildout. A.3 Adverse Fiscal Impacts ' The Project will have adverse fiscal impacts on the City (i.e., result in a fiscal deficit) if either of the following occurs: • Recurring City costs attributable to the Project exceed recurring City revenues • One-time City costs attributable to the Project exceed one-time City revenues From the City's point of view, the Project will be fiscally balanced only if ' • One-time City costs attributable to the Project are less than or equal to one-time City revenues • Cumulative recurring surpluses to the City are greater than or equal to zero I ' • Annual recurring surpluses to the City are greater than or equal to zero or annual recurring deficits are fully mitigated, both before and after Project buildout ' A.4 Adverse Fiscal Impacts as Adverse Environmental Effects Section 15126(g) of the Guidelines to the California Environmental Quality Act ' ("CEQA"), expressly states that "increases in population may further tax existing community service facilities[,] so consideration must be given to this impact." Thus, environmental effects include changes in public services and community facilities resulting from the Project. As used in this discussion, "adverse fiscal impacts" refer to the net marginal costs of the Project to the City for such services and facilities, and ' Fiscal Impacts of Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Program 0211511994 on City of Huntington Beach Page 2 1 includes both recurring and one-time costs. He-.-ice, the accompanying fiscal impact analysis provides a quantitative measure of the adverse environmental effects of the Project resulting from changes in public services and community facilities. ' B. Summary of Conclusions ' The City has reason to be concerned about the negative environmental effects of the ' Project on the City of Huntington Beach, including adverse fiscal impacts on public services and community facilities. The City is concerned that adverse these adverse impacts on the City have been ignored or inadequately documented in the County's ' environmental and planning process for the Balsa Chica Project. The City requires that analysis of the potential fiscal impacts of the Project: , • Account for all three development and annexation scenarios described below • Account for recurring and one-time fiscal impacts on the City for all three scenarios • Identify all adverse fiscal impacts on the City • Identify all feasible mitigation measures for such adverse impacts ' • Evaluate the feasibility of all mitigation measures, including the Area Transportation Improvement Program ("ATIP") and the Wetlands Restoration Plan ("WRP"), based in part on the economic viability of such measures, i.e., based on how such measures affect the economic feasibility of the Project ' • Ensure that the Project is designed and processed in such a way that completion of the Project, including fill implementation of the WRP and ' other required mitigation measures, including all those required by the City, can be reasonably expected and demonstrated prior to Project approval ' Fiscal Impacts of Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Program 0211511994 ' on City of Huntington Beach Page 3 1 rC. Specific Fiscal Impacts 1 C.1 Adverse Fiscal Impacts on City of Huntington Beach Fiscal impacts on the City will occur under any of three scenarios: • Scenario l: Project is annexed to the City concurrent with Project approval and prior to development • Scenario 2: Project is annexed to the City during or after Project ' development I • Scenario 3: Project remains in the County Scenario 1 Recurring and one-time City costs and revenues will be greatest under Scenario 1. Costs will be greater since the City will be responsible for providing a number of public services and improvements from the beginning of Project development. Revenues will also be greater since the City will collect most recurring tax, fee, and other payments directly from Project residents, and levy most one-time fees and charges directly on the developer. However, as shown in the attached fiscal analysis, ' the Project is still fiscally unbalanced under this scenario, and has a significant adverse fiscal impact on the City. Scenario 2 Recurring and one-time impacts will be smaller under Scenario 2, since the City will be responsible for providing the same public services and improvements required under Scenario 1, but for a shorter period of time, i.e., after annexation into the City. Project residents will also make recurring tax and other payments to the City for a shorter period of time, and the City will presumably collect no one-time fees and charges prior to annexation. As shown in the attached fiscal analysis, the Project is also fiscally unbalanced under this scenario, and again has a significant adverse fiscal impact on the City. 1 Fiscal Impacts of Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Program 0211SI1994 on City of Huntington Beach Page 4 Scenario 3 Recurring and one-time fiscal impacts will be smallest under Scenario 3, since the ' City will presumably provide fewer public services and improvements to the Project than under the other two scenarios. However, the City will also collect fewer recurring tax and other payments from Project residents, and will presumably collect no one-time fees or charges. For these reasons, as shown in the attached fiscal analysis, the Project is also fiscally unbalanced under Scenario 3. The degree of fiscal imbalance is exacerbated by two factors: • The City will still be obligated to provide some on-site public services and improvements, i.e., services and facilities provided or located within the Project • The City will also be obligated to satisfy demands by Project (i.e., County) residents for off-site public services and improvements, i.e., services and facilities provided or located within the Uty. For example, given the location of the LCP, Project residents will have to use Cite streets to access the Project, get to and from work, and buy goods and services from City retailers and other local businesses. In so doing, they will require and benefit from City street maintenance and police protection services. Given the proximity of the Project to City facilities, Project residents will also make extensive use of City libraries, parks, and beaches, as well as City community services and programs. While the City may receive some recurring revenues under Scenario 3 (e.g., sales ' taxes and parking revenues), there are no mechanisms currently in place under this scenario to: • Ensure that recurring City revenues cover recurring City costs • Provide any one-time revenues to the City The foregoing is also true for Scenario 2 for the period prior to annexation of the r Project by the City. C.2 Mitigation Measures for Adverse Fiscal Impacts Section 15126(c) of the Guidelines to CEQA also requires that feasible measures be identified to mitigate adverse environmental effects of the Project. Where environmental effects include changes in public services and community facilities, , Fiscal Impacts of Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Program 02/1S/1994 on City of Huntington Beach Page S rmitigation measures must include mechanisms for providing and funding such services and facilities. These mitigation measures and funding mechanisms include but are not limited to the following: • Community Facilities Districts using the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982 • Special Assessment Districts using the Municipal Improvement Acts of 1913 and 1915 as well as other statutes • Landscaping and Lighting Districts using the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 • Developer fees • User fees r • Development agreements Each of the above except user fees may be employed to fund one or more types of public improvements and capital facilities, thereby providing potential mitigation for related, adverse one-time environmental effects on the City. Each of the above except developer fees may be used to fund one or more types of public services, 1 thereby providing potential mitigation for related, adverse recurring environmental effects on the City. Developer fees are paid by the developer or builder, usually at the time that building permits are issued. Developer fees constitute another building cost to the developer, and tend to increase the market price of housing and/or decrease builder profit. Special taxes and assessments are paid by the developer and/or final owners of property, typically in addition to and at the same time that regular property taxes are paid. Special taxes and assessments are used to (i) secure bonds for financing capital improvements, and (ii) fund recurring expenditures for selected public services. By increasing the effective annual tax burden (hence, annual home ownership costs), special taxes and assessments tend to decrease the market price of housing as well as developer profits. User fees are charged for public services only, and are typically paid by residents, employees, and visitors, not property owners (user fees for fire protection services are a notable exception). Fiscal Impacts of Botsa Chica Local Coastal Program 0211511994 on City of Huntington Beach Page 6 1 1 C.3 Mitigation Measures for Adverse City Impacts ' In the case of the Bolsa Chica LCP, failure to iclentify and provide for the mitigation measures described above will lead to additional significant adverse environmental effects from the Project, i.e., reductions in the level of public services and the availability of community facilities to existing Cite residents. In the absence of mitigation measures to provide and fund City services and facilities to serve the Project, such services and facilities can only be provided by diverting or diluting resources required by existing City residents. This additional environmental impact is both foreseeable and likely. Mitigation Under Scenario 1 With Scenario 1, use of the above measures and mechanisms to mitigate adverse fiscal impacts on the City could ensure that the Project is fiscally balanced. Under this scenario, the Project would presumably be processed through, and developer fees paid to, the City, and the City Counci'. would serve as legislative body for whichever special financing districts are employed. The City could choose to enter into a joint financing agreement with local school districts, for example, to allow joint financing of City and school district improvements with the same public financing program. Mitigation Under Scenarios 2 and 3 With Scenarios 2 and 3, use of the above ni.tigation measures and mechanisms will not mitigate the adverse fiscal impacts on the City. Under both scenarios, the Project would presumably be processed in the County. While the County may ensure mitigation of adverse fiscal impacts on the County, under Scenarios 2 and 3 there are no mechanisms in place at this time to ensure; mitigation of adverse fiscal impacts on the City. Measures to mitigate adverse City '.mpacts in this case could include: • Developer fees imposed by the County on behalf of the City, for the cost of City improvements attributable to the Project, both on-site and off-site. Such "City fees" would be in addition to developer fees imposed by the County for County facilities. ' Fiscal Impacts of Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Program 02/IS/1994 on City of Huntington Beach Page 7 i ' 1 • Cooperation and reimbursement agreement between the County and City, to ensure that the nexus and other administrative requirements of AB 1600 are satisfied should the Project be annexed into the City. Such an agreement would ensure that County developer fees are used only for public improvements 1 required by the Project, and would provide for transfer or reimbursement of developer fee revenues from the County to the City for selected public improvements. • Joint financing agreement between the County and City, involving all special financing districts established by the County. This agreement would ensure that any adverse fiscal impacts of the Project on the City prior to annexation are fully mitigated, whether these involve City services and improvements provided or located on-site (within the Project) or off-site (within the City). Such "City taxes and assessments" would be in addition to special taxes and assessments imposed by the County for County facilities and services. This agreement would also ensure that ownership and responsibility for maintenance of on-site public improvements, provision of on-site public services, and right to receive special taxes and/or assessments within the Project, are transferred from the County to the City in an orderly and timely fashion. • Development agreements between the City, County, and developer implementing all the measures set forth above. 1 In the absence of these measures, the only mitigation measure currently available to the City under Scenarios 2 and 3 is user fees. While user fees may mitigate some recurring City impacts, they provide no mitigation for one-time impacts. Further, user fees may have limited effectiveness even for recurring impacts. Existing City residents already pay taxes, fees, and assessments directly to the City. Existing City user fees supplement these other revenues. There are no user fees charged for many City services, which are funded by other City revenues. In other cases, user fees provide only partial funding for services. To ensure that Project residents pay the full cost of using City services under Scenarios 2 and 3, separate user fees would have to be put in place for non-City (i.e., Project) residents. These user fees would apply to all City services for which there is currently no fee or for which the fee is less than the full cost of service. Fiscal Impacts of Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Program 0211511994 on City of Huntington Beach Page 8 While it may be possible to levy differential user fees on residents and non-residents for some public services (e.g., parking and library services), differential fees are probably impractical for many other services. Hence, the effectiveness of user fees alone for mitigating adverse recurring impacts on the City is limited. Area Transportation Improvement Progr..Lin Although not treated as such in the DEIR, the proposed Area Transportation Improvement Program may be regarded as a potential mitigation measure for adverse fiscal impacts on the City resulting from off-site traffic generated by the Project. As discussed in the DEIR, potential funding of ATIP improvements may involve Measure M funds, gas tax revenues, special financing districts, developer fees, and other developer exactions. While ATIP may mitigate some of the traffic impacts of the Project on the City, it does not mitigate all such impacts. Further, whether ATIP constitutes a reasonable or acceptable mitigation measure to the City will depend in part on how it is funded. Unfortunately, operational funding of the proposed program has not been determined at this time. ' C.4 Fiscal Impacts on County of Orange A fiscal impact report ("FIR") is reportedly being prepared by County consultants. The City's interest in the County FIR primarily involves recognition by the County of ' the three scenarios presented above, and adequacy of the County's evaluation of recurring and one-time fiscal impacts on the City. However, the City is also , interested in the adequacy of evaluation of fiscal impacts on the County, to the extent that: • Assumptions about Count responsibility for providing public services and ' P Y P Y P g facilities, and acceptance by Project res,dents of the level of County services provided, may be unrealistic • Adverse fiscal impacts on the County may also require mitigation, in addition ' to mitigation of adverse fiscal impacts cn the:City For example, the County FIR may assume that (i) the County will provide library or fire protection services to the Project, even though City libraries and fire stations are Fiscal Impacts of Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Program 0211511994 ' on City of Huntington Beach Page 9 far closer than their County counterparts, or (ii) that Project residents will be satisfied with long trips to County libraries or long response times by County firefighters (which would exceed current County standards). In this case, if the County FIR ignores fiscal impacts on the City, the County FIR will be inadequate since it will ignore the likelihood that (i) public services will in fact be provided by the City, and (ii) Project residents may eventually demand annexation by the City. The County FIR may also identify the need for developer fees, special taxes and assessments, etc. to mitigate adverse one-time and recurring impacts on the County. For example, the proposed Wetlands Restoration Program may be regarded in part as a mitigation measure for adverse fiscal impacts on the County under Scenarios 2 and 3 resulting from Project development adjacent to the wetlands. In this case, if the County FIR ignores fiscal impacts on the City, the County FIR will be inadequate since mitigation of adverse fiscal impacts on the County and the City could make the Project and/or required mitigation measures economically unfeasible, thereby threatening successful completion of the Project and/or WRP improvements which it is supposed to provide. C.5 Economic Feasibility of Mitigation Measures As noted above, CEQA requires that all feasible measures for mitigating the adverse environmental effects of the Project be identified and considered. To determine ' whether a mitigation measure is feasible, Section 15364 of the Guidelines to CEQA requires that the lead agency take into account "economic factors" which may prevent a mitigation measure from being implemented "in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time." This requires assessing both the economic viability and proposed funding of the proposed mitigation. As lead agency, the County has failed to identify the adverse fiscal impacts of the Project on the City, or the potential measures for mitigating such impacts. Further, it is unlikely that required mitigation measures for these environmental effects will permit the Project to be economically feasible regardless of the scenario under which ' the Project is developed. This is due to the fact that mitigation will be funded primarily by the developer and Project homeowners, in the form of County and City developer fees and/or special taxes and assessments. Fiscal Impacts of Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Program 0211511994 on City of Huntington Beach Page 10 1 Responsibility for payment of special taxes and assessments will presumably involve both homowners--following construction and sale of property--and developers--while property is vacant, under construction, or unsold. (Developers may also pre-pay special taxes and assessments in escrow, rather than "pass-through" those obligations to homeowners.). Responsibility for payment of developer fees will rest with the developer. The economic feasibility of such mitigation funding will depend on the relative shares of funding paid directly by homeowners versus developers, and on the effective tax rate ("ETR"). Effective Tax Rate The ETR consists of the 1 percent general property tax levy mandated by Proposition 13, plus (i) ad valorem property tax. overrides for voter-approved bonded indebtedness, and (ii) non-ad valorem special taxes and assessment installments (expressed as a percentage of assessed value). It is widely believed that an ETR of 2 percent of assessed value represents an effective cap on property taxes and assessments, to the extent that such Binding is paid directly by the homeowner. This is because ETRs above 2 percent are thought to create insurmountable market resistance by home buyers., thereby reducing home sales and profits to such a degree that development becomes economically unfeasible. (ETRs above 2 percent are also thought to lead to filture: taxpayer revolts by overburdened homeowners.) Given negative media coverage of Mello-Roos financing programs during 1991 and 1992, some believe that any Mello-Roos taxes (if not special , assessments) will seriously impair home sa'.es and profitability. Witness the "No Mello-Roos" advertisements in many new subdivisions. Whether home buyer concerns about Mello-Roos and other special financing districts are based on fact and sound reasonung or merely on conjecture, it is clear that there is market and political resistance: to use of such districts, and that this resistance is not likely to subside in the near future. Special financing districts are likely to be needed to fund measures which are legally required to mitigate the adverse fiscal impacts of the Project on the City. Given the magnitude of these adverse impacts, the required level of special district financing by Project homeowners will probably exceed the 2 percent ETR cap. In this event: • The Project may be started but not completed Fiscal Impacts ojBolsa Chica Local Coastal Program 0211511994 on City ojHuntington Beach Page 11 ' • Private improvements may be completed but not wetlands improvements required by the WRP • Mitigation may be provided for adverse fiscal impacts on the County but not the City t • Mitigation measures for the City (including ATIP) may be implemented but never completed, or never implemented at all The DEIR must consider the impacts of these possibilities. ' Mitigation Paid Directly by Developer Developer fees are one form of mitigation paid directly by the developer, and provide an alternative to special financing districts. However, developer fees are "pay-as-you-go" financing and only become available when development occurs (e.g., when building permits are issued). To the extent that public facilities are appropriately phased with construction in an incremental manner, such pay-as-you-go financing may be an acceptable means of mitigating one-time impacts. However, to the extent that "up front" facilities are needed in advance of new development, fees will not provide timely mitigation. In this case, debt financing like that provided by Mello-Roos and other financing districts will be required. Even if developer fees can provide timely mitigation, the cost burden imposed on the developer by such fees may also reduce home sales and/or profits to such a idegree that the Project becomes economically unfeasible. A similar cost burden may be imposed by special taxes and assessments paid directly by the developer. In either case, as with special district financing paid by homeowners, the Project may be never be completed, or improvements to the wetlands made, or mitigation provided or completed for adverse impacts on the City. tFiscal Impacts of Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Program 0211511994 on City of Huntington Beach Page 12 1 i II. Analysis cf Fiscal Impact, A. Summary of Findings The City of Huntington Beach ("City") has undertaken an analysis of the fiscal ' impacts on the City from development of the Bols.a Chica Local Coastal Program ("LCP" or "Project") as described in the Draft Environmental Impact Report r ("DEIR") prepared by the County of Orange ("County"). The conclusions of the analysis are that regardless of whether the Project is developed under County ' jurisdiction, under City jurisdiction, or whether the Project is annexed into the City during development or after Project buildout, development of the Project will cause significant adverse fiscal impacts on the City. These impacts are presented below for three different scenarios. All impacts are shown in constant 1994 dollars. All three scenarios assumes that Project buildout is attained in year 13 of Project development. Scenario #1: Project Annexed to City Prior to) Development Recurring Impacts: Under Scenario #1, the Project will generate an annual recurring deficit to the City of$2.8 million at Project buildout and every year ' thereafter. Annual recurring revenues will equal $4.5 million compared to annual recurring costs of$7.3 million. This impEes a revenue-cost ratio of 61 percent. Please see Table A-9, Appendix A, page A-7. One-time Impacts: Under Scenario #1, City impact fees, charges for development-related planning, engineering; permit processing, and building-safety services, and other mitigation measures governed by a development agreement will presumably ensure that one-time costs for additional City infrastructure, community facilities, and development services are offset by one-time revenues. Cumulative Impacts: In the absence of any ritigation for recurring impacts, the , cumulative impact of annual deficits to the City through Project buildout will equal $19.2 million, in addition to $2.8 million per year every year thereafter. Please see Table A-9, page A-7. Fiscal Impacts ofBolsa Chica Local Coastal Program 02/1S/1994 ' on City of Huntington Beach Page 13 I rScenario #2: Project Annexed to City During Development Under this Scenario, it is assumed that the Project is annexed to the City in the seventh year of Project development. ' Recurring impacts: At Project buildout, annual recurring impacts for this scenario are the same as for Scenario #1 because the Project will presumably have been incorporated into the City, resulting in the same annual impacts derived from the same revenue and cost assumptions. Therefore, at buildout and every year thereafter this scenario will generate an annual recurring deficit to the City of ,52.8 million, based on revenues of $4.5 million, costs of $7.3 million, and a revenue/cost ratio of 63 percent. Please see Table B-9, Appendix B page B-3. One-Time Impacts: In the six years during which the Project is presumably being developed within the County under Scenario #2, one-time impacts are estimated at $8.3 million in impact fees and other mitigation payments foregone by the City. This estimate assumes establishment of no mitigation measures to offset these impacts prior to annexation. Please see Table E-1, Appendix E. Cumulative Impacts: In the absence of mitigation measures for recurring impacts, and assuming no mitigation of one-time impacts prior to annexation, the cumulative impact of annual deficits to the City through Project buildout will equal $16.9 million in recurring impacts and $8.3 million in one-time impacts for a total cumulative impact of.525.2 million, in addition to S2.8 million per year in recurring impacts every year thereafter. Please see Table B-9, Appendix B, page ' B-3. Scenario #3: Project Remains in County Recurring Impacts: Under Scenario #3, the Project will generate an annual ' recurring deficit to the City of S1.15 million at Project buildout and every year thereafter, not including the major planning and station location impacts on the City fire department. Recurring off-site revenues are estimated at $0.8 million per year compared to recurring off-site costs of $1.95 million per year. This implies a revenue-cost ratio of 40 percent. Please see Table C-9, Appendix C, page C-5. Fiscal Impacts of Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Program 0211511994 on City of Huntington Beach Page 14 If the impacts to Fire Department operations are included, then the annual recurring deficit at Project buildout increases to $5.3 million, based on annual revenues of $0.8 million and annual costs of $6.1 million. The resultant revenue-cost ratio in this case is 13 percent. Please see Table C-9f, Appendix C, page C-7. (Please see the discussion of recurrin;; costs for Scenario #3 for more information on fire department cost impacts.) One-Time Impacts: One-time impacts to fle City are estimated at $14.4 million in impact fees and other mitigation payments foregone by the City through Project buildout. This estimate assumes establishment of no mitigation measures to offset these County impacts on the City. Please see Table F-1, Appendix F. When one-time impacts include the additional fire station construction requirements for this scenario, these impacts are increased to $16.8 million. ; Please see Table F-1 f, Appendix F. Cumulative Impacts: In the absence of mitigation measures for recurring or one-time impacts, the cumulative impact of annual deficits to the City through Project buildout will equal $8.1 million in recurring impacts and $14.4 million in one-time impacts for a total cumulative impact of$22.5 million, in addition to ' $1.15 million per year in recurring impacts every year thereafter. Please see Table B-9, Appendix B, page B-3. If Fire Department impacts are included, tine cumulative impact of annual deficits to the City under this scenario through Prcject buildout increases to $41.8 million. , When this cumulative recurring deficit is combined with one-time impacts which include needed fire station construction, -the total cumulative impact on the City through Project buildout is $58.6 million, plus $5.3 million per year every year thereafter. Fiscal Impacts of Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Program 0211511994 on City of Huntington Beach Page IS i i 1 III. Major Assumptions and Methodology Due to the lack of adequate information in the DEIR. regarding the development program and phasing, certain assumptions have been required in order to perform this analysis. The Fiscal Impact Report ("FIR") on the Bolsa Chica Specific Plan ("EIR/EIS") completed in March 1992 provides the basis for many of these assumptions, the most critical of which involve pricing and absorption rates for dwelling units within the Project. Pricin : The average dwelling unit price in the previous FIR is $325,000. The average unit price in this analysis has been reduced to $271,000. This reduction is due in part to the relative concentration of smaller, lower priced units in the LCP area compared to the 4,884 total units within the LCP and adjacent City areas. However, the primary reason for the reduction is recognition of the relative permanence of changes in real estate market conditions. In 1992, it was assumed that market prices would return to pre-recession levels fairly quickly. While this was a credible assumptiion in 1992, subsequent events ' require different assumptions in 1994. Market comparisons in the Huntington Beach area have been reviewed for the purpose of this analysis. The pricing structure assumed here ' reflects the top of the current market in Huntington Beach, assuming an average of about 1,600 square feet per dwelling unit. Absorption: Assumptions regarding absorption rates are based on statements in the DEIR, as well as the prior FIR. The DEIR (page 3-34) refers to Project buildout occurring in 12 to 22 years. The previous FIR used a10 year absorption schedule provided by the Project applicant. This analysis assumes absorption rates which achieve buildout in 12 to 13 years. Inflation: All fiscal impacts shown in this analysis are in constant 1994 dollars. The fiscal model employed in this analysis is designed to test the impact on long term City fiscal balance of different rates of cost and revenue inflation as well as real estate appreciation. However, model outputs are very sensitive to inflation assumptions, and much uncertainty ' is involved in predicting inflation variables. Furthermore, insertion of different inflation variables into the model masks the true picture of the Project's fiscal impact under conditions prevailing today. For these reasons all fiscal analyses discussed here are stated in constant 1994 dollars. Methodology: For the majority of cost and revenue categories, the methodology employed in estimating recurring fiscal impacts is the Case Study method. 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 Fiscal Impacts of Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Program 0211511994 on City of Huntington Beach Page 16 services, the general plan, management studies, et(;.) and fiscal documents (budgets), ' analysis of recently completed FIRS on 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 project. Fiscal impact estimates not based on the Case Study approach have employed the Per Capita Multiplier method, which assumes that recurring costs or revenues will result from the Project at the same .-ates per person as currently prevail within the City. Two different methods for assessing impacts are implied by the term Per Capital Multiplier as used in this analysis. These two methods are explained below: Standard Per Capita Multiplier "Per Cap V). This first and more standard method is applied to those costs or revenues that are determined to be directly generated by exisiting City residents. 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 to be a factor of residential population. Per Acre/Per Capita Multiplier "Per Cap 2"). The second type of per capita multiplier used in this analysis is more accurately termed a. Per Acre/Per Capita multiplier. With 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. The second step in this method is to divide the residential 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. (No non-residential development is included in the Project as evaluated in this analysis.) An example of a "Per Cap 2" revenue is parking fines and delinquencies. A "Per Cap 2" cost is any City department administration cost not included in a Case Study analysis. 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: Stud), 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 Fiscal Impacts of Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Program 0211511994 ' on City of Huntington Beach Page 17 State subventions; fines, forfeitures and penalties; use of money and property; and recreational fees are estimated using the Per Capita Multiplier method. IWhere possible, fiscal impacts have been estimated based on detailed analysis of the City budget for fiscal year 1993-94, and reflect current city service standards. r ' Fiscal Impacts of Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Program 0211511994 on City ojHuntington Beach Page 18 1 IV. Recurring Fiscal Impacts - 1 This section identifies and describes the areas of the recurring revenue and cost impacts to the City resulting from development of the LCP under each of three development scenarios. After the general description of each revenue and cost impact area, the applicability of the impact to each of the three development scenarios is discussed. Also discussed are the methodology and assumptions used in projecting these impacts. Detailed numerical analysis of the impacts discussed below are contained in Appendices A, B, and C for Scenarios 41, 42, and #3, respectively. , A. Analysis of Recurring Revenues 1. Property Taxes--Secured Roll P The County Auditor/Controller identifies property tax rates as a percentage of total assessed valuation by Tax Rate Area (TRA). The: Project covers all or portions of three TRAs in unincorporated Orange County: 073-002, 064-006, and 064-001. The Master Property Tax Transfer Agreement ("Agreement") dictates how property taxes will be allocated between the City and County subsequent to an annexation. Based on the tax allocations in the three 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 general fund. However, beginning in 1992-93, the state began to shift local property tax revenues from cities and counties to local public schools in order to reduce State apportionments to education, thereby reducing the State's budget deficit. The legislated tax shift for 1993-94, combined with the 1992-93 shift, reduces the City's effective portion of the property tax dollar from 17.75 percent to ' 14.48 percent. This percentage reduction is an cst:imate based on City information. The actual reduction, when these required tat shifts are completely incorporated into ' the County's tax allocation information system, miy turn out to be greater. In addition to the general fund amount, the City of Huntington Beach receives an ad valorem tax allocation above the basic one percent tax levy for debt service related to the City's Public Employee Retirement System f PERS"). The PERS allocation is equivalent to five percent of the one percent base 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. , Fiscal Impacts of Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Program 0211511994 on City of Huntington Beach Page 19 i Scenario #1: In this scenario, with the Project annexed to the City, each year the City will receive property taxes equivalent to one percent of assessed valuation ("AV") within the Project area multiplied by the City's estimated 14.48 percent tax allocation factor, plus the 5.0 percent PERS override--for a total of 19.48 percent of all property tax. Please see Appendix A, Table A-1 for details on property tax revenues under this scenario. ' Scenario #2: The Citywill receive property tax revenues from the Project area only P P Y J Y after the Project is annexed to the City--assumed to occur in the seventh yeart of Project development. ' Scenario #3: Under this scenario, in which the Project remains in the County, the City will receive no property taxes from the Project area. 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. 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. ' Scenario #1: As with secured property taxes, the City will receive unsecured property taxes under this scenario based on the Project's unsecured assessed ' valuation times 1.0 percent, multiplied by the City's basic levy allocation factor for the prior year, assumed to equal 14.48 percent plus 5.0 percent. Please see ' Appendix A, Table A-1 for more details on unsecured property taxes under this scenario. Scenario #2: As with secured property taxes the City will receive this revenue only after annexation into the City. Scenario #3: If the Project remains in the County, the City will not receive revenues from this source. ' Fiscal Impacts of Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Program 0211511994 on City of Huntington Beach Page 20 3. Property Tax Transfer , 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 o'.' 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 1-;.33 years, for an average annual turnover rate of 7.5 percent, and that commercial / industrial property is resold every , 20 years, for an average annual turnover rate of five percent. This analysis assumes that continuing liens and encumbrances are insignificant. Scenario #1: The City will receive this revenue from the Project under this annexation scenario. Please see Table A-1 for details. Scenario #2: Only after annexation of the Project area will the City receive this revenue. Scenario #3: No revenues from this source are generated for the City under this scenario. 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 about $0.21 per barrel. Oil well production on the project site estimated at 876,000 barrels in 1.992-93. Oil production is expected to , decline at eight percent per year. Based on these; factors, revenues to the City have been estimated through Project buildout. Scenario #1: This revenue will accrue to the City under this scenario to the extent that oil producing portions of the Project are: a1sc, within City boundaries. Please see Table A-1, Appendix A for further detail. ' Fiscal Impacts of Bolsa Chico Local Coastal Program 0211511994 on City of Huntington Beach Page 21 Scenario 92: As with Scenario 91 these revenues will flow to the City only during the time that the Project's oil producing areas are within City limits. ' Scenario #3: These revenues will not accrue to the City under this scenario. ' 5. Sales and Use Taxes ' The fiscal model has the potential to estimate Project sales and use tax revenues from two sources: (1) direct sales tax revenues from taxable retail sales at on-site retail ' facilities, and (2) indirect sales tax revenues from Project residents' taxable expenditures, or stimulation of expenditures, within Huntington Beach City limits. Inasmuch as the LCP includes no on-site commercial development, the Project as ' evaluated in the analysis will not generate direct sales tax revenues. 1 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 have been estimated using two methods. The first method is ' based on anticipated household income within the Project, using an assumed retail expenditure share and a City retail capture rate. The second method is based on an estimate of City per-household sales tax generation from the City's sales tax consultant. Although both methods are shown in the fiscal model (see Tables A-2 and C-2), the second method based on an estimate of sales tax generation per ' City-area household has been incorporated into the fiscal impact calculation because the data appears more reliable, even though it is two years old. (Data on household incomes based on house prices and data on taxable expenditures as well ' as data on the location of these expenditures as a percentage of income has enough significant unreliable variables to make it the second choice if more direct ' information is available, such as in this case.) For this second method of estimating Project indirect sales tax generation, the analysis utilizes a factor from the City's sales tax consultant of$143 per Project household. ' .Scenario #1 #2 and#3: All sales tax revenues generated from Project residents' > g J ' taxable expenditures at locations within Huntington Beach will accrue to the City under all three scenarios. Please see Tables A-2 and C-2 for details on this revenue source. Fiscal Impacts of Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Program 0211511994 on City of Huntington Beach Page 22 6. Utility User Taxes and Franchise Fees , Utility user taxes are levied on residential and cemme:rc;ial consumers of electric, gas, cable, water, telephone and refuse collection services. The City 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 fights-of-ways. The City of Huntington Beach levies a five percent francldse fee on the local cable company. I Three of the five percent accrues to the general irnd, 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 revenues. Utility tax and franchise fee revenues accruing-to the City from the Project have been estimated based on (1) average service usage fictors for residential and commercial / I industrial customers supplied by various Southern California utilities, and (2) billing rates obtained from local service providers and the City. Scenario #1: The Project will generate revenues3 to the City under this scenario. Please see Table A-2 for details on this source of revenue. , Scenario#2: After annexation these revenues will flow to the City. , Scenario#3: Under this scenario the Project will generate no revenues to the City. 7. General Fund Per Capita Revenues All the revenue sources evaluated above are ease 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 Section , II.B. Results of analysis of the 1993-94 City budget to determine sources of 1 Project-generated per capita revenues can be found in the Appendices for Scenafio #1 and Scenario #3, Tables A-3a and C-3a, respectively. , Fiscal Impacts of Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Program 0211511994 on City of Huntington Beach Page 23 ' Scenario #1: Under the scenario that the Project is developed in the City, the total annual per capita revenues generated by the Project are estimated at $93.96. As can be seen on Table A-3a, the largest per capita revenue source is the Motor Vehicle in Lieu subvention from the State at $33.71 per resident. Other significant per capita revenues are charges to the water fund (for City administrative services) at $10.88 per capita and utility unitary (property) taxes at $5.83 per resident. .Scenario #2: Project-generated revenues under this mid-development annexation scenario are comprised of Scenario #3 revenues for the initial phase of development during which the Project is in the County and Scenario #1 revenues after annexation (see Scenario #1 above). ' Scenario #3: These per capita revenues, along with sales taxes are the only sources of income to the City if the Project remains in the unincorporated County. City revenues from parking (beach and retaiUcommercial), beach and park concessions, ' and recreation program fees are generated by residents in the general area and even the region who use City beaches, commercial facilities, parks, or recreation ' programs. The revenues accruing to the City as a result of Project residents' use of City facilities and programs is estimated at $15.88 per Project resident per year under Scenario #3. Please see Table C-3a in Appendix C for details on this source of ' revenue under Scenario #3. 8. Other Sources of Revenue ' The fiscal model on Tables A-3, B-3, and C-3 includes Gas Tax subventions, Transportation Fund (Measure "M"), and Fire-Medical Program revenues as potential sources of income stemming from Project development. Of these three ' revenues only Fire-Medical Program funs are a probable income source relating to the Project. Gas tax funds not transferred into the general fund and Measure "M" funds are utilized by the City for capital improvement projects and therefore do not contribute revenues for ongoing street maintenance and repairs typically funded from general fund revenues. ' Scenario #1: With the P a Project art of the incorporated City under this Scenario, J ' revenues will be generated by the Project due to Fire-Medical Program subscriptions and service fees at the same rate as other residential areas within the City. Based on Fiscal Impacts of BoLsa Chica Local Coastal Program 0211511994 on City of Huntington Beach Page 24 the 1993-94 City budget this income is estimated at $8.37 capita.ita. This revenue ' P P source is treated on Table A-3b in Appendix A. .Scenario #2: Revenues from the Fire-Medical Program will accrue to the City only when the Project is within the incorporated City unless special arrangements are ' made to extend this service to the Project aria. Therefore this analysis assumes income to the City from the Project from this scurce only after annexation. , Scenario #3: If the Project remains in the County, no revenues will be generated to the City from the Fire-Medical Program, sfecifi�ally, or these "Other" revenue ' sources in general. Fiscal Impacts ofBolsa Chica Local Coastal Program 021IS11994 on City of Huntington Beach Page 2S ' B. 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 A "City Budget Analysis - 1. General Government," based on the 1993-94 City Budget, the ratio of ' G&A costs to other City costs is .0932 to one. Scenario #1: Under this scenario the Project will generate G&A costs to the City ' from initial Project occupancies. Please see Table A-5b for more information on this cost area. Scenario #2: The Project is anticipated to create G&A costs to the City only during the time it is in the incorporated City. Scenario #3: While initial analysis has concluded that no G&A costs will be ' generated to the City when the Project is in the County, this conclusion is under further review. Subsequent revisions to the fiscal model and analysis may include a G&A factor in order to account for City overhead costs relating to the Project's ' other indirect impacts on the City. ' 2. Non-Departmental Costs ' Non-Departmental costs consist mainly of City utilities such as gas for powering flood control and sewer lift stations, water for park and city landscaping maintenance, electricity for street and traffic light 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 A (and Table C-5b in Appendix C), this cost is spread as a "Per Cap 2" cost and is assessed to both residential and business land uses. ' Fiscal Impacts of Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Program 0211511994 on City of Huntington Beach Page 26 Scenario #1: This cost will full apply to the Project when it is a art of the City. , Y PP Y J p Y Please see Table A-5b in Appendix A for details on these costs. , .Scenario #2: This cost will apply fully when the Project is a part of the City. A portion of these costs are estimated to be generated to the City while the Project is in the incorporated County--as discussed under Scenario #3. Scenario #3: This analysis assumes that Project residents' use of City streets and r parks and other City facilities will result in costs to the City for the utilities to operate these facilities such as electricity for traffic lights and street lights and water for parks ' and street landscape maintenance. As can be seen on Table C-5b in Appendix C, costs are allocated to Project residents for City utilities at a rate equivalent to 25 ' percent of that for City residents. This allocation results in a cost to the City of $4.25 per Project resident per year if the Project remains in the County. 3. Police Services Cost impacts on the Huntington Beach Polic! Department resulting from the LCP have been estimated differently based on whether or not the Project is incorporated into the City. The method of calculation of these impacts is discussed under the , individual scenarios below: Scenario #1: If the Project area is a part of the City, then a "Per Cap 2" , methodology is employed. After spreading police service costs over City residential versus non-residential acreage, the resultant per resident cost is $134.54. Project , population during any year in which the Project is a part of the City, multiplied by this per-resident cost of police service determine!; total cost of police service to the , Project for that particular year. Please see Appendix A, Table A-5c for the calculation of the cost multiplier and Table A-5 for the annual flow of costs. Scenario #2: Police costs under this scenario are a combination of Scenario #3 , during the period the Project remains in the: County and Scenario #1 for the years after annexation. Scenario #3: Under this scenario the Huntington Beach Police Department has determined that additional service requirements generated by Project residents' activities both within the City and on the Project site (calls for back-up) will ' Fiscal Impacts of Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Program 0211511994 on City of Huntington Beach Page 27 ' ' necessitate adding two police officers to the force at Project buildout. At a full cost of $147,000 per officer, including support personnel, administration and overhead, ' the cost of providing police service to the Project under this scenario is $294,000 annually at buildout. This equates to $28.92 per Project resident per year. Please see the Police Department's comments on the LCP EIR as well as Appendix C, Table C-5c and Table C-5 for additional detail on police costs to the City if the Project remains in the County. 4. Fire Protection Services ' As with police services, the calculation of fire protection costs varies greatly ' depending on the scenario. The method for deriving these costs is described under the individual scenarios below: Scenario #1: If the Project is developed within the City, the Fire Department will locate a station on the Project site. An on-site station would enable adequate fire ' protection services with acceptable response times to the residences within the Project and, depending on ultimate Project circulation system design, also adequate response times to areas outside the Project. The on-site station would consist of a ' fire truck, fire engine, paramedic van, and an ambulance. A total of 33 professional fire fighters and / or emergency medical personnel for a total of 11 around-the-clock staff would be required in order to man this station. Total annual operating costs for this station are $2.98 million. Estimated "fair share" costs (based on service radius) to the Project for operation of this station at buildout are $1.53 million annually. Please see Table A-5d and Table A-5 in Appendix A for information on these costs and the phasing of these costs. In addition to these site specific "case study" fire control and emergency medical service costs, please refer to Table A-5d for the per capita costs of other fire ' department services such as fire prevention, hazardous materials control and response, and dispatch network operations. These services are provided on a Citywide basis and lend themselves to a per-capita cost evaluation. As can be seen on Table A-5d, these per capita costs equal $13.98 per year. ' .Scenario#2: Please see the discussion under Scenarios #1 and #3. ' Fiscal Impacts of Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Program 0211511994 on City of Huntington Beach Page 28 1 1 ,Scenario #3: If the Project is developed in the County and fire protection is ' provided by the County Fire Department, the Huntington Beach Fire Department has indicated that two additional fire stations may be required within the City to cover , this "hole' created in service radius' and related emergency response times. (Please see the comments on fire protection in the City's LCP ELR Response Letter for ' further details on station location impacts resulting; from the Project and from the various development and circulation-related alte:rnatives) Two additional fire stations would cost $4.2 riillion per year to operate. Thus the impact of development within the County, even though indirect, is of very , considerable magnitude for the City and the Fire Department. The estimated impact of$4.2 million to operate two additional City stations is of such a magnitude that this cost impact has been omitted from the impact model for one version of the Scenario , #3 impact analysis. However, this cost impact is quantified and included in a second set of relevant output tables from the Scenario #3 impact model. Output results from , "Scenario #3--Project Remains in County, With FiLe Cost Impacts" can be found on Tables C-5f and C-9f, pages C-6 and C-7 of Appendix C. 5. Public Works Public Works Department cost impacts from the Project consist of six separate ' components: (1) A per capita cost multip'.ier fbr Department administration and ' general city-wide facilities maintenance; (2) a per-acre local park landscape maintenance cost; (3) a per-lane-mile street maintenance cost for Project on-site streets; (4) a per acre street landscape maintenance cost for on-site street parkways ' and medians; (5) a per-streetlight maintenance and illumination cost for on-site street lights; and, (6) a per-lane-mile maintenance: cost for the Project's impacts on the ' existing City system. This last cost includes a fiill maintenance cost consisting of a street surface maintenance and replacement program plus street landscaping and street tree maintenance costs. The application of each of these six public works cost , impacts to the three development scenarios i> discussed below. Scenario #1: Annexation and development of the Project within the City will create ' costs for all six public works cost components. Please refer to the following tables in Appendix A for a description of how these six cost components are applied to this ' scenario. Tables A-6a and A-6b, pages a-I I and a-12, describe and estimate the phasing of Project public works cost-related infrastructure. Table A-5e shows Fiscal Impacts of Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Program 0211511994 , on City of Huntington Beach Page 29 1 ' derivation of the costs factors. Table A-6 shows the phasedflow of local park, street, street landscape, and street lighting costs as the cost factors are applied to infrastructure development. Table A-5 summarizes these public works cost impacts as part of the overall recurring cost summary. ' Scenario #2: As with most of the other revenue and cost impacts, these costs shift from Scenario 93 costs to those of Scenario #1 at the year of annexation, which in ' this analysis is set at Project year seven. ' .Scenario #3: Under the scenario in which the Project remains in the County, Public Works impacts will occur in three areas (i) Department administration and overhead costs related to Project off-site traffic and drainage impacts, (ii) local park ' maintenance costs for impacts of Project residents on parks within the City, and (iii) Project-generated off-site street maintenance costs. Please see the tables in ' Appendix C corresponding to the tables listed in Scenario 41, above, for details on the calculation of these costs. 6. Community Development. The Community Development Department provides development control services--planning and building / safety--to development and / or building activities ' within the City limits. The three Project development scenarios will have the following cost impacts on these services. ' Scenario #1: Developed within the City, the Project will create cost impacts on Community Development Department. This analysis assumes these costs will be "Per Cap 2" per capita multiplier to account for Department costs, net of fees, permits, and inspection charges. Please see Table A-5f for the derivation of this per capita cost. ' Scenario #2: Development under this "transitional" scenario will cause cost impacts ' only after annexation for Community Development services. Scenario #3: Project development in the County will not have direct or indirect cost ' impacts on the Community Development Department. These activities generally apply only to development within the City. However, annexation and planning for Fiscal Impacts of Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Program 01/1S11994 on City of Huntington Beach Page 30 annexation can create costs which may require consideration in the future. The ' impact model does not account for the costs to the City of the annexation process. ' 7. Community Services Community Services provides recreational, cultural, educational, and social services to the community. The Department also provides beach supervision and lifeguard , services for the City's beaches and waterfront areas. Cost impacts to this Department are evaluated below under the individual scenarios. 1 Scenario #1: Development of the Project wi-:hin 1:he City will generate direct costs to this City department from Project residents. The cost of operating the activities , and programs of this Department are estimated based on the per capita multipliers. It should be noted that these costs are offset by fees charged for various programs as well as revenues from parking, recreational fees., and City concessions. The per ' capita multiplier costs are shown in Table A-5g. The offsetting revenues, such as parking and recreational fees, can be found in Table A-3a. ' Scenario #2: Project costs for this scenario will be equal to Scenario #3 prior to annexation and to Scenario #1 after annexatien. , Scenario #3: In the absence of differentia.) fees for non-City residents--or some , other form of restriction--it is anticipated that as a result of their proximity, Project residents will utilize City programs and enjoy the benefits of City beaches at the same rate as City residents. Therefore the coat impacts and the relevant offsetting ' revenues are essentially the same for this scenario as for those under Scenario #1. 8. Library Services As with Community Services above, it is anticipated that, in the absence of increased ' fees or some other limitation, Project residents will use Library facilities of the City of Huntington Beach at the same rate as other City residents, regardless of whether ' the Project is inside or outside City boo;ldaries. Therefore the per capita cost multiplier and the resultant cost to the Cite remains the same for each of the three , development scenarios. Fiscal Impacts of Bolsa Chico Local Coastal Program 021IS/1994 on City of Huntington Beach Page 31 ' 1 9. Fixed Asset Replacement ' Fixed asset replacement represents the cost to replace deteriorating City infrastructure and facilities. A study performed by Management Services Institute in 1991-92 determined that the City was falling behind in asset replacement at the rate of $45 million per year. The Fixed Asset Replacement cost category in this fiscal analysis is the Project's future share of replacing deteriorating City facilities such as ' City buildings, storm drains and pumps, sewer system, park facilities, side walks, and street lights. The cost of City street replacement is not included here, but is allocated ' to the project as a part of the per-lane-mile cost for off-site street maintenance. Described below are the fixed asset replacement costs under each of the three scenarios: ' Scenario #1: If developed as a part of the incorporated City, the Project will carry ' its full City-wide share of fixed asset replacement cost. The list of City assets and respective replacement cost schedules along with the City budget have been reviewed with City staff in order to reduce or eliminate any double counting with replacement ' programs already included the budget. As shown on Table A-5h in Appendix A, the annual per capita cost for asset replacement per Project resident for this scenario is $90.04. Scenario #2: Project costs for this scenario will equal those of Scenario #3 for the ' years prior to annexation and those of Scenario #1 after annexation. i I ' Scenario #3: The City's schedule of assets requiring replacement has been evaluated under this scenario to determine which assets are expected to be utilized by Project residents while living in the unincorporated County. For those assets used by Project residents, a replacement cost share has been prorated to them. Please refer to Table C-5h for details on this allocation. ' Fiscal Impacts of Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Program 0211511994 on City ojHantington Beach Page 32 7149371804 PUBLIC ECONOMICS INC 935 P02 FEB 15 '94 10:23 ' V1. One-Time Fiscal Impacts , A. 'tines of One-Time Fiscal ImQacts One-time fiscal impacts consist of two types: (1) impacts on City capital facilities and infrastructure, and (2) impacts on City serv:.ces to provide one-time development , control functions, including plan review, engineering plan review and inspections, and building and safety plan review, permits, and inspections. For this second type , of one-time impacts, it is the responsibility of the: City to establish development control fees for plan review, permits, and inspeclrons at an appropriate level to completely compensate the City for the performance of these services. While this , analysis presents an estimate of development control impacts if the LCP were developed within the City, it can be seen on Tables DA, E-1, and F-1 in Appendices D, E, and F that the analysis further assumes that fees and charges for these one-time , services will offset the cost impacts on the City. The one-time impacts from development control services are assumed to create no potential unmitigated impacts on the City. The first type of one-tune impacts mentioned above, impacts on capital facilities, is ' currently mitigated by the City in two different ways. One method involves the establishment of an impact fee for which the: relationship ("nexus") between new development and the impact on a particular type of facility has been demonstrated. , This method involves adoption by the City of an impact fee ordinance. The City currently impact fees for development impacts on streets (traffic mitigation fees), , library facilities, local park facilities, and City sewer and water lines. The City is also in the process of establishing an impact fee for thei City water utility in conjunction with a water facilities financing program for the laity's Water Master Plan update. ' Please refer to Tables D-1, E-1, and F-1 for an a innate of the facilities impacts of development and corresponding City capital facilities impact fees for the Project. The City s second method for mitigating one-time capital facilities impacts has been through a development agreement. Among other things, developer agreements ' govern the terms and magnitude of developer encactions for service and facilities impacts, including access to special financing districts. This analysis assumes that for Scenario #I the City will enter into a devaloprae,nt agreement to fund facilities ' impacts of the Project on City fire, police, and community services(including marine Fiscal Impact:of Roba Chico Local Coastal Program 0211511994 ' on City ofBuntlugron Beach Page JJ 1 ' 7149371804 PUBLIC ECONOMICS INC 935 P03 FEB 15 '94 10:23 safety). The City's use of a development agreement as a method for mitigating facilities impacts for Scenario #2 and #3 would, at best, be problematical unless the County were to include the City in negotiations for an agreement of this type. Please refer to Tables D-I, E-1, and F-1 in Appendices D, E, and F for an estimate of those City facilities impacts which would need to be offset through a development agreement. ' B. One-Time Fiscal Impacts Under the Three Scenarios ' Scenario#1: As can be seen in Table D-1, Appendix D, development of the Project within the City is estimated to generate over $32.2 million in one-time fiscal impacts. ' This total is comprised of $21.7 million in impact fees, $3.5 million in facilities impacts not covered by impact fees, and $7.0 million in one-time development control services. However, with development of the Project occurring within the City, current City impact fees are assumed to pay for, or be adjusted to pay for, capital facilities covered by existing fee ordinances. It is Sirther assumed here that ' development control service charges will be set to insure that costs of providing these services are offset. Finally, it is also assumed that a development agreement will be negotiated by the City to offset impacts to those facilities not covered by existing impact fee ordinances. In summary, although one-time impacts on the City may be greatest under Scenario ' #1, these impacts are assumed to be completely offset by developer payments or some other financing plan, leaving no unmitigated one-time impacts. rScenario 02: This development scenario, which assumes annexation of the Project into the City in the seventh year of development, shows an estimated $8.3 mullion in potential unmitigated one-time fiscal impacts. As can be seen on Table E-1, Appendix E, foregone impact fees for traffic, library, and parks and recreation comprise $6.3 million of this amount. Facilities impacts for fire protection, police, ' and community service, which are not covered by existing fees, constitute the balance of these costs with$2.0 million in unmitigated impacts. ' For purposes of this analysis it is assumed that impact fees/payments are made one year prior to occupancy of the residential units by the ultimate owner. However, depending on the program and method established by the County for collection of any corresponding payments while the Project is in the County prior to annexation, ' Fifcal Impacts of Boira Cbica Local Coatial Program 0211511994 on Ci{y of Huntington Beach Page 34 7149371804 PUBLIC ECONOMICS INC 935 PO4 FEB 15 '94 10:23 ' substantial portions of impact fee amounts which should be applied to City impacts after annexation could have already been paid to :he County. This may create a potential future problem--that of reallocating these impact fees back to the City. Scenatio #3: Under Scenario #3, in which tl-.e Project remains in the County, the City will forego $14.4 million in fees to off v. impacts on City facilities. Of these impacts $14.85 million will be impacts mitigatatde through existing impact fee ' ordinances. Impacts on City facilities not currently subject to impact fees, including fire protection, police, and community services, will be $3.55 million. Please see , Table 1<-1, Appendix F for calculation of these one-time impacts. As discussed in Section II.BA, if the Project remains in the County, and the County , provides fire service to the Project from an off-rite County fire state, it wtiU be necessary for the Huntington Beach Fire Department to construct and man two additional stations in the City. The one-time cost to the City of constructing these ' two additional stations and supplying these stations with the necessary apparatus is estimated at $5.6 million. An additional table, Table F-If, in Appendix F reflects the added one-time cost to the City of providing these facilities. This third scenario,with M accounting for impacts on the Fire Department will generate a total of $16.8 million in one-time fiscal impacts on the City of Huntington Beach. r i ftheNup.r►.um Fheal Impacts of Bolto Chico Local Coatal Program 01115IJ994 ' on City of Huntington Beach Page 33 � APPENDIX A SCENARIO #1 ANNEXATION PR/OR TO DEVELOPMENT 1 r arc �• r won ma w w om p" m " rmo � �• � TABLE A-1 BOLSA CHICA LCP EIR(4296)FIR SCENARIO II-ANNEXATION PRIOR TO DEVELOPMENT CASE STUDY REVENUES:PROPERTY TAXES •••ESCALATION RATES... AND REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER TAXES *•*NONE••• ASSESSED YAWATION ASSUMPTIONS UNSECURED PROPERTY TAX ASSUMPTIONS Oa RESERVES AD V 1[ARUM TAX A�>� PLEASE REFER TO PROJECT DESCRIPTION SECTION FOR RESIDENTIAL-AS%OF SECURED: 1.0% ESTIMATED OIL RESERVES 10,ODO,000 BARRELS ASSUMPTIONS DETERMINING CALCULATIONS OF PROJECT NON-RESIDENTIAL-AS%OF SECURED: 15.0% ESTIMATED PRODUCTION 876,OD0 BARRELS/YR ASSESSED VALUE. PRODUCTION DECLINE 8.00% CURRENT ESTIMATED ASSESSED VALUE 514.20 BARREL TAX RATE TO CITY (SEE APPORTIONMENT FACTORS) PROPERTY TAX ASSUMPTION REAL PROPER APPORTIONMENT FACTORS(FRACTION OF 1.0%PROP.TAX): RESIDENTIAL PROP TURN-OVER RATE 7.5% -CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL FUND: 0.1448 BUS&COM PROP TURN-OVER RATE 5.0% CITY OIL EXTRACTION TAX ASSUMPTIONS -PUBLIC EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT SYSTEM ALLOC. 0.0300 TRANFi-R TAX(%OF SALES DOLLARS) 0.055% CITY TAX PER BARREL OF OIL $0.2081 BARREL (PER PRODUCING WELL>10 BBIA/QTR) BUILDOUT FISCAL YEAR YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 (Ss:1000) TOTALS 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 20OD-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 200"7 2007-08 -------------------.-..—._..----------------•--•------- •--••--- ------ -------- -------- --...----- -•------ ------------ --------------- -............. --------------- ............... ....._-------- -------------- ASSESSED VALUE-RESIDENTIAL $1,160,752 $46,410 $166,430 $263.415 $335,835 $413,143 $511,063 $631,159 $792,119 $898,569 $1,013,829 $1,100,742 51,160,752 51,160,752 ASSESSED VALUE-BUSINESS CURRENT AV DEDUCTION CUMULATIVE PROJECT VALUA710N $1,160,752 $46,410 $166,430 $263,415 $335,835 $413,143 5511,063 $631,159 5782,119 $898.569 $1,013,929 51,100,742 $1,160,752 $1,160,752 (%INCREASE OVER PRIOR YEAR) 258.61% 58.27% 27.49% 23.02% 23.70% 23.50% 23.92% 14.89% 12.83% 8.57% 5.45% SECURED PROPERTY TAX REVENUE CALC`U ATIONS: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL FUND $67 $241 5381 $486 $598 $740 $914 $1.133 $1,301 $1,468 $1,594 $1.681 $1.681 PUBLIC EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT SYSTEM ALLOC. $23 $83 $132 $168 5207 $256 $316 $391 $449 $507 $550 5580 $580 UNSECURED PROPERTY TAX REVENUE CALCULATIONS: RESIDENTIAL&NON-RESIDENTIAL(SEE ASSUMPS): CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL FUND $I $2 $4 $5 $6 $7 $9 sit $13 $15 $16 $17 $17 PUBLIC EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT SYSTEM ALLOC. $O $1 $I $2 $2 $3 $3 $4 $4 $5 S6 $6 $6 --------------TOTAL PROPERTY PROPERTY TAX REVENUES(SECURED+UNSECURED) CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL FUND $68 $243 5385 $491 $604 $747 $923 $1,144 $1,314 $1,483 $1.610 $1,698 $1.698 PUBLIC EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT SYSTEM ALLOC. $23 $94 $133 $170 5209 $258 $319 $395 $454 $512 $556 $586 $596 REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX REVENUES FROM: NEW RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY SALES $26 $66 $53 $40 $43 $54 $66 $83 $64 S63 $48 $33 RESIDENTIAL RESALES $2 $7 $11 $14 $17 S21 $26 $32 S37 $42 $45 $48 NEW NON-RES PROPERTY SALES NON-RES PROPERTY RESALES TOTAL ANNUAL PROPERTY TRANSFER TAXES $26 $68 $60 $51 $56 $71 $97 $109 $96 5100 $90 $78 $48 ---•------•----------•-----------------------------------------------------........_.----------------•-------------...............................................................................------------------- OIL RESERVE AD VALOREM(PROPERTY)TAXES\I 5142 $129 $117 $106 $96 S87 $78 $70 $63 $57 $51 $45 $40 CITY OIL EXTRACTION TAX REVENUE ESTIMATES $142 $131 $120 $I I I $102 $94 $86 $79 $73 S67 $62 S57 $52 NOT ES: 1.CITY RECEIPT 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. c:%carI%cco42Wbc fir.wlc3 Public EOUDUmiC/,IM. 14-Fbb-94 r Z—H op -Oi I R F EEO , CC � >>� >> C(!� Z 7tttzco'''��,Z E>�I�� A� EE m AC e I m � >y, �7c p i S.O aQr� p ' it Q` � z Z?cOZO � IM � g � I $ m� lZyy�y� iiC F03� I t IzpQ � �moMm , =wQ2p,", � I � �ZOtl IdI >r wZlZ �nZK g n O m m u � Z =1 I x M Z t>> m Z p ! v �o o� ou Z'u I � I = �+IK3 a 1!U IY u o c �uw — G �� �—•• P 1N 1N O n mO..7z07>�o,�-yjll •L�r G I I o p I i O�`<O p i — I u o u25 .gS7� I mu� y �00 Qro „ : a w�ozm ZZ "-on e oo Mis pA u u x�'`�• rw � » i �s '�'T '—'15,Jo I $ �p � `.v>J �.. 9 u I I n I Ns�zs 1 I p K I I u n I � p � wu�SOw I C I m wH u. 1 w.oA n n II i r ti ' w i 8 K u P i u I n ozzzo C G n o T n O E—V 2 IIppee n O u �c _rOpppppp 'off CNA��]�• n T [o�-oj O p n fzJ c_T.p{.o vZ� ! �O t([7"� r��Or' N N 7{no (!1y C 1p�p p z �y � II i [C A m p RI•a }Fsj Z O r II !! II R II r ..1-I�s( A° A COC•<vJ P C O R II S��y I>0 ��OOr�b y PTO mN.oOp>� ADO n m� C O K� c0 I m 6 n r e a z c z o A u v c�p z g 3 m 2 I r N $ '>'I] II e e -1< °Ar. II oA Z C R O Am Ca� C A<A II •� n p T �r� ���° p Q ZT N II 'iO tO� AZnF I �, eoe8� z P �_c " (� ofA�� Zy T± C� .a �K d Z� A R p HA y> pyZ .�lp I > ° d CYC II n pT�� ;A lttFFtttMNttdddll a 7C �; {� m II aC CZC� p r•p p 'q u m — v'1 ,n n to CDO X C)z A Z n4gtl gp � �ny>�'a 0O'm00 n t� o c O� �N o ii c 07cp u 7Co Ny m > u ;p Oe n n �ii c 3 A a II z 1° v n [� n tln p n op op y z •o 11 gx Q IIN �a $ CC�N°> n n �q n .,I ly d n i i '3N—� p II J II > "1 ]o P II I I m=mO n22 n n O E d n. n c O z e I m m c °... r tl I I vo d tl d z n 'a j n j I oT n n n P u i I n u d e x d P u n n .p 0 MM e yu� MM yy�� Y p � N V OA Aq�A X .No p .•'•O e P W O Na P 2=O n V N tl Nr�«mN nNnN I ♦ u— J W Q II It 0 II e I n n n n P i u n n n n n n n u n i i u 'Jn `Sn •' '—"u z Es p u p n °04 =N6ZS�=>r u. d _ N• n =ardr of`3N i &° F n n n n p II II P II tl j I P L. n n- •'•N N N Z 75�+ N IN.. II M M 11•'» M M >4 $ u $ 11 W �u•=w�> muu x m i II �•��'�� �worei ! 8 �u�0 S p II II a II : tl II II tl II I I a p « N p u u e < p _ tl _ P M P tl ♦ 11 . n S P N N N N Z M p J p II N N p N M«�• M u M I •� I m p 11 11 u n I II II N II N e II K a II M II u II W II J tl JO uuNN='ZN W mCO tl M H d W x1N N �' M N W 'Aa "S00 II J II P x � P J _�,s>�; u O tl � u p twMO�P 'o O�•_ I � �Ca� fd e tl II a 11 e � [c 11 X 11 11 P d — e — IIC r •' Z QN.q IIw w dr«N Nr 1 h K n � n � n °9 vY•=SY>� ?foX u y _ d .o"J rxw`J' 'drew I � i 8w u n n u nu I i tis n n n e I e� u n n e n j n S: ypzS_Yp =N' n D NNO d J d mOMm� .DN — II II 11 II d � m I n n n n u i u n n n n u n n u n In' �^,N M—N M M N��'•• m D n _' n �' PY fr�. '•S' e�>$ ;o�,� n `J' i°3e•W= lS=w,b i N ! .� A n P n n n n u n u n i II II II N w II II j N K K� 11 u II y II y»i p p MM MN 1y3{�� ss tt r yN NS� Z>tt�m r,du n n n p 11 i 7o-i •z n u n n n to O u n u n n c:z n o n o n�o •"w"wY�z•—' �N n « w u m='•�' �'W N_u y� >° r y u n d u tl n n u n n y u tl n n n i' T n II II II II n y p r6y n u � It II n II II II Z �w 9 u W n n u Y Y w W >m .w'— u N X o m W m a o ! P ! N.. Z oc 8 n n n n n m .� II II II 11 II m .� n n n N w n n i c n n n u n ? Kr i i r m iOA Q z eyG� i da de tle KM MtM IRKt K dt • a► K M �fa O I rrv�Z n� I Z)jaS5-9 Y o^, q u n n 7 D n n n y 8 F f� R P a et n _•• g g» N x N II N q a II 6 «N N N M r p � II w II N II N n n u i n n 11 7 u n n 9 y � n n n Z » N n n n µy z H q u n U p q d q C d u u 7 3 J 2J m o o++ I t<L Z N « N �••a N « N N N N M n q �' n z z,., �d tl tl II a; N n rI 4 0 II Z d� I � �v g M 8 O a M N M M FQ H<��s y N i Y N g N II Y n q n II q II zip O. 0">otyyS iy 5Q� ry u n n F°� °� OFumQ w N N MLS i�wGNM « _ u a n m• i mf� n n u IZ ..88�m lz 1 n q tl tl u • W r j N N N N »N N N N g a u a n ° q IN. 8 ffVV ��yy p ryry q tl II ppA u q n s s n q N q q ' ZyZy�� �N� • N M � w� N��N N N N N � M II � II � tl n tl u n n n p� I n tl n aG n n n V N N « « ♦N N N N N II II I n I tl q I I n tl n z e o a tl i N II n 11 t� rya m N .o p M 11 N� N 11 — j tl q n d i i u n � � ITT»j 2 G a O n q q J 0 n u q t F u u q I— Q p� Q y II tl tl m C7 N N M N N N N o: �. i i II u q t »ii A _ tI- q n n v M N p p q < O nl q Y q y • a p II q J °L n u n E p` qpn ip n pcpp tlq qn R I JF qun R z p u o p o n z n Vpp r;2 I F z c b nW SFO z 11Jti u z 11 Z� dz< z nQupnwZ Om m5p mm3 x � 2 t GZ zZ< � �FiSdZ��i° �dyzFo i � c'j zZ �Z<i' n � 000bu am��o qy< i I+-dZ3 y z o°�' � n �< < m o Z y J O F F m II 0 cow a p.7 m yF.FJ W y �i nnm� dy W to 0 pp..77 q Z U Z] ° V S 0 m o m O Q Q pp py] q 4 e F J O Z L 4 Y. L J C V V J u u (• C 6 A-4 TABLE A-6 BOISA CHICA LCP EIR(4286)FIR SCENARIO/I—ANNEXATION PRIOR TO DEVELOPMENT RECURRING CRY C09M PUBLIC WORKS1071HER FACILITIES MAINTENANCE GENERAL FUND.COST FACTORS 07HER FACILRES.C06T FACTORS LOCAL PARK MAINTENANCE $4,964/ac/yr PARKWAY LANDSCAPING $14,221 lac/yr OFF-STREET TRAIL MAINTENANCE $4,964/ac/yr MEDIAN LANDSCAPING $14,221 lac/yr COMMUNITY PARK N/A/ac/yr STREET LIGHTS(ILLUM/MAINT) SI I I Agk/yr ROAD FUND.MAINTENANCE COST FACTORS ONSITE STREET MAINT/REPLACE $3,569/lace®/yr OFFSITE STREET MAINT/RE.PIACE 11 S6,OD0/lace aWyr BUILDOUT FISCAL YEAR YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 (Sa a1000) 1995.96 1996-97 1997-98 1998.99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 20D2-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 GENERAL FUND,PARK FACILITIES MAINTENANCE LOCAL PARK MAINTENANCE $12 S36 S50 $50 $55 $74 $104 5135 $166 $196 5227 $252 $252 OFF-STREET TRAIL MAINTENANCE(DEV'MNT AREA $2 $6 S9 $9 Sl0 $13 $19 S24 $30 $35 $41 $45 $45 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 N/A TOTAL GENERAL FUND PARK MAINTENANCE.COSTS: $14 $42 $59 $59 $65 $97 $123 $159 $195 5231 $267 5297 $297 ONSITE ROAD FUND,RIGHT OF WAY MAINTENANCE ONSITE STREETS CROSS GAP CONNECTOR $2 S2 $2 S2 $4 $22 S22 $22 $22 $22 $22 $22 ARTERIAL-S $I $5 $7 $9 $11 $13 $17 $22 S26 $30 $33 $35 S35 LACALSTREEI'S $2 $7 $10 S10 $11 $14 $20 $26 $32 $39 $44 $49 $49 ONSRE STREETS MAIYT&REPLACE $4 $14 $19 $21 $23 $32 $59 $70 $79 $89 $98 $106 $106 OFFSRE STREETS MAI T&REPLACE%1 $19 $71 $116 $156 $197 $246 $304 $378 $436 $493 $534 $560 $560 STREET LANDSCAPING&LIGIIII NG MAINTENANCE PARKWAY LANDSCAPING $15 $57 S77 $92 $93 $128 $250 $292 $332 $371 $409 $440 5440 MEDIAN LANDSCAPING $I $9 $H $12 $14 $21 $58 S63 $66 $70 $73 $75 $75 STREET LIGHTS $3 S10 $14 S15 $17 $24 S46 $54 $61 $68 $75 $81 $81 TOTAL STREET LANDSCAPING&UGH71NG COSTS $19 $76 $102 $110 $124 $173 $354 $408 5459 $510 $557 5596 $5% NOTES: I.INCLUDES MAINTENANCE OF LANDSCAPING IN MEDIANS AND PARKWAYS,STREET TREE MAINTENANCE,AND LONG TERM STREET REPLACEMENT COSTS. c;kokdl600042661bc rusk.? 9 Public Eco ca,Inc. 14-Feb-94 �. )® !� k!k � ) % � f � , § � | � . � ■§■ � �E�k < ||§B §�2 ! _ /® a§■§ ! � - � . � } § I � B e � §�§§§\ ! §■k &�( )dk | k @� §§ i i §■2� ) /tt ; ■§§2m§ - §§§ `aC! i § , ■ § , § .�3 k � A-6 � TABLE A-9 1 BOLSA CHICA IXP EIR(4286)FIR SCENARIO/1—ANNEXA77ON PRIOR TO DEVELOPAUNT SUMMARY OF RECURRING FISCAL D17PACTS TO CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH: GENERAL FUND AND ROAD FUND INFLATION ASSUMPTIONS PROPERTY TAX INCREASE ASSUMPTIONS GENERAL FUND AND ROAD FUND REVENUE ••'NONE••• INCREASE ASSUMPTION: GENERAL FUND AND ROAD FUND COST INCREASE ASSUMPTION: BUILAOUT FISCAL YEAR YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 it 12 13 ($8 x1000) 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006.07 2007-08 CITY GENERAL FUND&ROAD FUND ONGOING REVENUES $329 $7% $1,140 $1,425 $1,737 $2,124 $2,582 $3,161 $3,579 $4,011 $4,314 $4,508 $4,473 ONGOING COSTS• $718 $1,242 $1,658 $1,989 $2,349 $3,401 $4,141 $4,846 $5,417 $5,984 $6,997 $7,293 $7,293 ANNUAL REVENUEICOST RATIO 0.46 0." 0.69 0.72 0.74 0.62 0.62 0.65 0.66 0.67 0.62 0.62 0.61 ANNUAL ONGOING SURPLUS/(DE ICM ($389) ($448) ($518) 00) ($611) ($1,277) ($1,558) ($1,685) ($I'M) ($1,973) ($2,683) ($2,786) ($2,821) CUMULATIVE SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) ($389) ($937) ($1,355) ($1,919) ($2,531) ($3,8N) ($5,366) ($7,051) ($8,889) ($10,862) ($13,543) ($16,331) ($19,151) • INCLUDES ANY COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH POTENTIAL LANDSCAPE AND LIGHTING DISTRICT. INCREASE IN REVENUES OVER PREVIOUS YEAR: 141.01% 43.69% 24.92% 21.94% 22.27% 21.57% 22.40% 13.23% 12.05% 7.56% 4.49% -0.78% INCREASE IN COSTS OVER PREVIOUS YEAR: 72.96% 33.52% 19.97% 18.07% 44.80% 21.75% 17.04% 11.79% 10.46% 16.93% 4.23% c:1c•rl\bcco42861bc fir.wk3 a Public Economics.Inc. 14-Feb-94 v 1 1 t APPENDIX A ' SCENARIO dl CITY BUDGET ANALYSIS v r i 1 1 f 1 TABLE A-3a TABLE A-3a 02/12/94 BOLSA CHICA LCP EIR(4286)FIR BOLSA CHICA LCP EIR(4286)-FIR CITY BUDGET ANALYSIS- PUBLIC ECONOMICS,INC. GENERAL FUND REVENUE SOURCES CITY POPULATION(STATE DEPT OF FIN,1/1/93) 186.966 REVENUE MULTIPLIERS CITY RESIDENTIAL ACRES(EST) 11,023 CITY NON-RESIDENTIAL ACRES(EST) 3,080 1993/94 RESIDENTIAL BUSINESS REVENUE BUDGET REDUCTION REVENUE REVENUE REVENUE SOURCE-DESCRIPTION TYPE\1 ESTIMATE FACTOR\3 PER CAPITA PER ACRE PROPERTY TAXES: SECURED PROPERTY TAXES CASESTUDY UNSECURED PROPERTY TAXES RESIDENTIAL CASESTUDY BUSINESS CASESTUDY UTILITY UNITARY TAX\2 PER CAP 1 $1,088,820 $3.83 TOTAL $1,088,820 $5.83 OTHER LOCAL TAXES SALES&USE TAX CASE STUDY FRANCHISE FEES&UTILITY TAXES ELECTRICITY CASESTUDY TELEPHONE CASE STUDY OAS CASESTUDY WATER CASE STUDY CABLE CASESTUDY IN LIEU WATER UTILITY CASESTUDY TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX PER CAP 2 $312,500 25.00% $1.31 $22.16 CIGARETTE TAX \3 PER CAP 1 BUSINESS LICENSE TAX BUS ACRE 51,500,000 BUS LIC $487.01 OIL WELL TAX CASESTUDY LICENSES-OIL INSPECTION CASESTUDY LICENSES/PERMITS-MISCELLANEOUS PER CAP 1 $70,000 $0.37 (BICYCLE,BINGO,SWIMMING POOL TOWING,ALARM,MISC.) TOTAL $4,060,140 $1.68 $509.17 FINES/FORFEITURES/PENALTIES COURT FINES \4 PER CAP 2 5350,000 $1.46 524.82 LIBRARY FINES&FEES PER CAP 1 $140,000 $0.75 PARKING VIOLATIONS-DELINQUENT PER CAP 2 $140,000 50.00% $0.59 $9.93 PARKING FINES PER CAP 2 $275,000 30.00% $1.15 $19.50 ALARM BILLING FINES PER CAP 2 $135,000 $0.56 $9.57 TOTAL $1,040.000 54.51 $63.82 USE OF MONEY&PROPERTY RENTALS LAND PER CAP 2 $75,000 $0.31 $5.32 INTEREST INCOME-T.R.A.N. PER CAP 2 $450,000 $1.88 $31.91 RENTALS,BUILDINGS PER CAP 2 5100,000 50.00% $0.42 $7.09 BEACH&CENTRAL PK CONCESSIONS PER CAP 2 $287,500 50.00% $1.20 $20.39 PARKING LOTS PER CAP 2 5350,0D0 25.00% $1.46 $24.92 INTEREST INCOME-GEN FUND PER CAP 2 $364,000 $1.52 $25.81 PARKING STRUCTURES PER CAP 2 $50,000 25.00% $0.21 $3.55 PARKING METERS•COMMERCIAL PER CAP 2 540,000 50.00% $0.17 $2.94 PARKING METERS•RESIDENTIAL PER CAP 2 541,250 75.00% $0.17 $2.92 PARKING METERS•P.C.H. PER CAP 2 $131,250 25.00% $0.55 $9.31 LATE CHARGES PER CAP 2 $50,000 $0.21 $3.55 REDEV AGENCY LOAN INTEREST NA NA TOTAL $1,939,000 $8.11 $137.49 Table 3a,cotriaued ae)d page w Public Ecowm es,lac, 14-Feb-94 I r IAI%LE A-3s.wo'i TABLE A-3a 02/12/94 BOLSA CHICA LCP UK(aotel FIR BOLSA CHICA LCP EIB(4286)-FIR CITY BUDGET ANALYSIS- PUBLIC ECONOMICS,INC. GENERAL FUND REVENUE SOURCES CITY POP(DOF,1/1/91) 181,519 REVENUE MULTIPLIERS CITY RESIDENTIAL ACRES(EST) 11,023 CITY NON-RESIDENTIAL ACRES(EST) 3,080 1993194 RESIDENTIAL BUSINESS REVENUE BUDGET REDUCTION REVENUE REVENUE REVENUE SOURCE-DESCRIPTION TYPE 11 ESTIMATE FACTOR U PER CAPITA PER ACRE REVENUE FROM OTHER AGENCIES REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX CASE STUDY MOTOR VEHICLE IN LIEU PER CAP I $6,300,000 $33.71 STATE MANDATED COST REIMBURSEMENT PER CAP 2 $134,000 $0.56 S9.50 DIRECT LIBRARY LOANS PhK CAP 1 $50,000 $0.27 STATE PUBLIC LIBRARY FUNDS PER CAP 1 $125,000 f0.67 CABLE SYSTEMS T.V. CASE STUDY (FRANCHISE FEE) REGIONAL NARCOTICS SUPPRESSION PER CAP I TOTAL $6.609.000 $35.21 $9.30 CHARGES FOR CURRENT SERVICES SPECIAL POLICE SERVICES NA NA SALES OF MAPSIPUBLICATIONS PER CAP 2 $15,000 $0.06 $1.06 • SPECIAL CITY SERVICES PER CAP 2 S4D0,000 S1.67 $28.36 RECOMMENDED USER FEES PER CAP 2 $685,000 $2.97 $48.57 CHARGES TO WATER FUND PER CAP 2 S2,600,0W $10.89 $194.36 JR LIFEGUARD PROGRAM PER CAP 1 $105,000 75.00% $0.56 LIBRARY SERVICE PER CAP I $70.000 $0.37 RECREATIONAL FEES PER CAP 2 SI,456,000 $6.09 $103.24 PHOTOCOPYING PER CAP I 565,0D0 $0.35 BLOOD ALCOHOL REIMBURSEMENT PER CAP I 550,000 $0.27 TOTAL S5,446,000 $23.12 S365.60 OTHER REVENUE PER CAP 2 S6*500 $7.75 $46.55 TOTAL S656,5W S2.75 SM.55 TRANSFER FROM OTHER FUNDS SPECIAL OAS TAX PER CAP 1 $1,690,000 S8.99 TRANSFER.NARCOTICS runD PER CA^2 PARKING STRUCTURE PER CAP 2 $150,000 25.00% su.63 LIBRARY PER CAP $30D,000 $1.25 $21,77 CABLE TV 1-M CA.,2 199.000 $0.37 $6.31 GOLF COURSE PER CAP 2 SI50,000 75.00% $0.63 REFUSE OFFSEITINO TRANSFER-FIRE MED PROGRAM PER CAP 2 $210,000 $0.88 $14.89 TOTAL $2,579,000 $12.75 $63.75 GRAND TOTALS $93.96 $1,195.97 NOTES: I.TYPES OF PROJECT REVENFS A.CASE STUDY REVENUE(CASE STUDY):BASED ON A SPECIFIC SET OF FACTORS B.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 NON-RESIDENTIAL LAND USES(COMMERCIAL,INDUSTRIAL,R INSTITUTIONAL USES) D.PER BUSINESS ACRE(BUS ACRE): BASED ON A BUSINESS ACRE SHARE 2.THE UTILITY UNITARY TAX IS DISTRIBUTED TO CITIES ON THE BASIS OF RELATIVE SERVICE AREA. HOWEVER AN AREA-BASED SPREAD IS NOT FEASIBLE IN THIS ANALYSIS AND A PER CAPITA (RESIDENTIAL POP ONLY)FAIRLY APPROXIMATES THE AREA-BASED SPREAD FOR THIS REVENUE SOURCE. 3.THE REDUCTION FACTOR ACCOUNTS FOR THE PORTION OF THESE REVENUES ESTIMATED TO BE ATTRIBUTABLE DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY,TO LOCAUCII'Y RESIDENTS w 1 ) Public F_in,I... ir-F.Z'34 N M " ". w MS TABLE A-3b TABLE A-3b 02/12/94 BOLSA CHICA LCP EIR(4286)FIR BOLSA CHICA L.CP EIR(4286)-FIR CITY BUDGET ANALYSIS- PUBLJC ECONOMICS,INC. OTHER REVENUE SOURCES CITY POPULATION(STATE DEPT OF FIN,1/1/93) 186,866 CITY RESIDENTIAL ACRES(EST) 11,023 PER CAPITA REVENUES CITY NON-RESIDENTIAL ACRES(EST) 3,080 -------- --------------------------------------------- 1993/94 RESIDENTIAL BUSINESS REVENUE BUDGET REVENUE REVENUE REVENUE SOURCE-DESCRIPTION TYPE\I ESTIMATE PER CAPITA PER ACRE GAS TAX FUND INTEREST INCOME NA\2 NA\2 STATE TAX 2107 NA\2 NA\2 STATE TAX 2106 NA\2 NA\2 STATE TAX 2105(PROP I11) NA\2 NA\2 TOTAL MEASURE M, 1/2 CENT SALES TAX CASE STUDY -21%OF THE 1/2 CENT SALES TAX REVENUES FOR MEASURE'M'ARE TO BE ALLOCATED FOR LOCAL STREET IMPROVEMENTS. THE ALLOCATION FORMULA IS WEIGHTED BY POPULATION(50%), COUNTY MASTER 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'M'TAXES GENERATED WITHIN THE CITY WILL.COME BACK TO THE CITY. FIRE MEDICAL PROGRAM PER CAP 2 $2,000,000 $8.37 $141.81 (MEMBERSHIP FEES,CHARGES FOR SERVICES) —NOTES: 1.TYPES OF PROJECT REVENUS A.CASE STUDY REVENUE(CASE STUDY):BASED ON A SPECIFIC SET OF FACTORS B.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 NON-RESIDENTIAL LAND USES(COMMERCIAL,INDUSTRIAL,&INSTITUTIONAL USES) 2.THIS PORTION OF THE STATE GAS TAX SUBVENTIONS ARE PLANNED FOR USE IN STREET CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS AND ARE NOT AVAILABLE FOR ONGOING CITY STREET MAINTENANCE PROGRAMS.TABLE 3-3s OF'CITY BUDGET ANALYSIS' INCLUDES'SPECIAL GAS TAX'-SEE'TRANSFER FROM OTHER FUNDS'WHICH ARE THE PORTION OF GAS TAX REVENUES FOR GENERAL FUND GENERAL STREET MAINTENANCE. w 1 14-Feb-94 Public Economics,Inc. W FILE:BC FTR(4286) WORKSHEET:CITY BUDGET ANALYSIS- 1.GENERAL GOVERNMENT TABLE: A 5b CITY POPULATION(STATE DEPT OF FIN,1/1/93) 186,966 CITY RESIDENTIAL ACRES(EST) 11,023 PER CAPITA EXPENDITURES CITY NON-RESIDENTIAL ACRES(EST) 3,080 ----------------------------------------------- EXPENDITURE 1993/94 RESIDENTIAL BUSINESS ANALYSIS BUDGET COST COST EXPENDITURE-DESCRIPTION METHOD\1 ESTIMATE PER CAPITA PER ACRE I GENERAL GOVERNMENT R ADMINISTRATION CASE STUDY (AS A PERCENTAGE OF ONGOING DIRECT COSTS) CITY COUNCIL R INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS PER CAP 2 $255,742 $1.07 $18.13 ADMINISTRATION PER CAP 2 $1,027,294 $4.30 $72.84 CITY TREASURER PER CAP 2 $724,955 $3.03 $51.40 CITY ATTORNEY PER CAP 2 $1,550,535 $6.49 $109.94 CITY CLERK PER CAP 2 S441,434 $1.85 $31.30 ADMIMSTRATIVE SERVICES PER CAP 2 $4,297,566 $17.93 $304.02 TOTAL OENERAL GOVERNMENT R ADMINISTRATION PER CAP 2 $8,287,516 $34.66 $587.64 TOTAL GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES LESS ABOVE $88,878,607 RATIO OF GEN GOV'T/ADMIN EXPENSE TO OPERATIONAL COSTS: 0.09 TO 1.00 9.32% (RN:GENGOVT_CS) NON DEPARTMENTAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS PER CAP 2 $637,805 $2.67 $45.22 MICRO SUPPORT PP.R CAP 2 $53,120 $0.22 $3.77 UTILITIES WATER rt_DAI0AT1ON.ETC)\2 PER CAP $353,000 $1.48 $25.17 GAS(SEWER,DRAINAGE PUMPS,ETC.) PF-k CAP 2 $'-eS 000 S0.77 $13A2 ELECTRICITY(STREET/TRAFFIC LIGHTS, PER CAP 2 $3,524,000 $14.74 $249.89 CITY FACILITIES) \3 ($2,466,263) ($10.32) ($174.88) CIVIC CENTER LEASE PER CAP 2 $2,460,000 $10.29 $174.43 OTHER(CONTR.SVCS,SELF INSURANCE) PER CAP 2 $3,739,000 $15.63 $265.05 TOTAL NON DEPARTMENTAL $9,486,662 $35.50 $601.76 N_DEPT-CAP N DEPT 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 RESIDENTIAL POPULATION ONLY C.PER CAPITA TYPE 2(PER CAP 2):BASED ON A PRORATION BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL AND NON-RESIDENTIAL LAND USES(COMMERCIAL,INDUSTRIAL,R INSTITUTIONAL USES) 2.WATER(IRRIGATION,ETC)COSTS HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY AN ESTIMATE OF THE COST TO IRRIGATE THE 582 ACRES OF CITY PARKLAND. THE PROJECT COST OF PARKLAND IRRIGATION IS INCLUDED IN THE PARK MAINTENANCE CASE STUDY COST ANALYSIS 3.DEDUCT THE FOLLOWING AMOUNT FROM ELECTRICAL IF CALCULATING STREET LIGHTS SEPARATELY,AS A CASE STUDY COST: PER CAP 2 $2,466,263 $10.32 $174.88 -SOURCE OF STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE COSTS:MSl STUDY,8/91 STLT CAP STLT AC w Public Economics,Inc. 14-1-cb-94 FILE,BC FIR(4286) WORKSHEEI':CITY BUDGET ANALYSIS- 2.POLICE SERVICES TABLE: A So CITY POPULATION(SPATE DEPT OF FM,I/l/93) 186,966 CITY RESIDENTIAL ACRES(EST) 11,023 PER CAPITA EXPENDITURES CITY NON-RESIDENTIAL ACRES(EST) 3,080 1993/94 RESIDENTIAL BUSINESS PROJECT PROJECT EXPENDITURE BUDGET COST COST POP: BUS AC: EXPENDITURE•DESCRIPTION TYPE U ESTIMATE PER CAPITA PER ACRE 10,156 2 POLICE SERVICES ALTERNATIVE POLICE SERVICE COST CALCULATION METHODOLOGIES: METHOD/1(Employed in Analysis) PER REWBUS ACRE: PER CAP 2 $32,166,531 $134.54 $2,280.83 $1,366,436 1993-94 Budget POL CAP POL BUS METHOD 02 > PER RESIDENT: PER CAP 1 $32,166,531 $172.14 $1,748,239 METHOD#3 > COST PER CALL METHOD BUDGET(1991-92 DATA): $31,096,651 PROJECTED CALLS(1991-92): 104,000 COST PER CALL $299.01 (RN:POL CALL) PROJECT CALLS 4,798(RN:CALLS) (BUIL.DOUT) PROJECT POLICE COST (BUBDOUT) $1,43.4,746 (RN:POL COST) CITY DEMOGRAPHICS INFO d:POLICE CALLS ANALYSIS SOURCE:1990 CENSUS DATA POLICE ADJUSTED TOTAL TOTAL OCCUP'D HOUSEHOLD VACANCY PERSONS HHOLDS TOTAL HHOLDS ADJUSTED HOUSING TYPE UNITS UNITS POPULATION RATE PER HHOLD PER CALL CALLS PER CALL CALLS SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED 34,537 33,539 102,990 2.89% 3.07 2.04 16,441 1.04 32,317 SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED 8,904 8,372 18,636 5.97% 2.23 1.44 51814 0.73 ,428 TWO-TO-FOUR FLEXES 9,487 9,070 74,536 4.40% 2.71 1.44 6,299 0.73 :2 FIVE OR MORE UNITS 15,866 14,330 29,410 9.68% 1.98 1.83 7,931 0.93 15,392 MOBILE HOMES 3,942 3.568 6,185 9.49% 1.73 1.44 2,478 0.73 4,871 TOTALS 72,736 68,979 180,757 5.30% 2.62 38,862 76,390 CITY RESIDENTIAL ACRES 11,023 CITY NON RESIDENTIAL ACRES 3,080 EST-D NON RES BLDG SF(10D0 SF) 40,249 40.249 ESTIMATED NON RFS SITE COVER 30.00% AVO 1000 SF/POLICE CALL 2.866 1.458 NON RESIDENTIAL POLICE CALLS 14,046 27,610 (ESTIMATED) TOTAL PREDICTED CALLS 52,908 104,000 ACTUAL CALLS 1991.92 104,000 104.000 ADJUSTMENT FACTOR 0.508729 1 NOTES: 1.TYPES OF PROJECT COSTS A.CASE STUDY EXPENSE(CASE STUDY):BASED ON A SPECIFIC SET OF FACTORS B.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 NON-RESIDENTIAL LAND USES(COMMERCIAL,INDUSTRIAL,R INSTITUTIONAL USES) w 1 Publio Eaornmios,Inc. 14Fcb94 FILE:BC 6)_FIR(428 WORKSHEET:CITY BUDGET ANALYSIS- 3.FIRE PROTECTION SERVICES TABLE: A 3d CITY POPULATION(STATE DEPT OF FIN,1/1/93) 186.866 CITY RESIDENTIAL ACRES(FIST) 11,023 PER CAPITA EXPENDITURES CITY NON-RESIDENTIAL ACRES(EST) 3,080 1993/94 RESIDENTIAL BUSINESS EXPENDITURE BUDGET COST COST EXPENDITURE-DESCRIPTION TYPE\1 ESTIMATE PER CAPITA PER ACRE 3 FIRE PROTECTION SERVICES ADMINI.WRATION PER CAP 2 $516,562 $2.16 536.63 FIRE PREVENTION PER CAP 2 5956,170 $4.00 $67.90 CIVIL DEFENSE/EMEROENCY SERVICES PER CAP 2 $191,664 $0.80 $13.59 RESERVE FIREFIGHTERS PER CAP 2 HAZMAT RESPONSE UNIT PER CAP 2 $589,965 $2.47 $41.83 HAZMAT CONTROL PER CAP 2 $4 79,449 $2.01 $34.00 HAZMAT PERMITANSPECTION REVENUES PER CAP 2 ($200,000) ($0.84) ($14.18) SEARCH&RESCUE PER CAP 2 $7,576 $0.03 $0.54 DISPATCH NET VORK(CENTRAL NET JPA COSTS) PER CAP 2 $776,875 $3.25 $55.09 TOTAL 53,318,261 $13.88 $235.29 FIRE CAP FIRE AC FIRE CONTROL AND PARAMEDICS-CASE STUDY ANALYSIS ANNUAL OPERATIONS COST FOR PROJECT FACILITIES TYPE 1 TYPE 2 PROJECT FAIR SHARE STATION STATION --------- -------------- COST ITEM (TRCK,ENG,PARA VAN,AMBUL) (PARA.TRCK) TYPE 1 TYPE 2 PERSONNEL $2.796,442 T $848,262 _ -- 51,430,091 ———$435,355 EQUIPMENT(MAINT,REPLACE) $142,256 559,202 $73,010 530,384 SUPPLIbwurEKATiNG $50,723 $28,190 $26,033 $14,469 SUBTOTAL $2,979,421 S935 5u 51.529.134 5480,207 STA O&M_CS STATION DEPRECIATION SI13.333 $56,667 $58,166 $29,093 FOREGONE PROPERTY TAX REv'EHUES N/A WA SUBTOTAL $113,333 556,667 $58,166 $29.093 STATION'FIRST IN'SERVICE AREA DATA SERVICE RESIDENTIAL AREA UNITS SHARE BOLSA CHICA 4,286 51.3% RN:SHARE% HOLLY SEACLIFF\2 4,065 48.7% OTHER AREAS 7 TOTAL 9,351 100.0% 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 RESIDENTIAL POPULATION ONLY C.PER CAPITA TYPE 2(PER CAP 2):BASED ON A PRORATION BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL AND NON-RESIDENTIAL LAND USES(COMMERCIAL,INDUSTRIAL,&INSTITUTIONAL USES) 2.SOURCE:HOLLY SEACLIFF ECONOMIC&FISCAL IMPACT STUDY,WKA,I I/93 ro I Public Ec000mia,Inc. !d-Fc'o-ii ON S 9 �>4>-i ; 3 r'EN'b �� ;'� + g oa ag >r '� aOMA '� A n y A>AD m �0;> cZ E3 Pop b� b Q Q b b b b b b b b b'v b b b b b b b b T b Q mm bm mmmmmmmm mmmmmmmm mm mm 'm m'm mmbmmbmbm bm �°y�> N y y A A A A�1�AAAAAAAA AA AAAAAAAA AA'�1 A AA AAAAAA A n n n�>n>nn�nn, >> > > n nn nnnnnn n > >� $ »N»»»»»N» >» > b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b O b b b N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N m >rr.s KSS , ggg mz Oxr�U � �w __ wwJ', Ww $s = W�ywWa =N — RHW =� ,,"ss 8I � Iq NaIm �� 3333 3333 � � � nWyw 13`s,pT♦i pz9 lSd2pS88IOSSSttt158V132Sr�lS15irrS ;3.p, r'P'Pawrr152SP'PN"N`_N' �30�'O QS'uM4 wM�=�N�u W�PN25�M W Ncws abQ�ub-��M d'PbNN > r sss HIS � s 0115, g a� E Es�r� as �tt=#!SlSS tt wtttiX-�" r��iszs " � �"�4sCxP n8w K w v FILE:sC FIR(4286) WORKSHEET:CITY BUDGET ANALYSIS- 5. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TABLE: A 5f CITY POPULATION (STATE DEPT OF FIN, 1/l/93) 186,866 CITY RESIDENTIAL ACRES(EST) 11,023 PER CAPITA EXPENDITURES CITY NON-RESIDENTIAL ACRES(EST) 3,080 -- 1993/94 PROGRAM NET RESIDENT'L BUSINESS EXPENDITURE BUDGET REIMBURSE- PROGRAM COST COST EXPENDITURE-DESCRIPTION TYPE\1 ESTIMATE MENTS COST PER CAPITA PER ACRE 5 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION H-> PER CAP 2 $421,564 $421,564 $1.76 $29.89 PLANNING DIVISION PER CAP 2 $1,433,037 $250,000 $1,183,037 $4.95 $83.89 HOLLY SEACLIFFE/BOLSA CHICA PER CAP 2 $74,987 $308,000 ($233,013) ($0.97) ($16.52) BUILDING DIVISION PER CAP 2 $1,646,432 $1,625,000 $21,432 $0.09 $1.52 PLANNING COMMISSION PER CAP 2 $25,000 $25,000 $0.10 $1.77 TOTAL PER CAP 2 $3,601,020 $2,183,000 $1,418,020 $5.93 $100.55 COMDEV_CAP COMDEV_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 RESIDENTIAL POPULATION ONLY C.PER CAPITA TYPE 2(PER CAP Y): BASED ON A PROW.'_".'ON BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL 0. Public Economics, Inc. 14-Feb-94 FILE:BC FIR(4286) WORKSHEET:CITY BUDGET ANALYSIS- 6.COMMUNITY SERVICES,7.LIBRARY SERVICES TABLE: A_59 CITY POPULATION(STATE DEPT OF FIN,1/l/93) 186,866 CITY RESIDENTIAL ACRES(PST) 11,023 PER CAPITA EXPENDITURES CITY NON-RESIDENTIAL ACRES(EST) 3,080 ---- -------------------------- 1993/94 RESIDENTIAL BUSINESS EXPENDITURE BUDGET COST COST EXPENDITURE-DESCRIPTION TYPE 11 ESTIMATE PER CAPITA PER ACRE 6 COMMUNITY SERVICES ADMINISTRATION PER CAP 2 5529,430 $2.21 537.54 TOTAL $529,430 $2.21 $37.54 BEACH DIV SUPERVISION PER CAP 2 $164,535 $0.69 $11.67 MARINE SAFETY PER CAP 2 $1,626,262 $6.90 $115.31 BEACH MAINTENANCE PER CAP 2 $796,652 $3.33 $56.49 PARKING FACILITY PER CAP 2 $571,480 $2.39 $40.52 PIER(1992-93 BUDGET AMT) PER CAP 2 $8,000 $0.03 $0.57 PARKING METERS PER CAP 2 $150,094 $0.63 $10.64 MECHANICAL MAINTENANCE PER CAP 2 $235,100 $0.98 516.67 JUNIOR LIFEGUARD PER CAP 1 $167,989 $0.90 PARK SURVEILLANCE/NATURE CTR PER CAP 2 $96,409 $0.40 $6.84 TOTAL $3,816,521 $16.16 $258.71 REC,HUMAN SRVCS&PARK SUPERVSN PER CAP 2 $345,216 $1.44 $24.48 COMMUNITY CENTERS PER CAP 2 $331,513 $1.39 $23.51 CITY GYM&POOL PER CAP 1 $202,194 $1.08 TENNIS PER CAP 2 $100,120 $0.42 $7.10 ADULT SPORTS PER CAP 2 S235,586 $0.99 $16.70 YOUTH SPORTS PER CAP 1 $46,132 $0.25 ADVENTURE PLAYGROUND PER CAP 1 $18,406 $0.10 INSTRUCTIONAL CLASSES PER CAP 1 $277,907 $1.49 AQUATICS PER CAP 1 $121,869 $0.65 SPECIAL EVENTSIEXCURSIONS PER CAP 2 $24,780 $0.10 $1.76 DAY CAMPS PER CAP 1 540,818 $0.22 SENIORS'CENTER PER CAP 2 $145,792 $0.61 $10.34 OAKVIEW CENTER PER CAP 1 $142,914 $0.76 CLUBHOUSES PER CAP 2 $29,679 $0.12 $2.10 SENIORS'OUTREACH PER CAP $305,678 $1.28 $21.67 ARTS/CULTURALAFFRS PER CAP 2 $144,545 $0.60 $10.25 EXHIBITS,PERFORM,SPEC EVNTS PER CAP 2 55,073 $0.02 $0.36 COMMUNITY BAND PER CAP 2 $5,245 $0.02 $0.37 TOTAL $2,523,467 $11.55 $118.64 MUSEUM SERVICES PER CAP 2 $7,989 $0.03 $0.57 PUBLIC ART COLLECT. PER CAP 2 ART CENTER ADMIN PER CAP 2 ART CENTER PROGRAM PER CAP 2 ART CENTER BOOKSTORE PER CAP 2 ART CENTER MEMBERSHIP PER CAP 2 TOTAL $7,989 $0.03 $0.57 SISTER CITIES PROGRAM PER CAP 2 $10,970 $0.05 $0.77 TOTAL $10,970 $0.05 $0.77 GRAND TOTAL $6,888,277 $30.00 $416.23 COMSERV_CAP COMSERV_AC 7 LIBRARY SERVICES PER CAP 1 $3,227,573 $17.27 LIB-CAP LIB_AC NOTES: 1.TYPES OF PROJECT COSTS A.CASE STUDY EXPENSE(CASE STUDY):BASED ON A SPECIFIC SET OF FACTORS B.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 NON-RESIDENTIAL LAND USES(COMMERCIAL,INDUSTRIAL,&INSTITUTIONAL USES) Public Economics,Inc. 14-Feb-94 a-9 F-!.c:o_r_ FM'XW.1 WORKSHEET:CITY BUDGET ANALYSIS- 8.FIXED ASSET REPLACEMEN'T SCHEDULE TABL A Sh CTTY POPULATION(STATE DEPT OF FIN,1/1193) 196,866 CITY RESIDENTIAL ACRES(EST) 11,023 CITY NON-RESIDENTIAL ACRES(EST) 3,080 PERCENT OR ADJUSTED RESIDENTIAL BUSINESS ESTIMATED ANNUAL REASON FOR EXCLUSION ANNUALS ANNUAL EXPENDITURE COST COST EXPENDITURE-DESCRIPTION AVG.LIFE REPLACE COST REPLACE COST FROM FISCAL IMPACT REDUCTION\2 REPLACE COST TYPE\1 PER CAPITA PER ACRE ALLEYS 20 $4.103,810 $205,191 $205.191 PER CAP 2 $0.86 $14.55 AKrERLAL WALLS 20 $22,136,400 $1,106,820 $1,106,820 PER CAP $4.63 $78.48 AUTOMOTOVE-GENERAL 5 $4,134.729 $826,946 Some ongoing mpiacemcut is in budget 50.00% $413.473 PER CAP 2 $1.73 $29.32 AUTOMOTOVE-POLICE 3 $2,193,908 $731,303 $731,303 PER CAP 2 $3.06 $51.85 AUTOMOTOVE-SPECIAL PURPOSE 15 $9.357.680 $623,845 Some ongoing replacement is in budget 50.00% S311,923 PER CAP 2 $1.30 $22.12 BEACH LANDSCAPING&EQUIPMENT 20 PER CAP 2 BRIDGES 30 $12,000,000 5400,000 $400.000 PER CAP 2 $1.67 $28.36 BUILDINGS 30 $103,993,647 $3,466,455 Some ongoing replacement is in budget $500,000 $2,966,455 PER CAP 2 $12.41 $210.34 COMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT 5 $2,922,905 $564,591 Some ongoing replacement is in budget 50.00% 5282,291 PER CAP 2 $1.18 $20.02 CURBS,GUTTERS&SIDEWALKS 20 $121,952.045 $6,097,602 Some ongoing replacement is in budget $250,000 $5,847,602 PER CAP 2 $24.46 $414.64 DOCKS&PIERS 50 $8,570,000 $171,400 $171,400 PER CAP 2 $0.72 $12.15 GOLF OOURSE 20 $4.030,000 $202,500 Some ongoing replacement is in budget 30.00% $101,230 PER CAP 2 $0.42 $7.18 LIBRARY BOOKS VAR $12.799,289 $1,358,499 Replaced through the library book fund 100.00% PER CAP 2 MEDIANS 20 $2,939,542 $146,977 $146,977 PER CAP 2 $0.61 $10.42 OFFICE EQUIPMENT 5 $4,332,826 5866,565 Some ongoing replacement is to budge 50.00% $433.283 PER CAP 2 $1.81 $30.72 OFFICE FURNITURE 10 $3,808.677 5380,868 $380,868 PER CAP 2 $1.59 $27.01 OTHER EQUIPMENT 10 $5,780,941 $578,094 $578.0% PER CAP 2 52.42 $40.99 PARKS,LANDSCAPING&EQUIPMENT VAR $61,234,773 $4,228,982 $4,228,982 PER CAP 2 $17.69 $299.86 PARKING LOTS 20 $2,916,603 $145,830 $145,830 PER CAP 2 $0.61 $10.34 PARKING METERS 15 $498,780 533,252 Some ongoing replacement is in budget 50.00% $16,626 PER CAP 2 $0.07 $1.18 SEWER SYSTEM 40 $55,538,260 $1,388,457 $1,388.457 PER CAP 2 $5.81 $98.45 STORM DRAIN SYSTEM 50 $30,761,681 $615.234 $615,234 PER CAP 2 $2.57 $43.62 STREET LIGHTS 20 $4,240,000 $212,000 5212,000 PER CAP 2 $0.89 $15.03 STREET TREES 50 $7,2W,000 $144,000 Included in of(sile street oosts 100.00% PER CAP 2 STREETS 2e $251 7aR 705 $12.662,435 Included in offsite area costs 100.00% PER CAP 2 STREETS-PARKING 20 $52,416 $2.621 S2 R21 PER CAP 2 $0.01 $0.19 TRsMC SIGNALS 10 $9,400.000 $940.000 Some ongoing replacement is in bodge $100,000 $840,000 PER CAP 2 $3.51 $59.56 TRAFFIC SIGNS 8 jirS WG :c'275 Rt-o"meot is onroiae 100.00% PER CAP 2 WATER-DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM 41) $240,399,011 $6,009,975 Ent wM*w fimd,paid tbra rates 100.00% FZR C-2 WATER-RESERVOIRS 50 $34.000.000 $680,000 Enterprise fund,paid tiro rates 100.00% PER CAP 2 TOTAL $1,025,241,628 $44,887,306 $21,526,677 $90.04 $1,526.39 RN: FAR CAP FAR 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 RESIDENTIAL POPULATION ONLY C.PER CAPITA TYPE 2(PER CAP 2):BASED ON A PRORATION BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL AND NON-RESIDENTIAL LAND USES(COMMERCIAL,INDUSTRIAL,&INSTITUTIONAL USES) 2.AMOUNT IN PERCENTAGE OR IN ACTUAL BUDGET DOLLARS BY WHICH REPLACEMENT COSTS ARE ALREADY INCLUDED IN CITY BUDGET. Source of Data:Management Services Institute,'Cost Control System for the City of Huntington Beach', 1991.92 jt Public Economics,Inc. 14 Felr94 ww vw � � ' wm m Im m a so M am as 00 4s TABLE A-6a 02/12/94 BOLSA CHICA LCP EIR(4286)-FIR PUBLIC ECONOMICS,INC. INFRASTRUCTURE AND PUBLIC FACILITIES MAINTENANCE QUANTITIES STREET SECTION ASSUMPTIONS: PUBLIC 120'ART 100'ART 80'ART 80'COL 60'COL LOCAL ST ttttttttttttt tttttttttttt• ttttttttttttt ttttttttt»t twtttttattt ttttttttttttt No. Lanes 6 4 4 2 2 2 lanes Rt of Way 120 100 80 s0 60 60 ft Pkway Ladscpe 2s(Total) 18 20 16 26 20 20 ft Sidewlk Width 2s 10 10 10 10 10 10 ft Median Width 14 14 14 ft Paved Width 88 66 64 40 40 40 It RoW Pkway Udscpe 8 10 6 16 10 10 It St Lites®"x"ft 75 75 75 75 100 100 ft Streets as %of site 20% STREET QUANTITIES: ARTERIAL LIN FT MILES OF NO. LANE ST. PARKWY MEDIAN STREET NAME TYPE ARTERIALS ARTERIALS LANES MILES LIGHTS ACRES ACRES ttttatttattttttatttttttttt ttttttttttttt ttttt/__-- ttttt/_-- ----_----- -_-_--- ----------- ------------_-- -------____-- CROSS GAP 120' 120'ART 1,335 0.25 6 1.52 18 0.55 0.43 CROSS GAP 80' 80'COL 7,920 1.50 2 3.00 106 4.73 2.55 CROSS GAP EIERG ACCES LOCAL ST 4,095 0.78 2 1.55 41 1.88 TOTAL CROSS GAP 13,350 2.53 6.07 164 7.16 2.97 MESA CONNECTOR 100'ART 5,450 1.03 4 4.13 73 2.50 1.75 SPRINGDALE AVE 80'ART 500 0.09 4 0.38 7 0.18 TALBERT AVE 80'ART 500 0.09 4 0.38 7 0.18 GRAHAM ST 80'ART 500 0.09 4 0.38 7 0.18 COLLECTORS* 60'COL 6,000 1.14 2 2.27 60 2.75 OPEN 60'COL 2 LOS PATOS(PKWY) 60'COL 2,600 0.49 2 0.98 26 0.60 WARNER(1/2 SECT)** 100'ART 1,750 0.33 4 1.33 23 0.80 0.56 TOTAL ARTERIALS 17,300 3.28 9.85 202 7.21 2.31 (NOT INCL CROSS GAP) ALL LOCAL STREETS LOCAL ST 36,111 6.84 2 13.68 361 16.58 TOTAL PROJECT 66,761 12.64 29.60 727 30.95 5.29 • ADD AN ADDITIONAL 2400 FT OF COLLECTORS FOR 4884 PLAN(NORTHEAST OF BCSE) •• (= 1/2 FULL SECTION LENGTH) w I Public Economics,Inc. 14-Feb-94 r r TABLE A-6e .2/9: BOLSA CHICA LCP EIR(4296)FIR PUBLIC ECONOMICS,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 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 (So x1000) TOTALS 1995-96 1996.97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000.01 2001-02 MM-03 2003-04 2004-05 200S-06 200607 ARTERIAL DEDICATION PHASING PERCENTAGE OF CROSS GAP CONNECTOR DEDICATED 10.0% 10.0% $I STREET MILES DEDICATED TO CITY CROSS GAP CONNECTOR 0.23 0.25 0.25 0.23 0.51 2.53 2,53 2.53 2.53 2.53 2.53 ARTERIALS 0.12 0.43 0.66 0.82 ().SA 1.24 1.61 2.04 2.40 2.76 3.115 3.299 LOCAL STREETS 0.32 0.97 1.35 1.35 1.50 2.00 2.83 3.66 4.49 5.32 6.15 6.84 TOTAL STREET MILES 0.44 1.64 2.26 2.42 2.74 3.74 6.97 8.23 9.42 10.60 11.73 12.64 LANE MILES DEDICATED TO CITY CROSS OAP CONNECTOR 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.61 1.21 6.07 6.07 6.07 6.07 6.07 6.07 ARTERIALS 0.36 1.29 1.99 2.46 2.97 3.72 4.93 6.14 7.21 8.29 9.17 9.85 LOCAL STREETS 0.64 1.93 2.70 2.70 2.99 4.00 5.67 7.33 8.98 10.64 12.30 13.68 TOTAL LANE MILES 1.00 3.92 5.29 5.76 6.57 8.93 16.56 19.53 22.27 24.99 27.54 29.60 CITY LANE MILES OF PROJECT IMPACT RESPONSIBILITY TOTAL LANE MILES IN CITY 1,718 PROJECT R OF TOTAL CITY TRAFFIC 5.43% PROJECT LANE MILE RESPONSIBILITY 93.37 3.17 11.92 19.31 25.93 32.80 41.00 50.73 63.00 72.60 82.11 88.98 93.37 STREET LIGHTS CROSS OAP CONNECTOR 16 16 16 16 33 164 164 164 164 164 164 ARTERIALS 7 26 41 50 61 76 99 126 148 170 188 202 LOCAL STREETS 17 51 71 71 79 106 150 193 237 281 325 361 TOTAL STREET LIGHTS 24 93 128 137 156 215 413 483 549 615 677 727 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 CRO!-q nAP CONNECTOR 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 1.43 7.16 7.16 7.16 7.;6 7,!6 716 ARTERIALS 0.27 0.94 1.46 1.80 2.17 2.72 3.53 4.49 5.29 6.06 6.72 7.21 LOCAL STREETS 0,'n 2.34 3.27 3.27 3.63 6.'n 8.88 10.89 12.90 14.91 16.58 TOTAL PARKWAY MAINTENANCE ACRES 1.04 4.00 5.44 5.78 6.52 9.00 17.36 20.53 23.33 26.1E co.,o 30.91 MEDIAN MAINT ACRES CROSS GAP CONNECTOR 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.59 2.97 2.97 2.97 2.97 2.97 2.97 ARTERIALS 0.09 0.30 0.47 0.59 0.70 0.97 1.13 1.44 1.70 1.95 2,16 2.31 LOCAL STREETS TOTAL MEDIAN MAINTENANCE ACRES 0.09 0.60 0.76 0.88 1.00 1.47 4.11 4.42 4.67 4.92 5.13 5.29 LOCAL PARK R TRAIL MAINTENANCE ACRES PROJECT LOCAL PARK ACRES 24.80 CUM: 1.16 3.50 4.89 4.89 5.43 7.25 10.28 13.28 16.29 19.29 22.30 24.80 BAL OF CITY PK REQ®SAC/1000 P 25.98 CUM: 1.21 3.67 5.12 5.12 5.68 7.60 10.77 13.91 17.06 20.21 23.36 25.98 TOTAL PARK MAINT ACRES 2.37 7.18 10.01 10.01 11.11 14.85 21.04 27.20 33.35 39.50 45.65 50.78 OFF-STREET TRAIL AC: 9.12 CUM: 0.42 1.29 1.90 1.80 1.99 2.67 3.78 4.88 5.99 7.09 8.20 9.12 ROW ISFT x 15825+10650 COMMUNITY PARK MAINTENANCE 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 w Public Ecommics,Inc. 14-Feb94 N � APPENDIX B 1 SCENARIO #2 ANNEXATION DURING PROJECT DEVELOPMENT r �r r !� r s T Y<'i IR IR IR tR eR IR 1R IR!R IR !R IR!R !k Ik 1fi IR!R!R IR U eF ci a 4 wi O Y m n n n n u n n n n u § Y�=Q `=� i•4r� n m n ,oA� '„ wer n n a o0 o ww °4 «.cl. r.'� n n N .z . «« ?u n n w» n u n n n n n n n n $ n n n n n < z n n n II n w n w n n n n n u n u 1 n n n n II 0 <—$ Id�'� npno no n n n Y I u u u n n z w n w II II II 11 H 1 u n o n n <Z Qaq "—' $ NN MI`o,' n II 900� <MffiN�N r' n a it " II H 2a N N Hnw w II II II II II HI � II II II II II _. « — II II — w II II II I $ II II II 11 II Y� Me� w�pb II o v�i II a via $<_�aM�M O II :Q II .p II � q � H w w II N N II — — Z y 7`�6' II II w N w II w II H II n n n u n n n n n n � n u s4 n n n n .�".«� ��'"oeo 11 � 11 Nwn ��,o I•,wo�m •0 11 � 11 � 11 n n z^} ?S II II w w H II M II H II iC I II II C II II II �y I II II II II II II II 11 11 II �Nep„may>f < N M II w II Z w N II w I I II Z,Y� _ La P II II II 11 II 11 II II II II m Z g� 11 II II II II II II II 11 II ' iil ��?m w w II II w 11 II II U F y i u n n n n u n II u n `3ZEZ n u II n n N II 11 Z � II M 11 N II u n w n u u Os. n n n n n < n n n n n r' < Lu II II II II II r II II II II II n n n n n n n u n u n n u n n < N II II Z w h II H II w II r �: II II II II II II II II II 11 II II II II II II 11 II II II II II II II II n n z n u n } u n n u n n n n n u n GG n n n n u < u n n n u � < u i n n n II E II II f0 II t0 11 u z F- n n ,.>� n ,.>� u II O [..ly II z II pc II s II z O g p _ > u — LLLL�1l u>l u z F<„ < n P a +y u � u H W n y ZF 11 11 F. II n O n n p n p< n U u n a �z n + s O n m n +loc n < yy y y Q yy L O z n n f V u U O n < O Z II Z LL1 GG =ui tfr IUzi•.> z.8, ° < u ; x } oc n t: n L.: n U ,{pyFy�] v z.<, n U -1 Y 11 `uYJ� oc y �ii m z Y n x n ><, n < t 0< lztl a W N Yu, II Y O Z E II <� F� y 47 J<i x t=+• Z II F II f 4 II o {{{.5711 , O Z O U , n n n < G Uu z2 pa.OOL xoC S II ty0 p II �'W}OG< <..1<FU-U Z p 0 '+sl<�ix<t:Aa S oC Out, n m t+� Zz O n f C?�aF s<F ul,<oC J n C7 n V F n y=,F.Y7y `U=O4 n 7 Z OS i ° mu`�asF >' �a"Z z II n « n 5 OSZ U n W Fm , o .� . E F<— u: w n n s < ��Su<LLZ �y0•�I's'ii n Fu U II Z<FaGy y'uS O uz. n y II �y II n LJ ��...... ryO� .fit}—oo� �`�jr�'Yl usi, ii m °x� g< n >���� ��s � V n m n IZc` n � nl 41 <yYjs 7 11 ass Lq i FF}< t n j 11 U, u U w U auk O y Yu1Z F n F Z n s a O < ,Y v� t U F n e II t< u v' sox > <x<On m < n C� F , On n n yLL1 YF Z Vi 4l xF sF 11 = < s' II �y 70 'i<7,' <�•{si] l ae m V aaOli.O sUOF n 5 U F" 1t. II a OW4, v,S0 U B-1 TABLE&5 BOLSA CHICA LCP EHt(4286)iflit SCENARIO#2-ANNEXATION DURING PROJECT DEVELOPMENT RECURRING CITY COSTS: GENERAL AND ROAD FUND COSTS •••ESCALATION RATES- ...NONE... BUiLDOUT FISCAL YEAR YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YhAR: YEAR: PERCENT 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 OF TOTAL (S8 X1000) 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 200"1 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 COSTS -'--...-------'-----------'--'-'........................................................................................ ................ ............... ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................................ ................ ................ ................ (PLEASE SEE PROJECT DESCRIPTIVE INFORMATION FOR PROJECT POPULATION GROWTH) GENERAL FUND COSTS I GENERAL GOVERNMENT&ADMINISTRATION $311 S361 S401 $442 $522 S544 $544 7.46% NON DEPARTMENTAL(UTILITIES,LEASING) $l SS S9 S12 $15 $19 S196 $243 $280 S317 S344 S361 S361 4.94% POLICE SERVICES $10 $37 S61 $82 $103 S129 $742 S922 $1,062 $1,202 S1,302 $1,366 $1,366 18,74% FIRE PROTECTION SERVICES ADMINISTRATION&CITY WIDE SERVICES S77 $95 $110 $124 S134 SI41 $141 1,93% FIRE CONTROL&PARAMEDIC $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 S1,529 $1.529 $1,529 20.97% PUBLIC WORKS ADMIN,ENO&CITY FACIL MAINT S3 SII $18 $24 S30 $38 SIM S228 S263 S297 S322 S338 $338 4.64% LOCAL PARK MAINTENANCE• $6 $18 S25 $25 $28 $38 S123 $159 $195 $231 $267 S297 $297 4.08% ONSITE STREET MAINTENANCE• S59 $70 S79 $99 S98 S106 S106 1.45% STREET LANDSCAPE MAINI'k 4AN41i- $308 $355 $398 $441 $492 $515 $515 7.07% STREET LIGHT ILLUM&MAINTENANCE• $46 f54 Sol 569 S4! S81 1 11% OFFSITE STREET MAINTENANCE(CITY-WIDE) Sig ., ...5 S'.56 t107 $246 $304 S378 $436 $493 $534 S560 S560 7,68% COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT(PLANNING&BL.DG) $33 $41 $4./ S53 $57 w S60 0.93% COMMUNITY SERVICES SIO S39 $63 SM $107 $134 S166 $206 $237 S268 $290 S305 S305 4,18% LIBRARY SERVICES S6 S22 $36 $49 S62 $77 $95 SITS $136 SI54 $167 S175 $175 2.41% FIXED ASSET REPLACEMENT $II $42 $69 $92 $117 $146 S497 $617 S711 S804 S871 S914 S914 12.54% TOTAL GENERAL FUND,ROAD FUND ONGOING COSTS $67 S245 $397 $524 $659 $926 $4,141 $4.846 S5,417 S5,984 S6,997 $7,293 $7,293 IW.W% TOTAL GENERAL FUND,ROAD FUND ONGOING COSTS $67 S245 $397 $524 $659 S826 S4,141 $4,846 S5,417 $5,994 $6,997 S7,293 S7,293 ESCALATED AT THE FOLLOWING RATE: I:\bbbc\bccu4286\bcfi rcm b.wk3 Public&Cw ucs,loc. IS Feb-9J N mow m 'm sw o. mo sa ms as' r os aw +� ar r ta do to m so TABLE B-9 BOLSA CIDCA LCP E3 R(4286)FIR SCENARIO d2-ANNEXATION DURING PROJECT DEVEL)PAIFwr SUAIAIARY OF RECURRING FISCAL IMPACTS TO CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH: GENERAL FUND AND ROAD FUND INFLATION ASSUMPTIONS PROPERTY TAX INCREASE ASSUMPTIONS GENERAL FUND AND ROAD FUND REVENUE •"NONE•'• INCREASE ASSUMPTION: GENERAL FUND AND ROAD FUND COST INCREASE ASSUMPTION: FIRE MASTER PLAN COSTS INCLUDED? 1 = YES.0=NO 0 BUILDOUT FISCAL YEAR YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ($s X1000) 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006.07 2007-08 ----------------------------------------•----------------------------•------------------- ------------ --•---•------ -------•---•- ------------- -----•------- ------------- .......----- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------ ------------- Annexation Year= 'I' > 1 CITY GENERAL FUND&ROAD FUND ONGOING REVENUES $26 $100 $167 $230 $293 $364 $2,582 $3,161 $3,579 $4,011 $4,314 $4,508 $4,473 ONGOING COSTS• $67 $245 $397 $524 $659 $826 $4,141 $4,846 $5,417 $5,984 $6,997 $7,293 $7,293 ANNUAL REVF24MCOST RATIO 0.39 0.41 0.42 0.44 0.45 0.44 0.62 0.65 0.66 0.67 0.62 0.62 0.61 ANNUAL ONGOING SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) ($41) ($145) ($230) ($294) ($365) ($461) ($1,558) ($1,685) ($1,838) ($1,973) ($2,683) ($2,786) ($2,821) CUMULATIVE SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) ($41) ($186) ($415) ($709) ($1,074) ($1,536) ($3,094) ($4,779) ($6,617) ($8,590) ($11,274) ($I4,059) ($16,880) ' INCLUDES ANY COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH POTENTIAL LANDSCAPE AND LIGHTING DISTRICT. INCREASE IN REVENUES OVER PREVIOUS YEAR: 283.94% 66.22% 37.81% 27.57% 24.21% 609.67% 22.40% 13.23% 12.05% 7.56% 4.49% -0.79% INCREASE IN COSTS OVER PREVIOUS YEAR: 267.01% 61.56% 32.09% 25.77% 25.36% 401.40% 17.04% 11.79% 10.46% 16.93% 4.23% I:\hbbc\bcco4286\bc fwcmb,wh IW Public Economics.Inc. 14-Feb-94 W APPENDIX C SCENARIO #3 PROJECT REMAINS IN COUNTY WITH NO FIRE COST IMPACTS 1 1 i—D I u� ��� _ r ...-.T $g 8. ��335y9 p�y3�7 Ho pitE�on IpY�>�•re�v 'IL Cp iI sn �•Rnl I IRq+ Ii IZ 11lOnnn Z I 'Z+ GGyl1 2yCC1 m C n n. II i Z o��ci� n I I I I I I p v 6 t zo p Z II p n m II I •C�(op y y> II Q OOS�Z-ri a �� n ! VIE FE& �H -risnz II I i _ rn I m � II I � MPSd I y •1 GC mGl A 2 7� p I 11 I S II I II I II I n I � n n I i u I i n Irk II n I N I n ! 1 n n zzzzz — n II : n u I I I • n ! I Y 8 iViS Z� N zzzzz »»> e n I I G n � c n I I 7p Ip- .r 'T b 8� n 8 8 8 — � ! I C, ape «w u n z w N N n n N n � I— p z CCoo »»a <p LL nS u q n a " II �F n n u n 10, n ^j I i II a II tl II z Z aa11> 8 1 n Y q n n N i n t n n n z o; mo I u r n u u =Z ita s r i ad H » »w a « I z I r tl I. II u II 1Y n u n p n i�d 11 u n n u II II II II a ro j m w r P u M II P II U II ! w» A S uN» e 1 e tl I I tl I II a II u tl q p I N w N U Do I n n p 0 e n a n q n ! u 0 II e U m � u p ( u q u C pp e d p tl q 6 p> l I p n p n p SIC I n II p C p n u q u n `T» n » o 'z .+ » n nrP, 'u,nY� u q u u u ' I n p n n n G G73 P e ° n e tl n u p tl tl u u u p e N a tl z N« w n « u N u tl tl u u q I i q a II II tl I i n n 11 u I p u a s n u a a 1 U»» a p �. a < 8 q 8 a 8 a � Ir I q n z N wu — pw p a u p n n p q tl II II p a a n n e e u u n z ttn» o« u u u u a a n n q I., a n u u u a I tl e a n p z 90 I q p tl II 0 2 5 I e q p 0 .1 u n a n g p p n tl p Cj I U u or m :2 I II q ZW a O e o p q OxF u �pqpqpqo C vvv117 w F O z O u U 0 II OOp�iO i ^ y 61 rn apt II z � �yioy� II ° II <� p n q Sz.] 93�� gg0 I ZY�� ° 0n m oc m E. H� ♦ LL z e F q F m ° of i t Or�°`+ I �e�°c`d � < n 0 � 4m,O oCO�LLat yy C 7 7 O p�F vi�i40 z q I IuI O n I I F�` OL I�LLp.7 OCL K K� a I"'daa�$ L v j< on II FK,O2 )y�°L p+ qo7 O oe ¢I's O (—� qm um e I ¢O7 I �a�µ� ZyUjjy���Gi'r�- grp°Fq�r udi W� pq� a°=��t°p 6°i NF-'�°J � .1 o , e m uu i I oC m Vdi Olio �U s o O Imo+. ��NOF 0 7clu p F tl q a C-2 Fey iR ce IRce cetl•rR tFrt IP IR ce ce us o n o0 �•c o'.�o O a — O N pO v^�ppO�pSp j F K Q � �N m�I� N N � II '• II II N N N yyyyCCCC����1I11 `� O Y g ; II w 11 N �l II II II � m II II p p p o �D p n II II II a� �yy1�pO a pO �I M NO N N P 1- y N N ✓✓✓��� N M II " p 1 II II N II I 11 I II I sII "• II N I yin � n II u p n u u 1 <O w N N S w 1Urz..11 3yz n '^ n "' n U u< u u E •y i u n CZ n n n Q <<< U n n �C z z<>d II n 11 U 2 O y u Oy > <z < O FF y Q m M MN NNN N II II r II CJ p a O 3 z_ L INL i z w',S L Y � II II II � O Y?�P pp V II II 11 zwa`C$.» ~ N w ~ N u n n n u n n n n x n n n m n n n ^ w g w w ~ n n n N s s A F < — rZ S3p } b w wllw n n n In gF`r� n n n G.1 y,Z}0 n n u a a a a o II n u u n u .a II n n 1 c v II II II 11 n 11 } O n n u s n n n p u n n • p u n n N N w oo.� : , N N M w II N II w II C w } P O 11 11 II 0 o n u n < Z z �j II II II U : w a II II IR K eq y i II m II T C II F<- .l"i LL �p is n � nF n •. IF- O n n m ? Y LL <u LL II II In I y A Q < F� O � II •w II V 11 Z II z II µWl < n tu z r F< ? y m 11 II II U 4J°� n J<F� 3�j (,j In • C ,y n 5 a `3 n z F� u �iiZi O $ i F Z y 3 p u � nzbinz Zz <WU oWi O 5.31 UZ j• Z n n pF n f W I.FZiWy2QQ Op Z = -9 < F- Z 11 O n pp� n z U {—n rn F t- Z �? Z u z n Z n Z > ui h z QIZu w ; r>ZUI�i.•�FKZK �O F w p < ZF U a n Q 11 Q!� Il i p[u>smCtJ�6wu''�y" n• p F U E Z z n II 3 n _ OUs a°•°•°e w,p ppee < ,� v�3o ,�"! �Q < F n � n < n Iv �sw66 __ .O'yU U �I 'Y,YYw z ?i fzWu w Z �iw sww W`y Itiy F. azµ!<�! f" E z w 6U Z hvppj" z' v1�UUw2<Sm j< W f U UU s << U10�a LLaiaan.F w x Z y zC W fJ<{iZ;}1 ; F 1_H w .F w ^ >N :J 6 t w II 9 i 9 Fe II _ ZZ Z pa. T• u I .< Z Ow6f�� •n y n y II a:F n B y > C u z Z } y y w ly z Z P Z n w w s n 11 < n n `< n < v z a p m<O t;fii O $p $ m w ' F• " ^ ' �a.<:•. 4. � (� y II II II • i I C-3 i TABLE C-6 BOISA CIIICA LCP EIR(4286)FIR SCENARIO 03--PROJECT RklAIAINS IN COUNTY,WMI NO FIRE COST MEPACIS RECURRING Cr1Y COSTS: PUBLIC WORKSIOTIIER FACILMIES NIAIN`1ENANCE GENERAL FL'ND.�OS'1'FACTORS OTl1ER FACD.fI'E.ti,COST k'ACTORS LOCAL.PARK MAINTENANCE $4,964 lac/yr PARKWAY I_4NDSCAPING S14,221 /ac/yr OFF-STREFT TRAIL MAINTENANCE NA/ac/yr N1F,DIAN LANDSCAPING $14,221 lac/yr COMMUNITY PARK NA/ac/yr STREET LIGHTS(ILLUM/MAINT) SI I I IligbUyr ROAD FUN11, 1IA1NTENANCE COST FACTORS ONSITE STREET NiA1NT/REPLACE NA OFFSITE STREET NLAINT/REPLACE 11 S6,000/lane mi/yr BUILDOVI' FISCAL YEAR YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: PEAR: YEAR: 1'L'AR: YEAR YLA.W YL'AR: YEAR: YEAR; 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 (Ss 11000) 1995-96 1996.97 1997-98 1998.99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 ..................—.............._........................................ ............. ............. ............. ............. ............. ............. ............. ............. ............. ............. ............. ............. ............. GENERAL FUND,PARK FACELITIES NIAIN'IENANCE LOCAL PARK MAINTENANCE $6 $18 $25 $25 $28 S38 S53 S69 $85 $100 S116 S129 $129 OFF-STREET TRAIL MAINTENANCE CONINIUNITY PARK MAINTENANCE NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA TOTAL GENERAL FUND PARK MAINTENANCE COSTS: $6 SI8 S25 S25 S28 S38 $53 S69 $85 5100 S116 S129 $129 v...,......,,..n y7�;n srlrsrl'OF 14A 1'NIA INTENANCE — — -- ------- ----- ------- ----- ------- ------- ------- --- — — ------- ------- — ----- _—_---- ONSITE STREETS C—.335 GAP CONNECTOR ARTERIALS LOCAL STREETS ONSrM STREETS NIAINT&REPLACE OFFSr1E STREETS NIAINT&REPLACETIENTI1 $19 $71 S116 $156 S197 $246 S304 $378 $436 $493 S534 $560 $560 STREET LANDSCAPING&LIGIfrING MAINTENANCE PARKWAY LANDSCAPING NIEDIAN LANDSCAPING STREET LIGHTS TOTAL STREET LANDSCAPING&LIGHTING COSTS NOTES,--- ------- �------ ------- ------- ------- —�=a--- ------- ------- —_----_ ------- ------- ------- ------- I,INCLUDFS MAINTENANCE 017 LANDSCAPING IN MEDIANS AND PARKWAYS.STREGI'TREE NIAINTENANCL•,AND LONG TERM STREET REPLACEMENT'COSTS, C7 I Nblic Economics,Inc. "'' m m m � m r w � m m m m w m m m m mew TABLE C-9 BOLSA CHICA LCP FIR(4286)FIR SCENARIO N3--PROJECT REMAINS IN COUNTY,WITH NO FIRE COST IMPACTS SUMMARY OF RECURRING FISCAL.IMPACTS TO CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH: GENERAL FUND AND ROAD FUND INFLATION ASSUMPTIONS PROPERTY TAX INCREASE ASSUMPTIONS GENERAL FUND AND ROAD FUND REVENUE •••NONE••• INCREASE ASSUMPTION: 0.0% GENERAL FUND AND ROAD FUND COST INCREASE ASSUMPTION: 0.0% I BUILDOUT FISCAL YEAR YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ($3 a1000) 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------ ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- CITY GENERAL FUND&ROAD FUND ONGOING REVENUES $26 $100 $167 $230 $293 $364 $443 $540 $615 $696 $744 $777 $777 ONGOING COSTS• $67 $245 $397 $524 $659 $826 $1,029 $1,280 $1,480 $1,679 $1,926 $1,924 $1,924 ANNUAL REVENUE/COST RATIO 0.39 0.41 0.42 0.44 0.45 0.44 0.43 0.42 0.42 0.41 0.41 0.40 0.40 ANNUAL ONGOING SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) ($41) ($145) ($230) ($294) ($365) ($461) ($586) ($740) ($865) ($988) ($1,082) ($1,147) ($1,147) CUMULATIVE SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) ($41) ($186) ($415) ($709) ($1,074) ($1,536) ($2,122) ($2,862) ($3,727) ($4,715) ($5,797) ($6,944) ($8,091) ----�— ------- ��----- ----�� ------ ---�-- ------ ---ate ---�— --- — -- ------ • INCLUDES ANY COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH POTENTIAL LANDSCAPE AND LIGHTING DISTRICT. INCREASE IN REVENUES OVER PREVIOUS YEAR: 283.94% 66.22% 37.91% 27.57% 24.21% 21.44% 21.93% 14.04% 12.19% 7.81% 4.36% 0.00% INCREASE IN COSTS OVER PREVIOUS YEAR: 267.01% 61.56% 32.09% 23.77% 25.36% 24.55% 24.45% 15.64% 13.41% 8.79% 5.34% 0.00% 1:\hbbc\bcco4286\bc rmc.wk C' Public Economics,Inc. 14-Fcb-94 \s APPENDIX C SCENARIO #3 PROJECT REMAINS IN COUNTY WITH FIRE COST IMPACTS 9—D 0m � I m m m I stt B mll limn m y c z mut7 U. tl •••1 p tl tl � II � � A � � r� �� ��,Z Z �• � m i .Q � O > II •e 0 II lD A T— !O IMPI mNsinp �� > t� 70 7pop C �CtxtSZ z ZZ II nC II n ZY •� N Z tb ! _ Am ZZp Vl>- Z II II tl L m r tp m O Z I, 7d n p ? S `° Z I r O >a n i� z m; n OnOe Z EI i° " r A '' Om n ri 1: 11 n n n r 1 II � 0 II A u p n u Q ! o m m z ISEF II p d C mp 9r N.. 19 o » 8 II n p Z r tl II p p II tl O p II d A u Y u Y n r NN, rr p II II I a p 6 I II II II n n n p u : II p II II p II p u II pup II J N C N � Ottu eN u u O � �u•io O�C� IA p w u n Jp e n n a u u ,� u N u d u II M �n � uoS n n p I m m n n e : I rurn «_ i _8 II g n g e N I tl n n z rt)r�vnz n n n o k+33 rip n OZ m uoii . m S m � m e2S m � �m "r� po m� A 70 u n n I �Sl��za n n n I r >>r�0;br n r u r n w«i m m z; ZZZ II II II -I O n n n vap� n n n m n p n v p d•Jpn II N II oN p M M M N r N ! `•� � 8'a15 mb' � b' ! �-A •� � n n tl B u n n 8 n n p na tl u N n w — �� y }( N»0N0 rye �D y N �,�p8 is o� II N n II N u Z O b NO ""838"' Q p n n p g n u u to! c M«u O ��wp yyJ�ppp «ua—iis N ag r r r I mom, s 8�8�9RI{ I TABLE C•9[ BOISA CHICA LCP EIR(4286)FIR SCENARIO!3—PROJECT REMAINS IN COUNTY,WITH FIRE COST IMPACTS SUMMARY OF RECURRING FISCAL IMPACTS TO CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH: GENERAL FUND AND ROAD FUND INFLATION AbSSUMPT7ONS PROPERIX TAX INCREASE ASSUMPTIONS GENERAL FUND AND ROAD FUND REVENUE •+•NONE••• INCREASE ASSUMPTION: 0.0% GENERAL FUND AND ROAD FUND COST INCREASE ASSUMPTION: 0.0% BUILDOUT FISCAL YEAR YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ($e x1000) 1995.96 1996-97 1997-99 1999-99 1999-00 2000.01 2001-02 2002.03 2003-04 2004.05 2005.06 2006-07 2007-09 CITY GENERAL FUND&ROAD FUND ONGOING REVENUES $26 $100 $167 $230 $293 $364 $443 $540 $615 $690 $744 $777 $777 ONGOING COSTS• $867 $11045 $1,197 $1,324 $3,638 $3,805 $4,008 $4,259 $4,460 $4,658 $6,024 $6,121 $6,121 �wnn!.r R_wvEwjy'/ro-T RATIO 0.03 0.10 0.14 0.17 0.08 0.10 0.11 0.13 0.14 OAS 0.12 0.13 0.13 ANNUAL ONGOING Sl1RP1.US/(DEFICIT► "1) ($945) ($I1030) 01,6!i4i) 43,345) +,4::) (::-C") 11?2n) (C3;844) (S3.%S) ($5,280) ($5,345) ($5,345) CUMULATIVE SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) ($841) ($1,786) ($2,815) ($3,969) ',$Id 1-10) ($17 080) ($21,11U) ($25.792) ($31,071) ($36,416) ($41,761) • INCLUDES ANY COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH POTENTIAL LANDSCAPE AND LIGHTING DISTRICT. INCREASE IN REVENUES OVER PREVIOUS YEAR: 283.94% 66.22% 37.81% 27.57% 24.21% 21.44% 21.93% 14.04% 12.19% 7.81% 4.36% 0.00% INCREASE IN COSTS OVER PREVIOUS YEAR: 20.60% 14.45% 10.63% 174.84% 4.59% 5.33% 6.27% 4.70% 4.45% 29.33% 1.62% 0.00% I:hW1bcco4286\bc timc.ak j� Public Economics,Inc. 14-Feb-94 v � APPENDIX C SCENARIO #3 CITY BUDGET ANALYSIS 1 1 1 rr rr rr rr r r� r ■r rr r �■r r� r� rr r r r �r rr TABLE C-3a TABLE C-3a 02/14/94 BOLSA CHICA LCP EIR(4286)FIR BOLSA CHICA LCP EIR(4286)-FIR CITY BUDGET ANALYSIS- PUBLIC ECONOMICS,INC. GENERAL FUND REVENUE SOURCES CITY POPULATION(STATE DEPT OF FIN,111/93) 186,866 REVENUE MULTIPLIERS CITY RESIDENTIAL ACRES(EST) 11,023 ...................----................................. CITY NON-RESIDENTIAL ACRES(EST) 3,080 1993/94 RESIDENTIAL BUSINESS REVENUE BUDGET REDUCTION REVENUE REVENUE REVENUE SOURCE-DESCRIPTION TYPE\I ESTIMATE FACTOR\3 PER CAPITA PER ACRE PROPERTY TAXES: SECURED PROPERTY TAXES CASESTUDY UNSECURED PROPERTY TAXES RESIDENTIAL CASESTUDY BUSINESS CASESTUDY UTILITY UNITARY TAX\2 PER CAP 1 NA TOTAL OTHER LOCAL TAXES SALES&USE TAX CASESTUDY FRANCHISE FEES&UTILITY TAXES ELECTRICITY CASESTUDY TELEPHONE CASESTUDY OAS CASESTUDY WATER CASE STUDY CABLE CASESTUDY IN LIEU WATER UTILITY CASESTUDY TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX PER CAP 2 $312,50D 25.00% SI.3I $22.16 CIGARETTE TAX \3 PER CAP I BUSINESS LICENSE TAX BUS ACRE NA BUS LIC OIL WELL TAX CASE STUDY LICENSES-OIL INSPECTION CASE STUDY LICENSES/PERMITS-MISCELLANEOUS PER CAP 1 NA (BICYCLE,BINGO,SWIMMING POOL TOWING,ALARM,MISC.) TOTAL $312,500 $1.31 $22.16 FI N ES/FO RF EIT U RES/PENALT I ES COURT FINES \4 PER CAP 2 NA LIBRARY FINES&FEES PER CAP 1 $140,OOD $0.75 PARKING VIOLATIONS-DELINQUENT PER CAP 2 $140,OOD 50.00% $0.59 $9.93 PARKING FINES PER CAP 2 $275,000 50.00% $1.15 $19.50 ALARM BILLING FINES PER CAP 2 NA TOTAL $555,000 $2.49 $29.43 USE OF MONEY&PROPERTY RENTALS LAND PER CAP 2 NA INTEREST INCOME-T.R.A.N. PER CAP 2 NA RENTALS,BUILDINGS PER CAP 2 $100,000 50.00% $0.42 $7.09 BEACH&CENTRAL PK CONCESSIONS PER CAP 2 $297.%0 50.00% $1.20 $20.39 PARKING LOTS PER CAP 2 $350.000 25.00% $1.46 $24.82 INTEREST INCOME-GEN FUND PER CAP 2 NA PARKING STRUCTURES PER CAP 2 S50,000 25.00% $0.21 $3.55 PARKING METERS-COMMERCIAL PER CAP 2 $40,000 50.00% $0.17 $2.94 PARKING METERS-RESIDENTIAL PER CAP 2 $41,250 75.00% $0.17 S2.92 PARKING METERS-P.C.H. PER CAP 2 S131,250 25.00% $0.55 $9.31 LATE CHARGES PER CAP 2 NA REDEV AGENCY LOAN INTEREST NA NA TOTAL $I,000,000 $4.18 $70.91 Table 3a,coutiwed a#page f) ( Payic Economic&,Inc. I4•Feb-94 r TABLE C-3a,aoa't TABLE C-3a 02/14194 BOLSA CHICA LCP EIR(4�aw)Fuc BOLSA CHICA LCP EIR(4280-FIR CITY BUDGET ANALYSIS- PUBLIC ECONOMICS,INC. GENERAL FUND REVENUE SOURCES CITY POP(DOF,I JI J91) 181.519 REVENUE MULTIPLIERS CITY RESIDENTIAL ACRES(EYn 11,023 CITY NON-RESIDENTIAL ACRES(F3n 3,080 1993/94 RESIDENTIAL BUSINESS REVENUE BUDGET REDUCTION REVENUE REVENUE REVENUE SOURCE-DESCRIPTION TYPE U ESTIMATE FACTOR U PER CAPITA PER ACRE REVENUE FROM OTHER AGENCIES REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX CASE STUDY MOTOR VEHICLE IN LIEU PER CAP I NA STATE MANDATED COLT REIMBURSEMENT PER CAP 2 NA DIRECT LIBRARY LOANS PER CAP I NA STATE PUBLIC LIBRARY FUNDS PER CAP I NA CABLE SYSTEMS T.V. CASE STUDY (FRANCHISE FEE) REGIONAL NARCOTICS SUPPRESSION PER CAP I TOTAL CHARGES FOR CURRENT SERVICES SPECIAL.POLICE SERVICES NA NA SALES OF MAPSTUBLICATIONS PER CAP 2 NA • SPECIAL CITY SERVICES PER CAP 2 NA RECOMMENDED USER FEES PER CAP 2 NA CHARGES TO WATER FUND PER CAP 2 NA JR LIFEGUARD PROGRAM PER CAP 1 5105,000 75.OD% $0.56 LIBRARY SERVICE PER CAP I NA RECREATIONAL FEES PER CAP 2 $1,456.OW $6.09 5103.24 PHOTOCOPYING PER CAP I NA BLOOD ALCOHOL REIMBURSEMENT PER CAP 1 NA TOTAL $1,561,000 $6.65 5103.24 OTHER REVENUE PER CAP 2 NA TOTAL TRANSFER FROM OTHER FUNDS SPECIAL OAS TAX PER CAP 1 NA TRANSFER-NARCOTICS FUND .._.CP^2 PARKING STRUCTURE PER CAP 2 SI50,000 25.00% W.63 S!12.6i I.IRRARY PER CAP 2 NA CABLE TV _ NA GOLF COURSE PEP.CtB 2 SI50,000 75.W% w.63 REFUSE OFFSETTING TRANSFER-FIRE MED PROGRAM PER CAP 2 NA TOTAL S30D,000 $1.25 $21.27 GRAND TOTALS $15.88 S247.00 NOTES: I.TYPES OF PROJECT REVENFS A.CASE STUDY REVENUE(CASE STUDY):BASED ON A SPECIFIC SET OF FACTORS B.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 NON-RESIDENTIAL LAND USES(COMMERCIAL,INDUSTRIAL.,R INSTITUTIONAL USES) D.PER BUSINESS ACRE(BUS ACRE): BASED ON A BUSINESS ACRE SHARE 2.THE UTILITY UNITARY TAX IS DISTRIBUTED TO CITIES ON THE BASIS OF RELATIVE SERVICE AREA. HOWEVER AN AREA-BASED SPREAD IS NOT FEASIBLE IN THIS ANALYSIS AND A PER CAPITA (RESIDENTIAL POP ONLY)FAIRLY APPROXIMATES THE AREA-BASED SPREAD FOR THIS REVENUE SOURCE. 3.THE REDUCTION FACTOR ACCOUNTS FOR THE PORTION OF THESE REVENUES ESTIMATED TO BE ATTRIBUTABLE,DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY,TO LOCAIJCITY RESIDENTS f7 I Public Ec000nua,Inc. !•!-F.1.94 N �r rr ri r rr rr �r r �r r r � r r �r rr rr rr r� r m m r r FILE:BCFIREC(4286) WORKSH_EET:CITY BUDGET ANALYSIS- 1.GENERAL GOVERNMENT TABLE: C-5b CITY POPULATION(STATE DEPT OF FIN,1/1/93) 196,866 CITY RESIDENTIAL ACRES(EST) 11,023 PER CAPITA EXPENDITURES CITY NON-RESIDENTIAL.ACRES(EST) 3,080 ------- -------------------------------•----------------- EXPENDITURE 1993/94 RESIDENTIAL BUSINESS ANALYSIS BUDGET REDUCTION COST COST EXPENDITURE-DESCRIPTION METHOD\I ESTIMATE FACTOR W PER CAPITA PER ACRE 1 GENERAL GOVERNMENT&ADMINISTRATION CASE STUDY (AS A PERCENTAGE OF ONGOING DIRECT COSTS) CITY COUNCIL&INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS PER CAP 2 $255,742 $1.07 $18.13 ADMINISTRATION PER CAP 2 $1,027,284 $4,30 $72.84 CITY TREASURER PER CAP 2 $724,955 $3.03 $51.40 CITY ATTORNEY PER CAP 2 $1,550,535 $6.49 $109.94 CITY CLERK PER CAP 2 S441,434 $1.85 $31.30 ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PER CAP 2 $4,287,566 $17.93 $304.02 TOTAL GENERAL GOVERNMENT&ADMINISTRATION PER CAP 2 $8,287,516 $34,66 $597.64 TOTAL GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES LESS ABOVE $88,878,607 RATIO OF GEN GOV'T/ADMIN EXPENSE TO OPERATIONAL COSTS: ti> TO 1.00 NA (RN:GENGOVI'_CS) 1 NON DEPARTMENTAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS PER CAP 2 NA MICRO SUPPORT PER CAP 2 NA UTILITIES WATER(IRRIGATION,ETC)\2 PER CAP 2 $88,750 25.00% $0.37 $6,29 GAS(SEWER,DRAINAGE PUMPS,ETC.) PER CAP 2 $46,250 25.00% $0.19 $3.28 ELECTRICITY(STREETITRAFFIC LIGHTS, PER CAP $981,000 25.00% $3.68 $62.47 CITY FACILITIES) U NA CIVIC CENTER LEASE PER CAP 2 NA OTHER(CONTR.SVCS,SELF INSURANCE) PER CAP NA TOTAL NON DEPARTMENTAL $1.016,000 $4.25 $72.04 N_DEVr CAP N_DEPT_AC NOTES: 1.TYPES OF PROJECT COSTS A.CASE STUDY EXPENSE(CASE STUDY):BASED ON A SPECIFIC SET OF FACTORS B.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 NON-RESIDENTIAL LAND USES(COMMERCIAL,INDUSTRIAL,&INSTITUTIONAL USES) 2.WATER(OLRIGATION,ETC)COSTS HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY AN ESTIMATE OF THE COST TO IRRIGATE THE 582 ACRES OF CITY PARKLAND. THE PROJECT COST OF PARKLAND IRRIGATION IS INCLUDED IN THE PARK MAINTENANCE CASE STUDY COST ANALYSIS 3.DEDUCT THE FOLLOWING AMOUNT FROM ELECTRICAL IF CALCULATING STREET LIGHTS SEPARATELY,AS A CASE STUDY COST: PER CAP 2 $2,466,263 $10.32 $174.98 -SOURCE OF STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE COSTS:MSI STUDY,8/91 STLT_CAP STLT_AC 4.THE REDUCTION FACTOR ACCOUNTS FOR THE PORTION OF THESE COST ESTIMATED TO BE ATTRIBUTABLE TO LOCAL OFFSITE RESIDENTS WHO USE THE FACILITIES POWERED BY THESE UTILITIES. n Public Eomomica,Inc. 14-Feb-94 W q—� nnn �Ea rol 1>- ZZ nn�o =�e�aC'� OweZ Egg N' �I �-i CC1N I J N> s�v a NSn n'n oq v > v �0-n � �n� °O a > > a as °�p Ilb w t ffll " F w>n° > B K Ida alpSSP� qSp P. r > Smo $>� vp - ti yv _ o z6 'm og.> Q� ra � < b e v r 7M5 � a F N N r > s o _ y t� �qq]_ r o a Ma QR QY _S CC�o I yw 1 1 1 r f� r .. FILE:BC FIREC(4286) WORKSHEET:CITY BUDGET ANALYSIS- 3.FIRE PROTECTION SERVICES TABLE: C-5d CITY POPULATION(STATE DEPT OF FIN,111/93) 196,966 CITY RESIDENTIAL ACRES(EST) 11,023 PER CAPITA EXPENDITURES CITY NON-RESIDENTIAL ACRES(BST) 3,080 ------------ ----------------------.---------------.----- 1993/94 RESIDENTIAL BUSINESS EXPENDITURE BUDGET COST COST EXPENDITURE-DESCRIPTION TYPE\1 ESTIMATE PER CAPITA PER ACRE 3 FIRE PROTECTION SERVICES ADMINISTRATION PER CAP 2 NA FIRE PREVENTION PER CAP 2 NA CIVIL DEFENSE(EMERGENCY SERVICES PER CAP 2 NA RESERVE FIREFIGHTERS PER CAP 2 NA HAZMAT RESPONSE UNIT PER CAP 2 NA HAZMAT CONTROL PER CAP 2 NA HAZMAT PERMIT/INSPECTION REVENUES PER CAP 2 NA SEARCH&RESCUE PER CAP 2 NA DISPATCH NETWORK(CENTRAL NET JPA COSTS) PER CAP 2 NA TOTAL FIRE CAP FIRE AC FIRE CONTROL AND PARAMEDICS-CASE STUDY ANALYSIS ANNUAL OPERATIONS COST FOR PROJECT FACILITIES TYPE I TYPE 2 STATION STATION COST ITEM (TRCK,ENG,PARA VANI AMBUL) (PARAMED ENO CO) - -- ------ ---- -- ---- ---- -- -------------- PERSONNEL $2,796,442 $1,130,987 EQUIPMENT(MAINT,REPLACE) $I42,256 $59,202 SUPPLIES/OPERATING $50.723 $28,190 SUBTOTAL $2,979,421 $1,218,379 TYPE-1 TYPE-2 NOTES: 1.TYPES OF PROJECT COSTS A.CASE STUDY EXPENSE(CASE STUDY):BASED ON A SPECIFIC SET OF FACTORS B.PER CAPITA TYPE I(PER CAP 1):BASED ON CITY RESIDENTIAL POPULATION ONLY C.PER CAPITA TYPE 2(PER CAP 2):BASED ON A PRORATION BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL AND NON-RESIDENTIAL LAND USES(COMMERCIAL,INDUSTRIAL,&INSTITUTIONAL USES) n I Public Eiconomics,Inc. 14-Feb94 In nnn -4 P E K�K mAht Z�S >nm> •�-L� ���yy�00�� O�i[Q5'rAi •p•pp z 2s`-�� (�`� o Enm pmy nn mo m(� tm �m ��-0i 7m y Zm ZmN CN > I ma n4 Z m m>SN y AR! y AA(]r 'rl m'Z K a ftl y> RI >RI > If1 pr R1A �a>.O > CI�C7 C7 m O j T i t�� m 8>$ >p^�ZiS > > O Ayfr»y�i•TZ 3N 'INgY9 ��A-O��'5>rZ ;ZZ� E H �Dr��u$p"'A-k�llt y 5a C 9 i"z Saa aZ t ° MM6-MM.e4MH08,> > s M N c c5ar a Z-2 $Zz.mm z Or>"L",i�Z.'.��A'^o �m�Aj >N�>r�Om•ai }cami'>H�i1( ' go°off as 1 I i fd yayt�lr p �n "+>•y �O �j A KK Z >A A A�aO '° 21z n n apo lmlml9vvvpv y > > 'm 'm m' m•p•pm'm mm'm'm mm"m'm'm'm'mmmmmmmm•�m m'm 'mo�i m'm"m'm 'm > N y y A A A A•p y A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A Ap A A A A AAA A A ii//m�� Qyyl ((RII��I n n sn �yyynnnnn (aa(''��nnnnnnn nnnnn nn nnn n n mx m S O q S S 9 T O 9'>V S 9 V 9 S v >T 9 O O�p 0 0 S S O V S q N n N N N N N N N N u N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N u N N T K K K y CZJ Q yy 9 13 �nis n }� N czz zzzzzzz�zz�Zz= $ zz>>>> _ 18� N� � Fa <C ,�s _��sisis»>S2zYza»»» >_ u� »>»> � I � I �Rg �5e 5 A6a �w m l4 6 > }-q�l [Ar`�5 E�Mw • P Y �tla�m ii> >ii ��� ���� � 9 V V J J'v OP P9��•�OO 'O > I" A A A A A A nnn nnr. ''� �3pE z g 11 PAP PAP �� ���•10 � n� n�#n nw wnA.an n ��� »> >>> Z a C ->1 A •• 9 FILE:BC FIREC(4286) WORKSHEET:CITY BUDGET ANALYSIS- 6.COMMUNITY SERVICES,7.LIBRARY SERVICES TABLE: C-5g ' CITY POPULATION(STATE DEPT OF FIN.I/l/93) 186.966 CITY RESIDENTIAL ACRES(EST) 11.023 PER CAPITA EXPENDITURES CITY NON-RESIDENTIAL ACRES(EAT) 3.030 1993/94 RESIDENTIAL BUSINESS - - -- -- - EXPENDITURE TYPE\1 BUDGEESTIMATE COSTA COST EXPENDITURE-DESCRIPTION TYPE\1 FST1MATfi PER CAPITA PER ACRE 6 COMMUNITY SERVICES CASE STUDY ADMINISTRATION PER CAP 2 5529.430 52.21 537-54 TOTAL 5529.430 52.21 537.54 BEACH DIV SUPERVISION PER CAP 2 $164,535 $0.69 511.67 MARINE SAFETY PER CAP 2 $1.626.262 $6.80 5115-31 BEACH MAINTENANCE PER CAP 2 $796.652 $3.33 $56.49 PARKING FACILITY PER CAP 2 5571,480 52.39 $40.52 PIER(1992-93 BUDGET AMT) PER CAP 2 $8,000 $0.03 $0.57 PARKING METERS PER CAP 2 $150.094 $0.63 510.64 MECHANICAL MAINTENANCE PER CAP 2 $235,100 $0.98 516.67 JUNIOR LIFEGUARD PER CAP 1 $167,989 50.90 PARK SURVEILLANCEINATURE CTR PER CAP 2 $96.409 $0.40 56.84 TOTAL $3.816,521 516.16 S258.71 REC,HUMAN SRVCS&PARK SUPERVSN PER CAP 2 $345.216 $1.44 S24.48 COMMUNITY CENTERS PER CAP 2 $331,513 $1.39 523.51 ' CITY OYM&POOL PER CAP I $202.194 $1.08 TENNIS PER CAP 2 $100,120 $0.42 $7.10 ADULT SPORTS PER CAP 2 $235.586 $0.99 $16.70 YOUTH SPORTS PER CAP 1 546,132 $0.25 ADVENTURE PLAYGROUND PER CAP 1 $18,406 $0.10 1 INSTRUCTIONAL CLASSES PER CAP 1 S277.907 $1.49 AQUATICS PER CAP 1 $121.869 $0.65 SPECIAL EVENTS/EXCURSIONS PER CAP 2 $24,790 $0.10 51.76 DAY CAMPS PER CAP 1 $40,818 $0.22 SENIORS'CENTER PER CAP 2 $145,792 $0.61 510.34 ' OAKVIEW CENTER PER CAP 1 $142,914 $0.76 CLUBHOUSES PER CAP 2 529.679 $0.12 52.10 SENIORS'OUTREACH PER CAP 2 $305,679 $1.28 $21.67 ARTSICULTURAL AFFRS PER CAP 2 $144,545 $0.60 510.25 EXHIBITS,PERFORM,SPEC EVNTS PER CAP 2 $5,073 $0.02 $0.36 COMMUNITY BAND PER CAP 2 $5,245 $0.02 $0.37 ' TOTAL $2,523,467 $11.55 $118.64 MUSEUM SERVICES PER CAP 2 $7,989 $0.03 $0.57 PUBLIC ART COLLECT. PER CAP 2 ART CENTER ADMIN PER CAP 2 ' ART CENTER PROGRAM PER CAP 2 ART CENTER BOOKSTORE PER CAP 2 ART CENTER MEMBERSHIP PER CAP 2 TOTAL 57,989 $0.03 $0.57 ' SISTER CITIES PROGRAM PER CAP 2 NA TOTAL GRAND TOTAL $6,877,407 529.96 $415.46 COMSERV CAP COMSERV AC 7 LIBRARY SERVICES PER CAP 1 $3.227.573 517.27 LIB CAP LIB AC NOTES: 1.TYPES OF PROJECT COSTS A.CASE STUDY EXPENSE(CASH STUDY):BASED ON A SPECIFIC SET OF FACTORS B.PER CAPITA TYPE I(PER CAP 1):BASED ON CITY RESIDENTIAL POPULATION ONLY C.PER CAPITA TYPE 2(PER CAP 2):WED ON A PRORATION BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL AND NON-RESIDENTIAL LAND USES(COMMERCIAL-,INDUSTRIAL,&INSTITUTIONAL USES) i ' Public Economics.Lnc. 14-Feb-94 c-7 FILE:BC FIREC(428o) WORKSViFET:CITY BUDGET ANALYSIS- %.FIXED ASSET REPLACETIENT SCHEDULE TABL C-5h CITY POPULATION(STATE DEPT OF FIN, 1/1/93) 186,866 CITY RESIDENTIAL ACRES(EST) 11,023 CITY NON-RESIDENTIAL ACRES(EST) 3,080 ADJUSTED RESIDENTIAL BUSINESS ESTIMATED ANNUAL REASON FOR EXCLUSION PERCENT ANNUAL EXPENDITURE COST COST EXPENDITURE-DESCRIPTION AVG.LIFE REPLACE COST REPLACE COST FROM FISCAL IMPACT REDUCTION REPLACE COS TYPE\1 PER CAPITA PER ACRE ----------•------------------------------•------------------------------------ ---------------------- ---------------------- ------•-----------------------•------------- -----------------• ---------------- ..................... ................ ---------------- ALLEYS 20 $4,103,810 PER CAP 2 *ARTERIAL WALLS 20 S22.136,400 $1,106,820• S1,106,820 PER CAP 2 $4.63 $78.48 AUTOMOTOVE-GENERAL 5 $4,134,729 Some ongoing replacement is ut budgct- 50.00% PER CAP 2 AUTOMOTOVE-POLICE 3 $2,193,908 PER CAP 2 AUTOMOTOVE-SPECIAL PURPOSE 15 $9,357,680 Some ongoing replacement is in budget- 50.007, PER CAP 2 •BEACH LANDSCAPING&EQUIPMENT 20 • PER CAP 2 •BRIDGES 30 $12,000,000 $400,000 • $400,000 PER CAP 2 S1.67 S28.36 BUILDINGS 30 $103,993,647 Some ongoing replacement is in budget- PER CAP 2 COMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT 5 $2,822,905 Sonic ongoing replacement is in budget- 50.00% PER CAP 2 CURBS,GUTTERS&SIDEWALKS 20 $121,952,045 Sonic ongoing replacement is in budget- PER CAP 2 •DOCKS&PIERS 50 $8,570,000 $171,400 • $171,400 PER CAP 2 SO,72 $12.15 •GOLF COURSE 20 $4,050,000 $202,500 •Sonic ongoing replacement is in budget- 50.00% $101,250 PER CAP 2 $0.42 $7.18 •LIBRARY BOOKS VAR $12,799,289 $1,358,499 • $1,358,499 PER CAP 2 $5,69 $96.33 MEDIANS 20 $2,939,542 PER CAP 2 OFFICE EQUIPMENT 5 S4,332,826 Some ongoing replacement is in budget- 50,00% PER CAP 2 OFFICE FURNITURE 10 $3,808,677 PER CAP 2 OTHER EQUIPMENT 10 $5,780,941 PER CAP 2 •PARKS,LANDSCAPING&EQUIPMENT VAR $61,234,773 S4,228,982 • S4,228,982 PER CAP 2 $17.69 $299.86 •PARKING LOTS 20 $2,916,603 $145,830• S145,830 PER CAP 2 $0.61 $10,34 •PARKING METERS 15 $498,780 $33,252 Some ongoing replacement is in budget- 50.00% $16,626 PER CAP 2 SO.07 $1.18 SEWER SYSTEM 40 $55,538,260 PER CAP 2 STORM DRAW SYSTEM 50 $30,761,681 PER CAP 2 'STREET LIGHTS 20 54;240.000 $212,000• $212,000 PER CAP 2 $0.89 $15.03 •STREET TREES 50 S7,200,000 $144,000•Some ongoing replacement is ut i-r-- 50.00% 572.000 PER CAP 2 $0.30 S5.11 STREET.' 20 $253,248,705 Some ongoing replacement is in budget- PER CAP 2 STREETS-PARKING 2u S32,4i6 PER CAP 2 TRAFFIC SIGNALS 10 $9,400,000 Some ongowS replacement is in budget- PER CAP 2 TRAFFIC SIGNS 8 $775,000 Replacement is ongoing 100,00% PER CRP 2 WATER-DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM 40 S240,399,011 Enterprise fund,paid thru rates 100.00% PER CAP 2 WATER-RESERVOIRS 50 S34,000,000 Enterprise fund,paid thru rates 100.00 PER CAP 2 TOTAL $1,025,241,628 $8,003,283 $7,813,407 $32.68 $554.02 RN: FAR_CAP FAR_AC --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTES: 1.TYPES OF PROJECT COSTS A.CASE STUDY EXPENSE(CASE STUDY): BASED ON A SPECIFIC SET OF FACTORS B. PER CAPITA TYPE I (PER CAP 1):BASED ON CITY RESIDENTIAL POPULATION ONLY C. PER CAPITA TYPE 2(PER CAP 2):BASED ON A PRORATION BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL AND NON-RESIDENTIAL LAND USES(COMMERCIAL,INDUSTRIAL,&INSTITUTIONAL USES) Source:Management Services Institute Study, 1991-92 n I Public Eccm,nuics,hu. ca,-94 00 TABLE C-6b 02/l4/94 BOLSA CHICA LCP EIR(4286)FIR PUBLIC ECONOMICS,INC. INFRASTRUCTURE AND PUBLIC FACILITIES MAINTENANCE QUANTITIES-PHASING FISCAL YEAR YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR: YEAR, YEAR: YEAR: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ($t x1000) TOTALS 1995-96 199697 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 M-03 200304 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 ....... -'--•-•-- ...-••'-• --•- -- ------- --•---------• ------------- ...•----- ----- ARTERIAL DEDICATION PHASING PERCENTAGE OF CROSS GAP CONNECTOR DEDICATED 10.0% 10.0% $l STREET MILES DEDICATED TO CITY CROSS GAP CONNECTOR 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.51 2.53 2.53 2.53 2,53 2.53 2.53 ARTERIALS 0.12 0.43 0.66 0.82 0.99 1.24 1.61 2.04 2.40 2.76 3.5 3.28 LOCAL STREETS 0.32 0.97 1.35 1.35 1.50 2.00 2.83 3.66 4.49 5.32 6.15 6.84 TOTAL STREET MILES 0.44 1.64 2.26 2.42 2.74 3.74 6.97 8.23 9.42 10.60 11.73 12.64 LANE MILES DEDICATED TO CITY CROSS GAP CONNECTOR 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.61 1.21 6.07 6.07 6.07 6,07 6.07 6,07 ARTERIALS 0.36 1.28 1.99 2.46 2.97 3.72 4.93 6.14 7.21 8.29 9,17 9.85 LOCAL STREETS 0.64 1.93 2.70 2.70 2.99 4.00 5.67 7.33 8.98 10.64 12.30 13.68 TOTAL LANE MILES 1.00 3.82 5.29 5.76 6.57 8.93 16.56 19.53 22.27 24.99 27.54 29.60 CITY LANE MILES OF PROJECT IMPACT RESPONSIBILITY TOTAL LANE MILES IN CITY 1,718 PROJECT%OF TOTAL CITY TRAFFIC 5,43% PROJECT LANE MILS RESPONSIBILITY 93.37 3.17 11.82 19.31 25.93 32.80 41.00 50.73 63.00 72.60 82.11 88,98 93.37 STREET LIGHTS CROSS GAP CONNECTOR 16 16 16 16 33 164 164 164 164 164 164 ARTERIALS 7 26 41 50 61 76 99 126 148 170 188 202 LOCAL STREETS 17 51 71 71 79 106 150 193 237 281 325 361 TOTAL STREET LIGHTS 24 93 128 137 156 215 413 483 549 615 677 727 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 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 1.43 7.16 7.16 7.16 7.16 7.16 7.16 ARTERIALS 0.27 0.94 1.46 1.80 2.17 2.72 3.53 4.49 5.28 6.06 6.72 7.21 LOCAL STREETS 0.77 2.34 3.27 3.27 3.63 4.85 6.87 8.88 10.89 12.90 14.91 16.58 TOTAL PARKWAY MAINTENANCE ACRES 1.04 4.00 5.44 5.78 6.52 9.00 17.56 20.53 23.33 26.12 28.78 30.95 MEDIAN MAINT ACRES CROSS GAP CONNECTOR 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.59 2.97 2.97 2.97 2.97 2.97 2.97 ARTERIALS 0.09 0.30 0.47 0.58 0.70 0.87 1.13 1.44 1.70 1.95 2.16 2.31 LOCAL STREETS TOTAL MEDIAN MAINTENANCE ACRES 0.09 0.60 0.76 0.88 1.00 1.47 4.11 4,42 4.67 4.92 5.13 5.29 LOCAL PARK&TRAIL MAINTENANCE ACRES PROJECT LOCAL PARK ACRES BAL OF CITY PK REQ®5AC/1000 25.98 CUM: 1.21 3.67 5.12 5.12 5.68 7.60 10.77 13.91 17.06 20.21 23.36 25.98 TOTAL PARK MAINT ACRES 1.21 3.67 5.12 5.12 5.68 7.60 10.77 13.91 17.06 20.21 23.36 25.98 OFF-STREET TRAIL AC: CUM: ROW 15FT:15825+I0650 COMMUNITY PARK MAINTENANCE 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 n 1 Public Economic,Inc. 14-Feb•94 �D APPENDIX D ' i SCENARIO #1 ANNEXATION PRIOR TO DEVELOPMENT ' ONE-TIME FISCAL ❑VIPACTS 1 1 1 ' TABLE D-1 BOISA CHICA LCP FIR(4286)FIR SCENARIO Nl--ANNEXATION PRIOR TO DEVELOPMENT ' ONF-TIME FISCAL IMPACTS ON CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CAPITAL FACILITIES IMPACT FEES. MITIGATION PAYMENTS,AND DEVELOPMENT CONTROL FEES ESTIMATE OF ONE-TITIE FISCAL IMPACTS Potential Total Unmitigated ' One-Time One-Trine ;i Ins ties 11pRgde CAPITAL FACILITIES IMPACT FEES ' Traffic Mitigation Fees 5150.00 M Trip End 11 $5.085.900 SO Library Impact Mitigation Fees $0.15 per sgwe Fos u2 51.024.193 $0 I Park and Recreation Impact Fees 51.102.77 per DU u3 $4.726.476 SO Sewer Fees $150.00 per DU $642.900 SO Water Fees $2,380.00 per DU a $10,200.680 SO I Subtotal $21,680,149 $0 II I �IMITIGATION PAYMENTS THROUGH A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT\S ' Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Fecihtie $3,210.000 Fir.Rau 16 $3.210.000 SO Police Facilities $200.000 sbs%su-,valucb.u7 $200.000 $0 Community Services/Marine Safety Facilities 5125.000 Pro Fsciu 18 $125.000 SO ' Subtotal $3,535,000 SQ DEVELOPMENT CONTROL FEES\9 Planning Dept-Plan Check Fees $100.00 esuarn.per DU $429.600 SO I Building Dept-Plan Check.Permit.Inspection $1.100.00 e.eaate per DU $4.714.600 SO Plumbing,Mechanical.Electrical $200.00 eriarns per DU $957.200 SO ' Grading Plan Review $120.00 esainisdow par...1604.c $192,490 SO Engineering and Inspection Fee 8.00%of esd—w u imp cost 5667,392 SO ' Final Map Processing(City only) $25.00 eKi—W per DU $107.150 SO Subtotal $6.%7,422 �0 I ' TOTAL 332etzS71 Notes: I.Currect City traffic impact fee of S I50 per average daily Trip End. Assumed product mix gennentes an avenge of a little more than 7.9 trip ends per day. 2.Cumat City library impact lee of 50.15 per building aquae foot of new residential or commerciallindustrial construction 3.Current City park and recreation impact fee per unit less a per unit credit for the 24.8 acres of local parkt nd shown in the EIR for the LCP Area. City stan- dard is 5 acres per 1000 population. City's standard estimated can of part acquisition and improvement$184.924 per acre. This standard estimate is low- 4.71e City is currem in the prom"of updating the water master plan. The per unit amoua nfiects the proposed Capita Facilities Charge in the plan update- ' S.Impact fees ate ant established by City ordinance for these impacts. Mitigation for facilities impacts on these services are established through a Development Agreement 6- Fire and emergency medical facilities and equipmeot required for a fire station within the Project Area consist of a station building($2.115,000),a fie truck ($750.000),a fie etngine($225.000),and a paramedic van and an ambulance(SW,000 each). 7.Cost of police patrol vehicles and a mbstation location within the Project Area(within the fie station). ' 8.Cost of additional community services program facilities generated by the Project--sports field improvements, park and recreation facilities/buildings Phu the cost of additional lifeguard equipment to offset additional beach and waterfroat impacts from the Project 9-Based on City fees and estimates of relevant Project variables I:uhbbcxb00042861ap imp.wk3 ' Public Economics,Inc. 14-Feb-94 D-1 1 APPENDIX E 1 1 SCENARIO #2 ANNEXATION DURING PROJECT DEVELOPMENT 1 ONE-TIME FISCAL IMPACTS 1 1 TABLE E-1 BOLSA CHICA LCP EIR(4286)FIR SCENARIO 12—ANNEXATION DURING PROJECT DEVELOPMENT ONE-TIME FISCAL IMPACTS ON CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CAPITAL FACILITIES IMPACT FEES, MITIGATION PAYMENTS,AND DEVELOPMENT CONTROL.FEES 1 !� ESTIMATE OF ONE-TIME.FISCAL IMPACTS Potential li Unn altig tted One-Time l___1tttFad Fee Factor Itnnacta 1 CAPITAL FACILITIES IMPACT FEES �I Traffic Mitigation Fees 5150.00 per Trip End it 52.933.352 Library Impact Mitigation Fees $0.15 per Square foot U $590.715 Park and Recreation Impact Fees $1.102.77 per DU v $2.726.050 �I ' Sewer Fees SI50.00 Pc DU $0 Water Fees $2,380.00 per DU a SO �I Subtotal $6,250.116 MITIGATION PAYMENTS THROUGH A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 15 Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Facilities 53.210,000 Five Ration tad $1.851.405 Police Facilities $200.000 Rrb.abo t.Vd-lsv $115.352 Community Servioes/Maine Safety Facilities 5125,000 Program Facilities\8 572.095 ' Subtotal $2,038,852 1 I p li II DEVELOPMENT CONTROL FEES k9 II t �I Planning Dept-Plan Check Fees $100.00 erim.ts per DU SO I� I. Building Dept-Plan Check.Permit.Inspection 51.100.00 etfi me per DU SO Plumbing,Mechanical.Electrical $200.00 sttimos per DU $0 Grading Plan Review 5120.00 eainitedma per w.tsoa.o SO II Etigineermg and Inspection Fee 8.00`b of fi—ted ilt u p. a $0 I Final Map Processing(City only) $25.00 estimate per Du SO I Subtotal P I� TOTAL ' •Estimated onetime Impacts for which the City would net receive offsetting revenues If annexation were to oocur In the seventh year of Project development, ' Notes: I_Current City traffic impact fa o(SI50 per avenge daily Trip End. Assumed product mats generates am avenge of a link more than 7.9 trip cads per day. Also assumes an City rev<mes from proposed Area Transportation Improvement Program. 2.Current City library impact fee of$0.15 per building square foot of new residential or come ercial/industrial construction 3.Current City park and recreation impact fee per unit less a per unit credit for the 24.8 aces of local parkland shown in the EIR for the LCP Area. City stao- ' dard is 5 acres per 1000 population. City's standard estimated cast of park acquisition and imprvveerveru$184.924 per ace.This standard estim ste is low. 4.The City is c anent in the process of updating the water master plan. The per unit amount reflects the proposed Capital Facilities Clarge in the plan update. S.Impact foes arc rot established by City ordinance for these impacts. Mitigation for facilitks impacts on these services are established through a Developtnew Agreement 6-Fire and careigen y medical facilities and equipment required for a fire station within the Project Area consist of a station building(52,115,000),a fire truck ' (5750,000),a fire engi c($225.000), va and a paramedic van and e d an ambulance(560,000 each). 7_Cost of police patrol vehicles and a substation location within the Project Area(within the fire station). 6.Cost of additio al•mrrmuavty services prograrn facilities generated by the project—sports field improvement&. park and recreation facifities/buildings pats the cat of additional lifeguard equipment to offset additional beach and waterfront Ut@acts from the Picilm 9.Based on City fees and catimates of relevant Project variables I:VrbbcVrmo42Wcap imp.wk3 pr n tnc 14-Feb-94 du1 ir. E-1 1 11 APPENDIX F 1 SCENARIO #3 PROJECT REMAINS IN COUNTY 1 ONE-TIME FISCAL IMPACTS i i 1 i 1 - TABLE F-1 BOLSA CHICA LCP EHt(4286)FIR SCENARIO/3—PROJECT REMAL\S IN COUNTY ONE-TLME FISCAL IMPACTS ON CITY OF HUNTL\GTON BEACH CAPITAL FACI1 I'ITES IWIPACT FEES, MITIGATION PAYMENTS,AND DEVELOPMENT CONTROL FEES ESTIMATE OF ONE-TIME FISCAL IMPACTS j j Potential Unmltlgated — One-Time Immid Fee FagDr Imoacts ;I CAPITAL FACILITIES IMPACT FEES 11 I 'I Traffic Mitigation Fees $150-00 per Trip Endtl 55.085.900 it I1 d Library Impact Mitigation Fees SO-15 per Sq.—Foot l2 $1.024.193 Park and Recreation Impact Fees 51,102.77 per DU 0 $4,726.476 i I Sewer Fees 5150.00 per Du SO Water Fees $2.380.00 per DU w SO I i Subtotal $10,836,569 I I MITIGATION PAYMENTS THROUGH A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT%5 I Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Facilities $3.210,000 FIR&.w.t6 $3.210.000 Police Facilities 5200,000 Suba.hoo,V tuclsv $200,000 i Community Services I Marine Safety Facilities $125.000 prop—Fa ai.is 5125.000 II l Subtotal S3,535,000 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL FEES t9 Planning Dept.Plan Check Fees $100.00 etimuepeDU $O Building Dept-Plan Check.Permit.Inspection 51,100.00 taimat.par DU SO II Plumbing.Mechanical.Electrical $200.00 taimateperDU SO 1! ii Grading Plan Review $120.00 taimatedooaper.c,1604.c SO I Engineering and Inspection Fee 8.00%of eairmted a imps ooa $O Find Map Processing(City only) 525.00 tarimue per DU SO ' Subtotal II TOTAL 514.371.569 •Estimated one-time Imparts for which the City would not reMve offsetting revenues If the Project were developed In the County and remained In the County. Noes: I.Current City traffic impact fan of SI50 per average daily Trip Erd. Assumed product mix generates am average of a little more than 7.9 trip ends per day Also assumes no City revenues from proposed Area Tramportatiot htprowmeat Program. 2.Current City library impact fee of$0.15 per building square foot of new residential or comemi.1/indu atrial construction 3.Current City park and recreation impact fee per unit less a per unit credit for the 24.8 acres of bat parkland shown in the EIR for the LCP Area. City stan- dard'us 5 actcs p:r 1000 population. City's standard estimated cat of park acquisition and improvement$194.924 per acre. This standard cstiaate is low. 4.The City is current ut the process of updating the water master plan. The per unit amount reflects the proposed Capital Facilities Charge in the plan update. 5.Impact feu are not established by City oiduanm for these impacts. Mitigation for facilities impacts on these service are established through a Development Agreement 6.Fire and emergency medial facilities and equipment Rgwred for a fire station within the Project Area oonist of a station building($2.115,000),a fire truck (5750.000).a fire enginc(5225,000).and a paramedic van and an ambulance(560.000 ac5). 7_Cost of police patrol vehicles and a substation location within the Project Ama(within the fire station). 8-Cat of additional oommunity services program facilities generated by the Project—sports field improvements, park and recreation facilitic8A-(dings plus the cost of additional lifeguard equipment to offset additional bath and waterfront impacts from the Project 9.Based on City fees and estimates of relevant Project variables 1'Nbbctbaoo4286%cap_imp.+'k3 ' Public Economics,Inc. 14-Feb94 F-1 TABLE F-If BOLSA CHICA LCP EIR(4286)FIR SCENARIO M3—PROJECT REMAINS IN COUNTY,WITII FIRE I.MPACI'S ONE-TIME FISCAL IMPACTS ON CITY OF HUNTI,NGTON BEACII CAPITAL FACILITIES IMPACT FEES, MITIGATION PAYMENTS,AND DEVELOPMENT CONTROL FETES II ESTIMATE OF ONE-TIME FISCAL IMPACTS Potential Utvnitigated One-Tine ';gyp( a = Fee Factor __ ImpRgty_I I CAPITAL FACILITIES IMPACT FEES I I Traffic Mitigation Fees SI50.00 per Trip End 1t S5.085.900 Library impact Mitigation Fees SO.15 per Square Foot 12 S1.024.193 I Perk and Recreation Impact Feu S1.102.77 per DU U S4,726.476 ii II Sewer Feu S150.00 per DU SO II j Water Feu S2.380.00 per DU w SO II Subtotal 1110".569 I MMGATION PAYMENTS THROUGH A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT t5 I; Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Facilities 55.610,000 Fire Swoon t6 $5.610.000 n Police Facilities $200.000&Asuaon,Vd-leso 5200,(J00 Community Services/Maria Safety Facilities S125.000 Program F-dissa a $125.000 Subtotal S�,935- O DEVELOPMENT CONTROL FEES 19 II Planning Dept-Plan Check Feu $100.00 eairw.per DU SO I Budding Dept-Plan Check.Permit.Inspection St.100.00 estrous per DU SO Plumbing.Mechanical.Electrical $200.00 aunsts Per DU SO I I Cording Plea Review $120.00 caimated cod per W.160E se 50 I Fagineerwg and Inspection Fee 8.00%of mm.ted a irruya cost $D I II Final Map Processing(City only) S25.00 eainruo per DU S0 i 'i Stbtaal jQ i II TOTAL St6.T1t_569 i a Estirroted on&4k=impacts for which the City troy not receive oReattbtg revenues if the Project were developed in the County and remained In the Ccamty. This alternative to Scenario X3 a$tanes ttdl Ynpact of constructing two additional fire stations in order for the HmYltgton Beach Fire Dep iranent to provide adequate fire protection to the residents of the City in the absence of the Bolsa Atka fire station location. Now: I.Current City traffic impart fee of SI50 per avenge daily Trip End. Auumed product mix generates an avenge of a liule more than 7.9 trip ends per day Also auumes no City revenms from proposed Area Transportation Improvement Program. 2.Current City library impact fee of$0.15 per building square foot of new residential or commemal/industrial non vction 3.Current City park and mcmation impact fee per unit less a per unit credit for the 24.8 acres of local parkland slto%n in the EIR for the LC' Area. City U=- dard is 5 acres per 1000 population. City's standard estimated cost ofpark acquisition and improvemcm$194.rat per acm. 71us stand irl cstimsto is low. 4.The City is current in the process of updating the water master plan. The per unit amount reflects the propose.Capital Facilities Cbarge in the plan update. 5. Impact fines arc not establshed by City ordinance for these impacts. Mitigation for facilities impacts on these terviots ate established through a Dewlopmem Agreement 6- Fire and emergency medical facilities and equipment required for a fire station within the Project Area consist of a station budding(S2,115,000),a fire truck (S750,000).a Ere eng_ne($225.000),and a paramedic van and an ambulance($60,000 each). The second statism includes an additional cation building ($2.115.000).a fire enVm($225.000).and a paramedic van($60,000). 7.Cost of police patrol vehicles and a substation location within the Project Area(within the fire station). S.Cost of additional community services program facilities gemrated by the Projca--sports field improvememu. Fade and recreation facilities buildings plus the cost of dditional tifeguarl equipment to offset additional beach and waterfront impacts from the Project 9. Based on City fees and estimates of relevant Project—abler 1:4i66ctDa�W 286ksp_imp.w kl Pubic Economics.Inc. 14-Feb-94 F-2 N � APPENDIX G 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION INFORMATION � ! ! 2! 3§ /eiA§§ @! §B � ■ . 2§222J22 �-q q-q Q0 \eKk&§kk ]§ 2) )ku q 2 0 � dk2 � 2 § =§2 < § !2 § § �( z zzzzzzzz § 2§ § 0 `u 2 a ■■'t d §< a § &7� wwa----- - I I § of ff! uu t . ` §$ƒ rill IT9 0- / ±� m!` ■a k2#■■ ( }ao =z5 z § / ] (!» 09209022 E§§ � «@ (§ }/K 2 §� ;;;,.;;. \ )! 88888888 !7 � § \& ------- 2 �§// �) K!� 2Cd u 0 /§ 221221 \{ § u� §§ \ uz 0 k ] ) °u S 01 § t§§ ) § in 8 0 §� § § � `§ � ` u ) _ ] § k8■ !- § k k §;§ 0 7 , u k §( ` ■ ■ § § cc zu § \\\z ! § 2 ' cc & 7 )(§\ ! Oz )J2� . G! Z—� Q N n Z p° A C m i Q I I m m I �? Z I o 9 S'O'O'O'OSTS 99 8 n z V z�P=1 i mo 8 N r x x r x S x r r r y K;'; N rn ! ! C > C c -- - ! ! ; CW i t "=m ! I I . 1Q OJ Ip I I fn :> m ! A 1 �Q :q m < i w w F Z C�dm= •7o i wJ�o v.w y O t � Z ! y�uyuyy��uyuy Vy uy� uy i jj _ �:� <-p7 GG OG OG OC O00 ! RIZ 1u-i I G mZ um.�'ic m�Q V�ub i 117� O I ! I o m J 0•�0 P P u O N O ! ce F- I N _ y N m ' F n 0 n a v: ur ro�yD 0 � � a,.RMagaao� iaa i � ! � � � °=ff @ee ■ !\ � � "!KE ;;■@a ;� � �§§ ■; @ !! � d\� l � n§a )7}¥+§«¥§§s 2i | 2 §§e!E|eFel; � q t - __k2<2�2/2<2<2222� $ �-���� � ! � ; | � ' c> 2S 8 N N i i i m ......II -------------- >>— I"•I=IOI$IwISIRIw �o 8 r n is zIi ilu °pZ c i v In > I > 0131 'NrxNr--=Ir'r 1 � 2 e I '�1 wY G"3 RSm u�ou8u i IL Z 1, I MNUNNN' M I -7'O I I In 1 I y O X C H 3 • � � u i ��C=N m.Wp m�u u C IIA P P to O JP O u m O� 13 N 2 N _ 99 SSS �e. I i u I 1 i i I 1 I �Yi N m'o t � km ggto . I w� r i _ I 9 Ym ry & 3 A<ri =� A a gI I I I �a _paaale � I 013IS�a �t�3A �a I$ �3 3 ° F> >� ^ as < C O i DIIg8 G-5 9- // � ;;;;;;;s;;■;■; c- % o3%5aG5)'%») &| [(E « �Fxr=ra!ll,r. � «! § )f 000 rig . ( ZO | � i | � � ! %■79■m■2§/§ : `Bkk § � j ;; : §) . �■■e■ee§a,s ! k,§_ c � § k ; 3JgFfG ;3e\` � ` . , ( ■ : |■§@)%k)2 � § � \ )�# ; §§ !!■_ : ! • �§ � :■�-� ' -- aJ t%t)2 !■■. Q; �-■:r §& . #�k#■ !!■� §_ §■§) 2l�, ¥E ■ kkk §2■� • §r � ;§=9�§§ ' i � \f ' ;7;F ' - � ;- ' )% \ &§ 22�; - ■{ � � $� ; el �� e a Ell g gg F SFr log � o g Y r qua ills Lao a i n `mC axxp 1 Z8'd Lt,GT b6. SI 83J r�r re ra s M -� man r am ao m an ow " " NO r TABLE X-2 BOLSA CHICA LCP EIR(4 90 Flit FINANCIAL FBASMILrIY EMMATE m SINGLE UNIT ANALYSIS m u o Analysis Houkwwner Total Tax Payments Regdned to 00d Project Public Mann ne Nadu Per Um&Am mod u ' m F wdbg Udt Volaes: elomment Cosb+ProAt 3 S31L399 b —Adds&Ptv�c FfmocLe `,11 UoW 043,"g) (Sl2,291) —Avers&PAddwdd Unit Prler Amend Tw/4wdd Ame mmw Psymmb —Property Tone-Cast in Haareowser @mw 1.19% S2,04 121"1 S3,2f1 —Public Ftrnclog Rsgstrvmm-Cost to Hannowum 12 S9 13,153 36,704 —Anneal Special AwwwwoWPoyamb to Offiet Foal DefkIb 4 SS83 SSl 3 1385 Total Tnnss—Frowrh Toss+Pubic Floods[+Sasdd Awo b S3 2�6 7L $1 S66 —EfSed v Tax Rsta(KM%4 @ ab: 1.16% 54,.'392 SOM s5lw Asrormt Total Taus we Umk/(Ovn)ETR Uns (51 �1� 1.Safer prioc leas dcvdoptand cost+p vM 2.Anse!cast to homeowner of 30 yr bond for Public Financiog Requirement 3.Pewmt ammnt rogWmd to abet an snaud Project fimW deficit of S23 miQian m 4.See PEI Fiscal Aoslyin,'Comepowl Fmrnework'—disc a ofEffictivoTax Rste(,Me) u 5.Aam:al amaust by Mmb the total foxes exceed tho Ell P.10fII�W�{��O�OmL�3 PoWe Ecaoomics.Ioc. 15-FebA4 12 OF CALIFORNIA—RESOURCES AGENCY EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Go"mow DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME 1416 NINTH STREET SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95814 • (916) 445-3535 RE: "Department of Fish and Game Determination of the Status of the Bolsa Chica Wetlands" as submitted to the Coastal Commission December 11 , 1981 . We have discovered several errors in this report. Accordingly, we are reissuing corrected copies of the report and map. We emphasize that the corrections are minor and reflect no change in the Department's position, conclusions or recom- mendations. The corrections include; several typos; two errors in reference citings; an error in reference to acreage; two paragraphs redrafted for clarification; several errors in the "References Used" section; and a clarification change in the legend of the map. With the exception of typos, these corrections and clarifications are as follows: 1 . Page 2, "Summary of Major Findings," paragraph 2, line 2: The figure "1000 acres" replaces the figure ' 1016 acres." This change is based on the fact that 384 acres (rather than 400 acres) of restorable historic wetland exist outside state ownership. The previously indicated figure of 400 acres fails to recognize the fact that the Department specifically �I found that 16 of the 400 acres were not restorable. This chance (i .e. , 400 acres to 384 acres, hence 1016 acres to 1000 acres) is made, where appropriate, throughout the document. 2. Page 6, "Designation of Wetlands and Criteria for Identification," paragraphs 2 and 3: I A. We have included the ohrase "with the exception of 'open water/flats '" in line 11 of paragraph 2. This was necessary because "open water/ flats" are not explicitly mentioned in Coastal Act Section 30121 , but rather are wetlands by virtue of their periodic inundation and substrate saturation. - 2 - B. Paragraph 3, lines 3 and 4: For clarity and consistency we have inserted the parenthetical expression "other than those wetland types explicitly included." C. Paragraph 3, line 17: For the same reason as in B, we inserted the parenthetical expression "in addition to being explicitly included in the Coastal Act definition." D. Paragraph 3, line 18: Because the discussion in this paragraph concerns interpretation of the term "periodic" rather than, strictly speaking, any "requirement" of the Coastal Act definition contained in Section 30121 , we have deleted the phrase "requirement of the Coastal Act definition" and inserted the phrase "interpretation of the term 'periodic'". 3. A. Page 9, paragraph 1 , line 4: The citing "(Zedler, 1979)" is changed to " Eilers, 1980 ." B. Page 9, paragraph 1 , line 10: The citing "(Eilers, 1979)" is changed to Eilers, 1980 ." 4. As previously indicated, our "References Used" section incorporated minor errors. Therefore, we provide a corrected reference page. 5. With respect to the map, we have made the following additions to the legend: A. "Severely Degraded Wetland" in our December 11, 1981 map is changed to read "Severely Degraded Historic Wetland - Not Presently Functioning as Wetland." This clarification is consistent with the text of the report. B: A note is appended to plate one which deals with the "upland" designation on Rabbit Island as it is represented on plate 2. The note explains that the "upland" area designated on plate 2 refers to the extent of historic upland. We believe these corrections and clarifications will contribute to a better under- standing of the report and its conclusions and recommendations. Director ' Enc. Department of Fish and Game Determination of the Status of the Bolsa Chica Wetlands* Introduction In making the subject determination, the Department has had to consider two major obligations: (1) a legislative mandate, pursuant to Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 30411 , to make certain determinations regarding the degree to which coastal wetlands are degraded and the way they may most feasibly be restored; and (2) a "duty of cooperation", pursuant to a 1973 Boundary Settlement and Exchange Agreement (Agreement) between the Resources Agency and the Signal Companies , to assist these companies in obtaining the purposes of the settlement and agreement. The purposes of the Agreement include , but are not limited to, the development of an ecological reserve, restoration of a coastal wetland, compatible oil uses, and an ocean entrance system if that proves to be the way to provide tidal flushing necessary to implement a Conceptual Plan adopted in 1972 by the Resources Agency. The boundary settlement terminated any public trust claim to the Bolsa Chica lowlands owned by the Companies, except 327.5 acres conveyed in fee to the State . An additional 230 acres were leased rent-free to the State with the provision for conveyance of fee title to the State, at no extra cost, upon the State's construction of an ocean entrance system within a period of 14 years. As a consequence of this Agreement, the Department has become the sponsor of a study by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to determine the feasibility of alternatives for the restoration of tidal influence to Bolsa Chica by both navigable and non-navigable ocean connections. Under the original California Coastal Zone Conservation Act , enacted in 1972 through the initiative process (Proposition 20) , the privately owned portion of the Bolsa Chica lowlands was not subject to California Coastal Commission jurisdiction. In 1976--and subsequent to the 1973 Boundary Settlement and Exchange Agreement--the law was amended, and the California Coastal Act of 1976 enacted. This Legislation added the lowlands to the permit jurisdiction of the Commission. The amended 1976 Act also added PRC Sections 30233 and 30411 acknowledging the Department of Fish and Game and Fish and Game Commission as "the principal state agencies responsible for the establishment and control of wildlife and fishery management programs." PRC Section 30411(b) stipulated that the Department , in consultation with the Coastal Commission and Department of Boating and Waterways, could study degraded wetlands and identify those which can be most feasibly restored in conjunction with the development of a boating facility, or whether there are "other feasible ways" to achieve such values . Therefore , the Department is required to fully evaluate the wetlands in the entire Bolsa Gap. This report represents the Department 's determinations regarding the Bolsa Chica wetlands pursuant to PRC Section 30411(b) , and is in response to the Coastal Commission 's request for those determinations. In making these determinations the terms of the Settlement Agreement cannot be ignored. However , neither should the terms of the Agreement influence the determinations mandated by the Coastal *Transmitted to the State Coastal Commission December 11, 1981. -2- act of 1976 with its applicable regulations and policies , since the Agreement is Po g subject to "applicable laws." This report , then, includes a summary of findings and determinations; a historical perspective; present status; extent of historical wetlands in the study area; applicable definitions and criteria applied; extent of non-degraded and degraded wetl.aad areas; a discussion of restoration alternatives and the feasibility of restoring and improving wetland values; and a base map which delineates the exte:at of existing and historic wetland and non-wetland resources. Summary of Major Findings Lased upon examination of historical mapping, existing biological data, and upon the definitions and criteria outlined herein, the Department finds that of the 1 ,324 acres within the study area, 1 ,292 acres are historic wetlands and 32 acres are historic uplands. We find that of the 1,292 acres of historic wetlands, (66%) continue to function viably_ as wetlands. The Department finds that 166 of t ese 852 acres have been restored by the Department and are , therefore , essentially non-degraded. These 166 acres are confined to the State Ecological Reserve. The Department finds that there are 686 acres of viably functioning but degraded wetlands within the Bolsa Chica lowlands; 70 of these acres are within the State Ecological Reserve. These 686 acres of degraded wetlands are not severely degraded because they presently provide significant wildlife values and in terms of annual net productivity are extremely productive. For purposes of PRC Sect-ion _30411�), the Department specifically finds that while the 686 acres of degraded wetlands are not severely degraded, the 1,000 acre wetland system (consisting of the union of 6.16 acres of existing wetlands and 384 acres of restorable historical wetlands outside State ownership) is, when viewed as a whole, so severely degraded that it is in need of major restoration. The Department further finds that a boating facility can be of sufficiently small size that a restored area meeting the minimum 75% requirement of Section 30411(b)(2) can be maintained in conjunction with such a project . Finally, the Department finds that because only limited information is currently available , it can make no determination, at present, as to the feasibility of a boating facility or any other means of enhancing and restoring wetlands within the area. Upon completion of the pending U.S. Army Corps of Engineers study of alternative ways to restore tidal influence to Bolsa Chica, the Department , in consultation with the Coastal Commission and the Department of Boating and Waterways, and pursuant to PRC Section 30411(b) , will determine the most feasible way to restore the area.* (Table* 1) * This report is intended to define and delineate %Ratland areas pursuant to the _ ' requirements of PRC Section 30411. The report has not addressed the location or extent of other environmentally sensitive areas which are found in upland areas adjacent to the lowlands. For example, a particularly high quality coastal chaparral community in a bluff area would not be addressed in this report . The Department is in the process of preparing a report on environmentally sensitive habitat in the non-developed bluff and upland areas involved. -3- General History The pristine condition of the Bolsa Gap lowlands was that of a true estuarine ecosystem where tidal waters intermingled with fresh waters flowing into the lowlands from adjacent streams and creeks. (Fig. 2) The pristine Bolsa wetlands were part of a large wetland complex of over 17,000 acres spread along the coast of what are now Orange and Los Angeles Counties. Based on figures calculated from 1894 topographic survey maps, Bolsa Chica Gap possessed an estimated 2,300 acres of tidally influenced wetland habitats and an undetermined (but probably large) acreage of non-tidally influenced wetlands. Early settlers reclaimed much of the Bolsa wetlands for agricultural purposes , and by 1900 only the tidal marshes of the coastal strip remained unaltered. During the same period, bountiful wildlife, including game species of waterfowl, attracted sportsmen to the area. Several gun clubs were established and promptly dammed up the tidal flow, creating freshwater ponds which attracted a myriad of water-associated birds. Coastal residential communities grew rapidly after the discovery of oil, and in the 1930s and 1940s oil development occurred in the Bolsa lowlands. By August 1973, when the Department assumed control of 530 acres of Bolsa lowlands (300 acres in fee ownership and 230 acres under lease) , most of the lowlands were diked and cries-crossed with roads and other oil-extraction operations. Of the 2,300 acres of tidally influenced coastal wetlands that existed before the turn of the century, only about 50 acres remained until the Department restored approximately another 116 acres to tidal influence in 1978. Extent of Historical Wetlands Several maps were available to, and examined by, the Department . These maps show the historical extent of wetlands within the Bolsa Chica study area. Perhaps the most refined of these saps is the U.S. Coast Survey Map dated 1873. (Fig. 2) . In an effort to arrive at the logical and appropriate study area, we have determined that the study area should, in general, be that portion of the vacant Bolsa Chica property which was wetlands historically and which is presently nondeveloped. Existing residential uses inland, and the Pacific Coast Highway coastward, form obvious and inflexible limits to the study area to be addressed. Less obvious is the limit of historical wetlands adjacent to upcoast and downcoast bluffs. By carefully comparing the 1873 U.S. Coast Survey Map with existing topographical maps, we have found that the location of historical wetlands adjacent to bluff areas corresponds very well to the existing five foot (MSL) contour line . The total area within the boundary established by the five foot contour line along both bluffs, the residential uses inland and PCH coastward is 1,324 acres . Again referring to the 1873 map, we have determined that 32 acres within the 1,324 acre study area are historic uplands. Therefore, we conclude that the extent of historic wetlands within the study area is 1,292 acres. (Table 1) -4- Present Status As we discuss more fully herein, there are presently 852 acres of viably functioning wetlands within the Bolsa Chica study area. Additionally, there are 440 acres of historic wetlands which have been so severely degraded, and their natural processes so substantially impaired, that they no longer function as wetlands. The 852 acres of existing wetlands may be subdivided into 166 acres of tidally influenced, essentially non-degraded wetlands„ and 686 acres of degraded wetlands . ,he 166 acres of non-degraded wetland exist exclusively within the State Ecological Reserve and are populated by a diverse assemblage of plants and animals typical of southern California's tidal w_tlands. The 686 acres of degraded wetlands are non-tidal in nature, but m3kintain significant value to wildlife. These 686 acres are not consolidated, but are spread throughout the lowlands and lie behind dikes and are criss-crossed by roads, levees and oil well pads. They are primarily a combination of vegetated and non-vegetated flats . Dominant plant species include pickle weed (Salicorr►ia virginica, and Salicornia subterminalis), Alkali heath (Frankenia grandifolinT, and saltgrass (Distichlis s ip cata) in salt marsh areas; spiny rush Juncus acutus) and bulrush (Scirpus robustus) in brackish water marsh areas; and cam l7 Typha domingensis) in fresh water marsh areas. These wetland types are indicetted on the accompanying map. (Fig. 1) The 686 acres of non-tidal wetland are, for the mast part, seasonal in nature. Winter rains inundate these areas annually and produce population explosions in invertebrate forage animals such as brine shrimp and salt fly larvae. These invertebrates are fed upon by a large variety of waterfowl and shorebirds. The annual Audubon Christmas bird counts substantiate heavy winter use of these wetlands (listing over 80 species, and between 8,000 and 11,000 individuals, in the past three censuses) . The endangered Belding's savannah sparrow is known to utilize much of the pickleweed dominated saltmarsh contained within the 686 acres of degraded wetland. The Department can document either high or moderate wetland habitat values for wetland-associated avifauna on at least 80% of these 686 acres. The 440 acres of historic wetland which no longer function viably as wetland consists of approximately 250 acres of roads and pads, 70 acres of agricultural land, and about 120 acres of viably functioning upland habitat . The roads and fill areas presently function as resting subvtrate for wetland-associated wildlife, and form narrow ecotones which add to and enhance the diversity of habitat available to wildlife. The 120 acres of upland habitat , considered in union, may be considered environmentally sensitive because of their special role a in the Bolsa Chica wetland ecosystem. Were it not for the involvement of dikes, roads, and relatively shallow fills, these 440 acres would be viably functioning wetlands. -5- The entire 1 ,324 acre study area, including 1,292 acres of historic wetland (in which 852 acres still function viably as wetlands), constitutes a fundamentally inseparable wetland system of exceptional value to wildlife. Designation of Wetlands and Criteria for Identification "Wetlands" are defined in Section 30121 of the 1976 Coastal Act as follows: ". . .lands within the coastal zone which may be covered periodically or permanently with shallow water and include saltwater marshes, freshwater marshes, open or closed brackish water marshes, swamps, mudflats, and fens." We consider the Coastal Act definition of "wetlands" to be compatible with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Wetland Classification System and wetland definition. The latter definition and classification system have the advantage of being more readily usuable in field analysis because the system is both hierarchical and dichotomous in nature, and because the same set of biological and physical criteria is consistently applied. We concur with the interface between the Coastal Act "wetland" definition and the USFWS definition as discussed in Appendix D of the "Statewide Interpretative Guidelines for Wetlands and Other Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas" (adopted by the California Coastal Commission, February 4, 1981). iThe U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service definition is as follows: "Wetlands are lands transitional between terrestrial and aquatic systems where the water table is usually at or near the surface or the land is covered by shallow water. For purposes of this classification, wetlands must have one or more of the following three attributes: (1) at least periodically, the land supports predominantly hydrophytes; (2) the substrate is predominantly undrained hydric soil; and (3) the substrate is nonsoil and is saturated with water or covered by shallow water at some time during the growing season of each year. Wetlands as defined here include lands that are identified under other categories in some land-use classifications. For example , wetlands and farmlands are not necessarily exclusive. Many areas that we define as wetlands are farmed during dry periods, but if they are not tilled or planted to crops, a practice that destroys the natural vegetation, they will support hydrophytes. Drained hydric soils that are now incapable of supporting hydrophytes because of a change in water regime are not considered wetlands by our definition. These drained hydric soils furnish a valuable record of historic wetlands, as well as an indication of areas that may be suitable for restoration. i -6 The upland limit of wetland is designated as (J.) the boundary between land with predominantly hydrophytic cover and land with predominantly mesophytic or xerophytic cover; (2) the boundary between soil that is predominantly hydric and soil that is predominantly nonhydric: ; or (3) in the case of wetlands without vegetation or soil, the boundary between land that is flooded or saturated at some time each year and land that is not (Cowardin, 1979) We have applied the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service definition to the recent "Bolsa Chica Vegetation System" study (April 27, 198: ) by Shapiro and Associates, Inc. , which has been prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. In addition to detailing vegetative communities, the Shapiro study also delineates wetlands using the terminology contained in the Corps of Engineers wetland classification system. The Corps' wetland system uses terms which are easily translatable into terms used by both U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Coastal Act . These , terms are: open water, open water/flat, pickleweed stilt marsh, mixed pickleweed salt marsh, saltgrass salt marsh, shore grass/glasswort salt marsh, spiny rush brackish marsh, and cattail freshwater marsh. All of the above wetland communities, with the exception of open water/flats, are types of marshes and are explicitly included within the definition of wetland contained in Section 30121 of the Coastal Act. Extensive ground truthin g by Department personnel has resulted in no substantive disagreement with the Shapiro and Associates map of wetland resources. That map accompanies this report. (Fig. 1) Moreover, we again refer to the Coastal Act definition of wetland: "Lands within the Coastal Zone which may be covered periodically or permanently with shallow water and include saltwater marshes, freshwater marshes, open or closed brackish water marshes, swamps, mudflats and fens." For an area (other than those wetland types explicitly included) to be considered a wetland pursuant to this definition, it must be under the influence of water (covered) at least "periodically." Thus, the obvious question is, what is meant by the term "periodically?" Certainly, for example, a 100-year floodplain is covered by shallow water on an average of once every 100 years. It does not follow, however, that all areas within that floodplain are: wetland, since among other things, they may not support vegetation which is typically adapted to, nor which is ever tolerant of, inundation. Therefore, it seems reasonable to interpret "periodic" to mean often enough to support a dominance of plant and animal species which are either typically adapted to inundation or tolerant of inundation, and, therefore, often enough to largely preclude the growth of plants which are not so adapted. Marsh areas (in addition to being explicitly included in the Coastal Act definition) satisfy this interpretation of the term "periodic". Additionally, there are wetland areas within the Bolsa Chica lowlands which are essentially devoid of vegetation such as "open water/flats ," 4 as identified in the Shapiro report, which are: seasonally (and therefore periodically) inundated, but which because of drastic water level fluctuation and/or extremely high salt content in the substrate: do not allow the year-round presence of hydrophytes. These areas do, however, support seasonal algal blooms and the establishment of other truly aquatic plant species. They also support animals such as brine shrimp, ostracods, copepods, and salt fly larvae which are typically adapted for , and which indeed require, ;.eriodic inundation for their survival . Therefore, we conclude that these non-vegetated areas are also wetlands pursuant to strict application of the Coastal Act definition. I -7- Corroborating this discussion of wetlands in the Bolsa Chica lowlands is data on vegetative communities found in the recent Draft EIR 81-250 for Orange County's Land Use Element Amendment 81-1, and the accompanying technical appendices . Pages 3-60 of this DEIR informs the reader that there are approximately 660 acres of pickleweed flats. This figure apparently consists of the union of non-vegetated wetland flat and vegetated saltmarsh as delineated by the recent M mapping effort of Shapiro and Associates, Inc. The DEIR also indicates that Salicornia virginica dominates the vegetative assemblage present in pickleweed flats. Salicornia virginica is an obligate hydrophyte which requires periodic inundation and substrate saturation to enable it to dominate such flats. Additional subdominate plants occuring in these pickleweed flats include (according to DEIR) Salicornia subterminalis, alkali heath (Frankenia grandifolia) and shore grass Honanthochloe littoralis) . All of these subdominate species are facultative hydrophytes which not only tolerate periodic inundation but also are distinctly benefited by such inundation. Significant is the fact that plant species which are intolerant of periodic inundation are essentially absent within the pickleweed salt marsh areas and non-vegetated *wetland flats under discussion. The DEIR further states that significant pickleweed dieoffs occur each summer (at times 60% to 70%). This factor was apparently included in the DEIR to indicate "marginal habitat conditions." However, it is obvious that in order for these diebacks to occur each summer, periodic rejuvenation must occur each winter and spring. It is also obvious that areas which are dominated by obligate hydrophytes, such as Salicornia virginica, and facultative hydrophytes mentioned previously, must be extremely wet periodically. That both obligate and facultative hydrophytes continue to dominate these "pickleweed flat" areas to the exclusion of species which are intolerant of periodic inundation rather overwhelmingly implies periodicity of inundation and saturation of substrate , and again demonstrates that these areas are wetlands by the strictest application of the Coastal Act wetland definition, as well as the U.S. Fish aad Wildlife Service definition, and the -Corps of Engineers definition which has been incorporated into the mapping effort of Shapiro and Associates, Inc. Therefore, based on these definitions, and the discussion above, the Department finds that there are 852 acres of wetland within the Bolsa Chica lowlands. Of this total, 166 acres are tidally influenced and 686 are not tidally influenced. The 166 acres of tidal wetlands exist exclusively within the State Ecological Reserve. Of the 686 acres of non-tidal wetlands, 70 exist within the Reserve and 616 exist outside the Reserve. These areas are designated on the accompanying map. (Fig. 1) Determination of Non-degraded and Degraded Wetlands ! Neither Section 30121 of the Coastal Act nor the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Wetland Classification System define or discuss "degraded wetlands." However, r2C Section 30233(a)(3) recognizes the existence of such areas , and states that these areas shall be identified by the Department of Fish and Game. Implicit in this mandate is that the Department itself must define "degraded wetlands" since undefined areas cannot be identified. i i -8- The word "degrade" has several definitions. Many, of these definitions are extremely negative and, therefore, inadequate to enable this Department to emphasize significant wildlife values which exist in many "degraded wetlands." Therefore, from the various dictionary definitions available to the Department , we have concluded that the following definition of the term "degraded wetland" is as ecologically accurate a definition as is possible. Degraded wetland - A wetland which has been altered by man through impairment of some physical property and in which the alteration has resulted in a reduction of biological complexity in terms of species diversity of wetland-associated species which previously existed in the wetland areas. We emphasize that the definition is to be applied only when the alteration is induced by man, and is not meant to apply to natural ,succession from a complex to a more simplified wetland community. , As has been previously discussed, virtually the entire study area (1,292 acres) was historically wetland. This historic wetland was tidal in nature. By virtue of tidal influence, these 1,292 acres were populated by a highly diverse complement of organisms. Fish, molluscs, intertidal communities, mudflats, shallow estuarine water communities, vegetated saltmarsh communities, as well as high numbers of migratory waterfowl and shorebirds, were once present throughout the study area. Today, these conditions are approximated only within the 166 acres which are presently under the influence of the tides. These 166 acres are therefore essentially non-degraded. The remaining 686 acres of non-tidal wetlands have undergone a significant reduction in biological complexity in terms of species diversity. The critical factor involved in this reduction of species diversity is the loss of tidal influence within these areas. Elimination of tidal influence has resulted in loss of nearly all fish and marine invertebrates which once inhabited these 686 acres. Less obvious, perhaps, is the fact that the tidal waters which once flowed over these 686 acres were a moderating influence which aided greatly in maintaining a much more consistent environment than that: which presently exists. By denying tidal influence to the subject 686 acres, a highly dynamic physical environment has resulted. Salinities, temperature, and: moisture all fluctuate much more widely than was the case historically. Consequently, only those plant and animal species which are adapted to cope with such a comparatively dynamic ser_ of physical properties may be found within the 686 acres of non-tidal wetland. Because these 686 acres of wetland are currently populated by a less complex group of organisms than that which previously existed, we find that these 686 acres are degraded wetlands pursuant to our definition. i 1 -9- Our finding that these 686 acres are degraded is not meant to imply that these non-tidal wetlands do not provide significant wildlife values or that they are not highly productive. In fact , pickleweed-dominated salt marshes are among the most productive natural plant communities on earth (Eilers, 1980) . A recent study of net productivity in the Bolsa Chica lowlands indicates net aerial production for Salicornia virginica alone of 1035g/m2/year (Eilers , 1980) . By way of comparison, american wheat fields exhibit a net productivity of approximately 600g/m /year (California Department of Agriculture , personal communication) , and mean Salicornia virginica production in Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve is estimated to be 634g/m2/year (Eilers, 1980) . In addition to the demonstrably high productivity involved in identified degraded wetlands, the Department can presently document high and moderate wetland-associated bird use on at least 550 (SOX) of these 686 acres of degraded wetlands . The methodology involved in this finding has consisted of utilizing data accumulated through field study by Department personnel and other sources (Dillingham (1971) , EDAW (1981) , DEIR 81-250) to evaluate all 1,324 acres of the study area in terms of habitat value to birds. These values were then mapped. The Shapiro map of wetland resources was then superimposed upon the evaluated habitat map. The intersection of these maps resulted in the generation of habitat values for wetland-associated birds. Because further studies are needed to more fully understand the way in which degraded wetland areas are utilized by all wildlife present in the study area, we emphasize that the 550-acre figure is that portion of the 686 acre degraded area which this Department can presently demonstrate maintains either high or moderate habitat value to wetland-associated avifauna and must, therefore, be interpreted as a minimum figure which can only fluctuate upwards in the future. Because these 686 acres of degraded wetlands presently provide significant wildlife value, and in terms of annual net productivity are extremely productive, the Department finds that these degraded wetland areas are not so severely degraded that major restoration efforts are required to effect recovery. Department Objectives Consistent with the 1973 Agreement , one of the principal objectives of the Department for the Bolsa Chica wetlands was, and is, to restore portions of the State-owned and leased lowlands to tidal influence with an ecological balance of shallow-water marine (W deep), intertidal mudflat , salt marsh, and maritime habitats. Using existing tidal channels and tide gate structures , together with excavations, channeling, diking, and construction of water control structures, implementation of Phase I of the Conceptual Plan already has restored approximately 116 acres, making a total of 166 acres of tidally influenced wetlands. The Department , with assistance of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers studies, will examine the alternative methods of restoring tidal influence to the subject wetland including the alternative of a new ocean entrance . 44 -10- It is the Departc�ent 's responsibility to protect and maintain all fish and wildlife species and habitats in California, as well as provide for the wise economic and recreational use of those natural resources. Because of the importance of the remaining wetlands in southe-cn. California, it is the Department 's position that the designated wetlands not in State ownership be treated according to the provisions of the 1976 Coastal Act dealing with , ecologically sensitive habitats and wetlands, and restored to the extent feasible, consistent with applicable laws and regulations. It is also a Department objective to provide for as much recreational, educational and scientific use of the ultimately restored wetland resources as is feasible and compatible with the maintenance of the biological integrity of these resources. Restoration of Wetlands Within the Study Area Restoration and enhancement of wetland values within the Bolsa Chica Gap revolve primarily around the degree to which wetlands influenced by the tides are to be expanded. On the one hand, it is physically possible to tidally inundate virtually the entire lowland area. This alternative would result in the establishment of a shallow water marine embayment, tmudflats, and a relatively small vegetated marsh area. At the other extreme, tidal influence could be limited to the existing tidally influenced area within the Ecological Reserve, and the remainder of the historic wetlands could be managed to provide increased fresh, brackish and/or seasonal wetland values. It is obvious that the mode of restoration or enhancement must be governed by those wetland values which are to be achieved. The values to be achieved must, in turn, be governed by the habitat requirements of those fish and wildlife species which are to be benefited, and upon the ability of a restored and/or enhanced wetland system to provide the greatest wetland habitat value to the greatest number of these species. The Department finds that the greatest wetland habitat value to the greatest number of wetland-associated species can be attained by maximizing both the quality and the diversity of the wetland habitats to be provided. The Department further finds that additional study will be needed before a determination can be made as to the acreage which should be allotted to each wetland type to be established. However, it appears that these wetland types should consist of significantly expanded tidally influenced wetlands, brackish water wetlands, freshwater wetlands, and seasonal wetlands. Each of these wetland types should include both vegetated and non-vegetated areas. The Corps of Engineers is presently studying the hydraulic feasibility of eight distinct restoration alternatives. Completion of these studies is fundamentally necessary to enable this Department to reach those conclusions required by the Coastal Act. These alternatives may be briefly summarized as follows: 1.. No Action 2. A 530-acre marsh with a restricted tidal regime and entrance through existing tidegate structures. i -11- 3. A 530 acre project in which the marina and flood control channel would empty directly seaward of Rabbit Island rather than near Warner Avenue as with 1 other navigable channel alternatives. Outer Bolsa Bay would not be altered and approximately 400 acres of marsh would be retained. 4. A 530 acre project involving a 350 acre marsh with an accompanying 180 acres devoted to an entrance channel and marina. 5. A 1 ,100 acre tidal marsh with a non navigable ocean entrance . 6. A 1 ,300 acre tidal wetland with a marina and entrance channel near Warner Avenue. 7. Orange County's LCP Plan. 8. The "USFWS Plan" which consists of establishment of approximately 800 acres of tidally influenced wetland and approximately 500 acres of non-tidal wetland. This alternative utilizes culverts placed under PCH to effect ocean connection. Additionally, the Department has identified the following potential non-tidal means of restoring or improving wetland values: 1. Make maximum use of existing sources of fresh water. In this regard, construction of storage basins and redistribution of surface runoff, in combination with physically lowering selected areas, are potential methods. Additionally, ground water pumping, and use of municipal water sources are possibilities. 2. Utilizing waters from Wintersburg Flood Control Channel by installation of culverts through the existing dikes. Because of high summer salinities at certain times, it appears that this option could most feasibly be utilized when fall, winter, and spring storms dilute salinities to more acceptable levels. 3. Use reclaimed wastewater to provide additional fresh water influence . (This concept is presently under study by Orange and Los Angeles counties). Feasibility of Restoring and Enhancing Wetlands Within the Bolsa Chic& Lowlands Pursuant to PRC Section 30411(b) this Department is authorized to study degraded wetlands. Once this study is initiated, we are required to address essentially three considerations: 1. Whether the wetland is so severely degraded and its natural processes so substantially impaired that it is not capable of recovering and maintaining a high level of biological productivity without major restoration activities . t 2. Whether a substantial portion of the degraded wetland, but in no event less than 75 percent, can be restored and maintained as a highly productive wetland in conjunction with a boating facilities project. I• -12- - 1 3. Whether restoration of the wetland's natural values, including its biological productivity and wildlife features, can most feasibly be achieved and maintained in conjunction with a boating facility or whether there are other feasible ways to achieve such values. A. Section 30411(b)(1) , This Coastal Act Section requires the Department to determine whether major restoration efforts would be required to restore the identified degraded wetlands. Turning to the various restoration ,alternatives mentioned above, the Corps of Engineers is studying an array of alternatives. It seems clear that if an ocean entrance system were constructed to establish full tidal influence within all or portions of the study area, then this would constitute a major restoration activity. If an ocean entrance proves infeasible, or in any event concerning wetlands outside the State Ecological Reserve, the Department concludes that the wetlands are not so severely degraded that major restoration is required. We have previously concluded that, because of their significant biological value, the 616 acres of degraded wetlands outside the State Ecological , Reserve are not "severely degraded." Further, if the non-tidal alternatives listed above are utilized to achieve restoration, we would not consider those restoration alternatives to involve or require major efforts. Finally, if we consider the union of these 6115 acres with the 384 acres of restorable historic wetlands, which no longer function viably as wetland and which exist exclusively outside the State Ecological Reserve, we conclude that these 1,000 acres, viewed as a whole, constitute a severely degraded wetland system which would require major restoration. Restoration efforts in this context would require removal of substantial amounts of fill comprised of existing dikes, roads, and oil production pads. B. Section 30411(b)(2) The consideration mandated of this Department pursuant to PRC Section 30411(b)(2) speaks in terms of minimum and maximum areas. Certainly, this Department can determine, and it does conclude, that a boating facility can be of a sufficiently small size that a restored area meeting the minimum 75% requirement of Section 30411(b)(2) can be maintained as a highly productive wetland in conjunction with such a project. C. Section 30411(b)(3) Pursuant to PRC Section 30411(b)(3) , this Department is required to determine how restoration and enhancement of degraded watlands can most feasibly be achieved. The term "feasible" is defined in PRC: Section 30108 as follows: -13- Feasible - Capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time taking into account economic, environmental, social , and technological factors. The Department finds that because only limited information is currently available, it can make no determination, at present , with respect to the feasibility of a boating facility or any other means of restoring and improving wetlands in the area. ;he feasibility of restoring wetlands in conjunction with a boating facilities project, for example , is unknown, since the costs and benefits for such a project have not yet been determined. Since 1972, the Corps of Engineers has been studying the feasibility of constructing an ocean entrance, with relation to a marina. The Corps of Engineers' authority was expanded to include non-navigational means of providing tidal waters to the Bosla area. The Corps is now studying several navigable and non-navigable aaeans of bringing tidal waters to the area. The results of hydraulic computer modeling studies of alternatives have not yet been completed, but are needed to determine overall feasibility. Among other things, the determination of the most feasible means of achieving restoration will require consideration of the extent to which the historical wetland areas are restored and the potential for consolidation of fill areas within the lowlands. Four hundred area of historical wetlands outside the State Ecological Reserve have been so severely degraded that they no longer function as wetlands. Nevertheless, they are, for the most part , readily restorable . The feasibility of restoring these areas will turn on the degree to which the areas have been negatively impacted. Generally, where impaction is greatest, restoration feasibility is lowest. 'Therefore, there is a point at which impaction is sufficiently great to render restoration infeasible. The most readily apparent impact within these severely degraded areas is the degree to which fill deposition has occurred. Since virtually the entire undeveloped Bolsa Chica lowland area was historic tidal wetland, and the factors associated with degradation of the area are primarily related to construction of dikes, oil extraction service roads, or the placement of fill material, it seems reasonable to conclude that restoration areas ought to be limited to those fill areas situated below 5 feet MSL (the historical wetland limit). Of the 400 acres, 384 exist below the 5 foot contour. In addition, the amount of acreage and location of wetlands to be restored will be dependent on the amount of fill and existing wetlands which could be consolidated to allow some development in the lowlands. For example , the Coastal Commission has recently approved a consolidated project in the Los Cerritos wetlands (City of Long Beach) . If we apply the development/restoration formula utilized in Los Cerritos to that area outside the Bolsa Chica State Ecological Reserve, this would result in maximal development of approximately 250 acres . -14- i upon completion of the scheduled engineering. studies and availability of other information pertinent to the inquiry, the: Department , in consultation with the Coastal Commission and Department of Boating and Waterways, will complete its determinations, pursuant to Section 30411(b), as to the most feasible way to restore the natural values of the Bolsa Chica wetlands. a REFERENCES California Department of Fish and Game, 1976. The Natural Resources of Anaheim Bay. Coastal Wetland Series #18, 103 pgs plus plates and appendices. Cowardin, "Classification of Wetlands and Deep-Water Habitats of the United States", Lewis M. Cowardin et al; U.S. Dept. of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, December 1979. Dillingham Environmental Company, 1971. An Environmental Evaluation of the Bolaa Chica Area. Submitted to Signal Properties, Inc. Volumes I-III. EDAW, A Report on the Review and Evaluation of Geology/Soils; Hydrologic and Biologic Resource Section of Bolas Chica EIR 81-250, 1981, prepared for Orange County EMA. Eilers, H. P. 1980. Ecology of a coastal salt marsh after long-term absence of tidal fluctuation. Bulletin of the Southern California Academy of Sciences Vol. : 79(2) :55-64. Eilers, H. P. 1980. Production in coastal salt marshes of southern California. Published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Corvallis, Oregon. Eilers, H. Peter, "Salt Marsh Production with Natural and Altered Tidal Circulation", Ecologia, Volume 44, p. 236-240, 1980. Greeson, Phillip E. , et al, "Wetland Functions and Values: The State of Our Understanding", Proceedings of the National Symposium on Wetlands, 674 pgs, 1978. Orange County. 1981. Bolsa Chica draft environmental impact report 81-250, land use element amendment 81-1, supplement, technical appendices and addendum. Shapiro and Associates, Inc. 1950. Bolaa Chic& wetlands boundary study. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District. Shapiro and Associates, Inc. 1981. Bolaa Chica vegetation study. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District. Zedler and Maurdiello, Coastal Wetlands Management , "Effects of Disturbance on Estuarine Function", University of California Sea Grant College Annual Report , 1977. Zedler, J. , T. Winfield and P. Williams. 1980. Salt marsh productivity with natural and altered tidal circulation. Oecologia 44:236-240. i 13 J� i f n � City Huntington o ti gton Beach 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Building 536-5241 Planning 536-5271 Housing 536-5271 December 29, 1993 r Thomas Mathe«•s Director of Planning County of Orange EMA P. O. Box 4048 Santa Ana, Ca 92702-4048 SUBJECT: REVIEW PERIOD FOR THE BOLSA CHICA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Dear Tom: The City of Huntington Beach was pleased to hear that the County was going to allow a sixty (60) day public review period for the Bolsa Chica Environmental Impact Report since we strongly believe that this is the minimum time necessary to provide an adequate review of the document. The City further appreciates the County's cooperation in agreeing to provide several copies of the EIR to facilitate staff and community review. However, the City is concerned that the substantial delay in the release of copies will seriously restrict the City's opportunity to review the lengthy document. To date, the City i still has not received the number of complete documents promised by the County. The ■ City is therefore requesting that the County extend the close of the comment period a minimum of seven (7) days to make-up for the days lost while waiting for release of copies of the document. The City strongly believes that the extension of the review Thomas Mathews OC EMA Planning Page 2 , period, to coincide with release of copies of the document, i:; in the best interest of both , the City and the County and is consistent with the original intent of the longer review period. Thank you for your consideration. Please contact me at(714) 536-5271, if you have any questions or if there are any changes to the review period closing date. Si rely, 2 o d Zelefsky , Planning Director cc: Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrator BoIsa Chica Council Committee Ray Silver, Assistant City Administrator Ron Tippets, OC EMA Paul Lanning, OC EMA 14 ^\ 4 17 MICHAEL M.RUANZ 4 U NTY O P - DIRECTOR,EMA THOMAS S.MATHEWS DIRECTOR OF PLANNING s s RA N C1 E LOCATION: ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY 300 N.PLOWER 37. THIRD FLOOR PLANNING �v SANTA ANA,CA Janua 11 199,4. _ MAILINGABOX404 r'Y t ' ,. P.O.BOX 4049 SANTA ANA,CA 02702-4048 TELEPHONE: (714)634.4M FAX 0.034-m, Howard Zelefsky, Planning Director OPc:eaa4M Department of Community Development City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Subjecti Review Period for the Bolsa Chica Environmental Impact Report (SIR) Dear Howard: ' Thank you for your letter of December 29, 1993. Notwithstanding our initial presentation of 3 copies of the draft Bola& Chica SIR to you and your staff on Tuesday, December 21, 1993, we apologise for the delay in providing the ' remaining 17 copies you requested. You have stated that because all of the copies were not given to you on the 21st, that the comment period on the SIR should be extended. ' Howard, I respectfully deny your request based on a number of factors includingi 1) Your city's familiarity with the Bolso Chica project as former lead agency in 1991, 2) the city's ongoing commitment to monitor all aspects of the project (i.e., the City Council subcommittee and the excellent working relationship ' which exists between our respective planning staff), and 3) the recent decision by the city to hire outside expertise to review the County's SIR. These points argue that the existing 60-day review period should be adequate for the city to review the document and develop its comments. Of course if extraordinary circumstances should arise, I will reconsider my decision. All comments on the Bolas, Chica SIR can be either faxed or mailed to Paul Lanning, EWEnvironmental Planning Division, County of Orange, P. 0. Box 4048, Santa Ana, CA 92702-4048. PAX (724) 834-6132 before 4:00 p.m. on February 18, 1994. 1 Thank you for your continued interest in this project. If you have any further questions, please call me at 834-4643. Y Aruly111, o s, omas . Ma ews D rector of P arming GP/TBM>tsjk/4011009595027 cci Ron Tippets Paul Lanning 15 _JAN-24-1994 16:05 FROM PLANNING TO 913108592325 P.01 • EWA Pbmimt.. FACSIMILE K5NlTrA'L . -- TO.. DATE:` 1 AM: FAX NO.: 31 2-3 2 s— PHONE NO.- 510 — Zr- t - 6 aS 1 The fobbing ? p O are ftammit ted for your. (including this cover sheet) 1 B APPROVAL REVIEW AND COMMENT IWORMATION 1 Remarks ` ?w' yew` f,Vf t� ff you do not receive ad the pqm . at(714) R4- . TELECOPY SENT(RECT i T I M E -- IIyp - DATE � BY F.O. Box 400 ' Santa Ana,CA 92701 FAX(714) a34"4652 ....7 JAN-24-1994 16:06 FROM PLANNING TO 913108592325 P.02 ' 4\%0%4%0fI y• �/�/�e�rr.�-..-•• v..lrtrwwr..r...-rJ ...v..Nrrwr..... ......... .�.� Mail to:State.Cleafthoum 1400 Tenth Streer,Sacmmenw.CA 95814 916W54)613 SCH! 93071064 . l Ptrej♦ctMail Bolsa Chica Project/EZR 551 LeadAscWr. County of Orange CmMPamu PA U1 Tanniner Sweet Ad hw' inn x v3 guar, Suite 321 pk.aw 714--834--3686 qsanraerne zip; 92702 Coy ,; Orange �� ram ---------��--. ---a—-------�.+�—�.. Project location Cotmty: Orange City/Nearat Comma ur _ Huntington Beach Cron Streets:Werner and Pacific Coast Hwy TpCo&: 92648 TOW Acres. 1,603.4 ' Assessors parcel No. 1 10-n 1-1 thru 79 Section: Tvp. Ranee: Base: Widen 2 Mllev State HwY 0. 1 Watsrwsys:Pant f fn Onean, RQJ§A Bay, Hunti"ton Harbor Airpom None Rstlwaya: SPT Co Spur Soliools Various (gttntington ____ _ —��gtl Cii�i_Tin,T Wigton Beach Union High 6 Ocear. --- —��-- — View School Districts. Document Type CKOA: ❑NOP Q Supplemett/Subegaent NEPA: 0 N01 othg: ❑Joint Document , ❑WY Cons ❑!3R(Print SCH No-1 ❑EA []Fuel Domamt. ❑NOS Dee QOther ❑Draft EIS ❑Odwr j$Draft MR (7 FONSI -----.- --------- - -mow------ ----------- Local A-Uon Type' ❑ceoad Plan Update ❑Specific Plan ®Remne []•Ammo on General PlaaAmeWment ❑Master Plan• ❑Pnzons ❑Redevelopment General Plan Ele nm Q Flou"Unit Development ❑Use Pandt Q Coastal Famit ❑Commutiry Plan ❑Sits Plan ❑Laand Lxvblon(Subdlvblm ' jp Orlw Tr.na 1 f nn nt a Peed AIzp.Trtet Map.ere-) Program --------------- -.- ------fir.--- -----------.--�� Development Type ' a 603.4 Cl WaatrPeet3kW& Tjps MGD ®Resfdendai: Units 4286 Acm 1. 0 Otfiea Sq jt- Acres Eepbyesr ❑Tr=Wmatiotc 7* Q CoemneciAU SVC Acres Frrtployest ❑Kn w Mintra( ' ❑lttdttsaish Sq.4._..__..�Acres Enployser Q�Power ❑� Wwol TreatmentT�YP Wass ❑Roaeadmal ❑Ha A*us Waam Type - ------------ ------------- -- ----------------- , Project leou0s Dlsaus"d M Document ®Ae ftticffimd 91 Flood Plaisn/F1walg S3 Seheob/Udvinkiiet . . ®warm Qua tY ❑Avioda wal Land ❑Fawn Lsnel w Hazed ❑sq*k Systems ®wane.SapplyA otmdxatrt 61 Ak Q=Hqy ®G otoodseimdo ®SgWer c+s-bY (Z Wa 1=44Upaiar E7 Ard"oSiaLHlswricd ❑Missals M soil rppwdWVGM169 zWUW* ®Coastal,Zane ®?bW ®Solid Waite Orvwth Inching RG Drzinge/Absorpdan ®Papd�onJliousinf Balartoa ®Tozidlinodoaa �Lsadow al Eoonor*Acbt ®Pt:blio ServieeslpwMda 91TnfflQX*QaAd011 ®cton ve Efface ❑Pbcal ReasatloglPalta ®Veptatioa ❑othw ————— —.--------- ------.r-----------w---- ------- p►esernt Later UeelZonUspldenend Plan Use _ Undeveloped/A-1 Agricultural/Mixed Residential, Marine C,;immereial and Open Space project Sieaorrlpthm The proposed Bolts Chico Land Use Plan is based on a mixture of natural resource conservation and urban uses. The Applicant's proposed plan ,includes: 1) wetlands creation and restoration on a minimum of approximately 1,004 acres, facilitated by the re- introduction of natural tidal marsh to the presently degraded Bolsa Chic& lowlands; 2) resi-- � eyelopment on the Bolsa Chico Mesa and on a portion of the lowlands amounting to 1YOTE:GlsalrtaoottaeM4laalptldeadaadonmtmbra(oratit►e�vprvjoett.ltaSCH,.=betalnadye�datstataptojeet(es-$otnaNetiosoC epant#atz o<praviow draft dowraettt)please fill it itt. Retesrd Oetobtar 1489 4,286 dwelling units total; and 3) s uc i f f1 od co trol and 'other utility infrastructure associated w�i� tiee�i�dgntia� deveop and wetland restoration elements. �Asr�rro�rlt(Attox u9 JIIN-24-1994 16:06 FROM PLANNING TO 913109592325 P.03 Reviewing pgeneles CneaKllsi< aupp�eriter3sary t�ocrcntsrrs�b Resources AQenoy K1tY i S $aatia5&wMaways . S Document scut by lead agency _$_Coaatal Coaimiesiou X=Documatt seat by SCH S Coastal Conservancy =Suggemd distribution i Cobrado Rives Board _ CAI-EPA S Conservation _.S_Air Resources Berard S _Fzsb&came S APCD/AQMD ' __„forestry —JS-Califom1a Waste Martagemem Board _;L__OMce of I11staic Preservation SWRCB:Clean Water Grants" ' Parks&Roctradon. SWRCB:Dcita Units ' Reclamation ,S—SWRCB:Water Quality i S.F.Bay Conset'+radon&Development Commission SWRCB:Wader Rights S Wata Resources(DWR) _L-Regional WQCB ti a._,_, ( inn tna e„g RO bj an) Business,transportation&Housing Youth&Adult Corrections __Acronauda Corrections California Highway Patrol IndepondaM Commissions&Offices �.�CALTRANS District+► ►� gY Commission . Depatttnent of Tratrsportadon Planning(headgtrartera) gneg--Native American Heritage Commission ,_Housing&Community Development Food&Apr culture Public bt s Monica Mout moss Conservancy Health&Welfare -.§__Stato LandsComminion . I Health Sere= Tahoe Regional Planning Agmy , State&Consurner Servic" -� pew 5a,im S Qtha State 'Attorney Se era? ,. OLA(Scbcols) ---------------------_-----•----------------- Publi'o Review Period(to be filled in by Icad agency) Starting Date Tuesday December 21ag 1993 gn&g Dm February la, 1994 Signature Date December 21. 1923 Lead Aganey(ConVlete H app Wl*): For SCH Use Oldlls' Consulting Firm.; Chambers Group., Znc, Address: 16700 Astrgn Sties DateROedvedetSCB ' 13atesReviewStu" City/StateMp: Irvin. •CA 92714 Conrad Thom Ryan- Daps to Apada Phone(714 ) 2¢1-5414' Daps to SCH Cl arawe Date Applieanft;'Koll Read Estate Group Now: ... Addtcsa: '2213 Main St,. Suite 32 _ i C'ity/Sta*Lip: guntin tom n Beach�648 _ Phone:C 114a 17-4-24 7 Retired October 1989 I uo svrrtrprrL%rAar t MjtKarrox TOTAL P.03 16 ' 02-15-94 02:51PM FROM ATTORNEY'S OFFICE P02 1 oRRica or CITY ATTORNEY CALIFORNIA# 2000 MAIN WAIST 126415 OAIL MUTTON TGLK►MONG City Attorney (714) IAX 714 su-I a10 ' February 14, 1994 Orange County Environmental Management Agency ' Environmental Planning Division 300 North Flower Street,P.O.Box 4049 Santa Ana, California 92072-4048 rAttention: Mr. Paul Lanning,Environmental Planning Division ' Re: Comments by Public on Draft EIR for the Bolsa Chiea Project Ladies and Gentlemen: Enclosed herewith please find a written transcript of the comments made by the public concerning the Bolsa Chica EIR at a special public meeting of the Huntington Beach City Council held on January 31, 1994. Pursuant to instructions from Supervisor Harriet Wieder,each of the comments � in the transcript is to be treated as a written comment on the EIR,and requires a tWi,individual and complete response. ' Thank you for your Cooperation. Sincerely, GAIL HUTTON City Attomey Enclosure: Transcript c; Honorable Mayor Linda Moulton-Patterson and Members of the City Council Michael Uberuaga,City Administrator Ray Silver,Assistant City Administrator Melanie Fallon,Director of Community Development r 17 i HARRIETT M. WIEDER • �-.I- + ' �`'►� SUPERVISOR. SECOND DISTRICT , ORANGE COUNTY HALL OF ADMINISTRATION 1 '4, • ' 10 CIVIC CENTER PLAZA.P. O- BOX 687. SANTA ANA.CALIFORNIA 92702-0687 PHONE (714) 834-3220 FAx 17i41 d34-6109 January 31, 1994 The Honorable Linda Moulton-Patterson Mayor, City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Mayor Moulton-Patterson: I regret that I am unable to attend your public meeting on the Bolsa Chica Environmental Impact Report (EIR). My schedule simply did not allow me to change a previous commitment on a short, four day notice. In my absence, I have asked Tom Mathews, the Director of Planning for the County of Orange Environmental Management Agency, to attend tonights hearing and briefly explain the EIR schedule and process. I appreciate the fact that the City Council has provided this opportunity for public input, as public comment on this vital issue is extremely important. While the County's policy is to accept written comment, rather than oral comment during the public review period on an EIR, the County will accept a transcript from tonight's meeting as input to the public review process. I would like to emphasize that at the close of the public review and comment period on the EIR on February 18, the County will respond to all the comments received. At that time, the County will begin the public hearing process for the Bolsa Chica project, during which time public hearings will be conducted both before the Orange County Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors. Because public comment is so important, I have requested that the Orange County Planning Commission hold one of their public hearings in the City of Huntington Beach. I believe that will allow for maximum public participation. In closing, I would like to reaffirm my commitment to seeing that an appropriate plan for restoration of the Bolsa Chica is approved and implemented. The future of this precious natural resource must be insured and I will continue to work toward that goal. Sincerely, • L HARRIETT M. WIEDER Supervisor, Second District HMW:sc i COSTA MESA•CYPRESS•GARDEN GROVE•HUNTINGTON BEACH•LOS ALAMITOS ROSSMOOR•SANTA ANA•SEAL BEACH-STANTON SUNSET BEACH 18 s ' KOLL \ccpurt bead'. Caliturni: Q-1610-2 Si Mt. Kull C-umpam (714)833-3010 July 15,1992 Mr.Robert J.Franz Deputy City Administrator CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach,California 92648 �) Re: Bolsa Chica S2gdfic Plan FIR Dear Bob: With regard to the 1992 Bolsa Chica FIR by David Taussig and Associates, overall, the report is clear, concise and well-prepared. However, there appear to be a few inaccuracies and factual misstatements which we recommend be corrected in order to avoid misrepresentation of project facts. Because an incorrect number or fact may be restated several times throughout the document, I will not attempt to identify each occurrence in this letter. Rather, below I have listed a general accounting of these items by section. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: 1. The opening sentence refers to"the development of the Bolsa Chica Specific Plan". Perhaps it would be more appropriate to simply say "the development of Bolsa Chica" since there currently is no �i approved Specific Plan and this report looks at more than one development alternative. 2. The acreage fgurc for the project is 1655,not 1654 acres. 3. The Bolsa Chica Linear Regional Park totals 106 acres,not 80 acres. 4. Alternative no. 1 states, "Development would occur on consolidated acreage in the lowlands". This statement leaves the reader with the impression that 4884 DU's are being built in the lowlands. There s no mention of the mesa area,where the vast majority of homes will be built. 5. The Wetlands Restoration Plan encompasses 1101 acres vs. 1132 acres. 6. The"Cross Gap"should be referred to as the"Bolsa Chica Street Extension"throughout the document. 7. Alternative no.2 indicates that there will be"11S acres of commercial retail development" and later in the document projects revenues that would be generated from these. Our industry research (which includes direct discussions with retailers) indicates that there is little or no demand for commercial acreage at Bolsa Chica for the following reasons: I t Mr.Robert J.Franz July 15, 1992 Page 2 A. An abundant supply of existing commercial property adjacent to Bolsa Chica, as well as additional commercial property proposed in adjoining projects;and B. Inadequate location, i.e., retailers need to be on high-visibility major thoroughfares, (such as Warner Avenue) with quick and easy ingress and efxess. Therefore, we do not believe the revenue projections from the 11.5 acres of commercial retail can be substantiated. Additionally,the FIR has not attached a feasibility analysis to suggest otherwise. Retailers look at area demographics and locate their businesses where there is a high likelihood of success. 8. Alternative no.2 also leads the reader to believe that development is only"occurring in the lowlands'. 9. Alternative no. 3 states that, "Wetlands restoration is also projected to occur in this alternative.* Because a portion of the wetlands would be restored by the developer gnly if lowland development is permitted,there can be no presumption of any wetland restoration by the developer within a mesa-only alternative. This is a major misconception. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 1. Paragraph two incorrectly details the breakdown of the wetlands system. The correct breakdown is as follows: Item Acres Wetlands 1000 ESHA's(non-park) 66 Buffers 35 Total 1101 2. The entire Bolsa Chica Street Extension covers 20.5 acres vs.3 acres. 3. The report states that, "the 'Cross Gap' Connector will be completed early in the development time table . . " it should be reiterated that the Project does not create: sufficient traffic impacts to warrant construction of this road. Therefore the developer would only participate in a "fair share' portion of this roadway if the City deemed its construction to be a regional requirement. Additionally,the issuance of a U.S.Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 permit,wetlands impact and ' mitigation requirements and offsite flood issues may delay or eliminate the City's ability to begin construction of this roadway "early in the development time table". For example, offsite flood improvements alone are not expected to be complete until 1998. INTRODUCTION: 1. Exhibit I - Exist Land Use: The Oceanview School District property is incorrect) identified as m8 I pe y Y "Bunker Facilities". 2. Page 2, Section I, Part B, Paragraph 2: "Specific flan" should r, ad "the Project". Note this issue throughout the report. a Mr.Robert J. Franz July 15, 1992 Page 3 3. Page 5,Section II, Part A, Paragraph 1: 34 Planning Areas vs. 36. Also correct other noted acreages, etc. Page 6,Part D,first sentence"1993/94"should read*2003/04'. Second Paragraph, The major exception to this is the Cross Gap roadway which 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". Again, for all the reasons detailed previously: A. It is unclear how the construction of this roadway would be funded and, 4 B. Flood and wetland issues will impact construction timing. 4. Page 8,Paragraph 3 states that,"the deficit is largely a result of. . . a local City Type 2 Fire Station". If the maintenance of the Bolsa Chica Street Extension is also allocated during this time period,then that maintenance would be a component of the deficit. Since it is very unlikely that the extension could be built during the first two years of the project, any costs associated with maintenance of the roadway would have to be eliminated from the project proforma. Bob, thank you for the opportunity to bring these items to your attention. We look forward to reviewing the final draft of the Bolsa Chica FIR. Sincerely, THE KOL COMPANY G� �l Vice esident Development GC:ns:o\Fn\eobo-,O cc: Mike Adams Laura Phillips David Taussig. Lucy Dunn Larry Brose 19 t� sY r 7 r „STUDY PLAN AND OUTLINE a+ *`-�r t b <ry1�1VIRONMEN'TAL IIVIPACT STATEMENT/ r f ENVIRONMENPAL IMPACT REPORT (3IS/ElR) AAWA a + FOR THE BOLSA CHICA LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AND p ru „WETLANDS RESTORATION PROJECT vi AV � Ara � d�•E�H. #+ "�"�`' �q'z�'�'`sr�^�� ;r "��i� ► I'��� � vetab+�+ .a},ya' q�'c�" y"'x'a�!'�'fi�• ��re tywa. � +tl( -for Fk epared for- . Lti �r D OFJFIUNTINGTON BEACH t of Comum=ty Develop�neat 000 Main Street untington Beacb,0tCA " 2648 jj w'4 �� .0v Prepared by,. � a +g r � CT�[AMBE�S GROUP,INC } ?61 East Garry Avenue, Suite A q , . Santa Ana, California 92705 714/261-5414 Aw s '"ads qua r. xY, y-V— r P4A y !► FE 3RUARY 1991 Revised June 1991 A 1 STUDY PLAN AND OUTLINE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT/ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (ELS/EIR) FOR THIS BOLSA CHICA LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AND WETLANDS RESTORATION PROJECT SECTION 1 - INTRODUCTION This study plan describes in detail the proposed approach and schedule for producing the EIS/EIR for the Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Program (LCP) and the Wetlands Restoration Project. The CEQA project is the preparation and consideration by the City of Huntington Beach of the LCP for Bolsa Chica, which includes a Land Use Plan, Specific Plan, and Wetlands Restoration Plan. The federal action triggering NEPA compliance is the consideration by the Corps of Engineers of federal permits for the Wetlands Restoration Project. The general approach to this study will be to compile a data base from available information, review the data for accuracy and adequacy, and augment it where necessary. Original field work is proposed at this time only to recheck specific areas and to fill known data gaps. The major emphasis of the study will be the identification and careful screening of potential alternatives for development of the area. Specific documentation will be developed to address the No-Project alternative for CEQA and the No-Action alternative(s) under NEPA/Section 404. The alternatives to be considered will consist of the Bolsa Chica Planning Coalition (BCPC) identified land use alternatives, required Federal alternatives and other alternatives developed through the scoping process. A comprehensive impact analysis will be performed on each alternative selected for detailed analysis. In addition, detailed mitigation measures will be developed for all significant impacts and the effectiveness of these mitigation measures carefully analyzed. A comprehensive cumulative impact analysis will also be prepared for the proposed project. In that the document must meet content requirements of both state and federal law,close coordination with the City of Huntington Beach and the Corps during all phases of document preparation is mandatory. This study plan contains a description of the major study phases and outputs. It also contains a topical outline for the EIS/EIR and an annotated version which describes the technical and scope of study for each environmental issue. It also contains an outline for the required Federal Biological Assessment. In additio - w#tl be used tos- assew I WIl eSeft 't a criteria-will be quern ti i;i`e whve sriing or exceed#ng these IeveFs wile eansidd sfgnificanl and will be n�igateds'7ta t ex febslbt The draft study plan was prepared early in the study to allow project staff and the parties within the BCPC Working Group to review the study methodologies and comment as necessary. This early review of methodologies have solidified understanding about the scope of studies to be provided. Changes to the Study Plan, occurred as a result of the 1 Scoping Process and Working Group comment. These comments have been integrated into this Final Study Plan. r 2 STUDY PLAN AND OUTLM*. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATI'AU 4T/ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIS/EIR) FOR THE BOLSA CHICA LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AND �. WETLANDS RESTORATION PROJECT SECTION 2 - EISIM OUTLINE AND SCOPE OF G STUDIES The EIS/EIR will be prepared to conform with the standards of the National Environmental Policy Act(NEPA) and the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA). Specifically,the document will conform with the following Federal requirements: • NEPA as implemented by Executive Order 11541, 42 USC 4321 et seq.: • The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations, Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 1500 et seq: and • Corps of Engineers, 33 CFR Part 230 - Policies and Procedures for Implementation of NEPA (Army Reg. 200-2). • Corps of Engineers, 33 CFR Parts 320-330 - Wetlands Regulations. The document will also be prepared to conform with the following State requirements: j • CEQA as promulgated by State of California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21000 et seq: • The Guidelines for Implementation of the CEQA, California Code of Regulation Section 15000 et seq: and • City of Huntington Beach guidelines for Implementation of the CEQA. The EIS/EIR will contain the pertinent and lawfully required content of both NEPA and CEQA, arranged in the order indicated by the topical outline contained in Attachment A. Based on the topical outline,each major document section is discussed in annotated outline form on the following pages. 3 ANNOTATED OUTLINE AND SCOPE OF STUDY EWEIR FOR THE BOLSA CHICA LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AND WETLANDS RESTORATION PROJECT COVER ST1El;'I' This item consists of a one page abstract of the proposed action as required by NEPA. The proposed CEQA project also will be described. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This section provides an issue-oriented narrative of the implications of the proposed federal action and local project and a discussion of all pertinent items of interest or controversy. The federal action and local project will be delineated. The section will summarize the pertinent alternatives, focusing on a comparative analysis of each resource issue discussed in the main text. The comparative analysis will be presented in table format. Cumulative impacts and mitigation will also be included. An environmentally superior alternative will be identified. The summary section will contain the following subsections: ' SA Summary of Federal Action Summary of Proposed Federal Action and Alternatives S.2 Summary of Local Project (CEQA) Summary of Proposed Project and Alternatives S.3 Summary of Major Findings and Conclusions Introduction Areas of Controversy Unresolved Issues Relationship to Environmental Quality Statutes Permits, Federal and Local Approvals Previously Prepared Documents (NEPA and CEQA) S.4 Comparison and Evaluation of Alternatives (Table) S.5 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures (Table) 4 I TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 1 - INTRODUCTION The Introduction section will provide useful information about the organization of the i EIS/EIR, including an index of where the various NEPA and CEQA-required sections are located. Also, pertinent information about the EIS/EIR process will be presented. Specific subsections are as follows: 1.1 Organization of the EIS✓EIR 1.2 EWEIR Process and Index SECTION 2 - PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE ACTION This section will outline the project objectives of the Corps, the City and the project proponent and permit applicant. It will clearly state the: nature of the activity requiring federal and local action and give the relevant operational, social, economic and environmental objectives to be achieved from project implementation. The subsections to be included are as follows: 2.1 Federal Action and Objectives 2.2 Local Project ct and Objectives ctive s 2.3 Objectives of the Project Proponent and Permit Applicant SECTION 3 - DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Proposed Action This section will address important aspects of the propm ed action and project. From a federal perspective, the study will address the Wetlands Restoration Project, including those impacts associated with the dredging and filling of Waters of the United States pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, as amended. The Restoration Project area is part of the bolsa Chica Specific Plan/Local Coastal Program being considered for adoption by the City of Huntington Beach. From a local perspective,,"-environmental document will address the following proposed activitiiw� 5 • Amendment of the City's Local Coastal Program • Approval of a General Plan Amendment • Adoption of a Specific Plan for Bolsa Chica • Approval of a Zone Change Relative to the Specific Plan • Approval of a Wetlands Restoration Plan • Annexation of Unincorporated Areas of Bolsa Chica to the City • Approval of a Development Agreement The EIS/EIR will also address the actions of other CEQA responsible agencies for specific actions on the site. These agencies include the California State Lands Commission,County of Orange, Local Agency Formation Commission and California Department of Transportation. The permitting requirements of these agencies will be considered in the scope of the document and will function as a careful check to assure that the impact analysis outlines the impacts of each of these actions. The EIS/EIR will identify the federal cooperating agencies (such as U.S. Fish and Wildlife and others) and the actions that they will be required to take in connection with the Corps' permit action. This section will also include a description of those projects that will be considered in the cumulative impact analysis. These projects will include existing, approved, proposed or reasonably foreseeable projects within the cumulative study area. The study araa-To� cumulative effects vAll be somewhat different for the various issues. From a traffic T standpoint, for instance, the cumulative area may be one or two miles surrounding the site. For wetlands biology, the cumulative area may extend to the Ports on the mouth a Newport Bay on the south. In addition, offshore activity affecting Bolsa Chica such as oil operators in state tidelands, will be included in the cumulative analysis. Alternatives Identification and Screening Identification and analysis of alternatives in a joint EIS/EIR document for a project of the magnitude of the proposed project is one of the more difficult aspects of the overall assessment. CEQA requires that a range of reasonable alternatives be explored and relative impacts of each of these alternatives be defined. NEPA also requires that feasible alternatives to the proposed action be analyzed in near equal depth as the proposed action. The challenge therefore will be to provide a thorough analysis of all reasonable alternatives to levels adequate to meet the requirements of NEPA and CEQA without producing an unnecessarily cumbersome or unwieldy document. ' Chambers Group has developed a method of performing a comprehensive impact analysis that will meet the requirements of NEPA and CEQA while still screening alternatives to be considered in detail to a manageable level. This method consists of producing a detailed screening analysis that will be made an appendix to the EIS/EIR and will be summarized within the main text of the EIS/EIR. 6 Numerous alternatives consisting of different development/wetland restoration scenarios have been developed-A.wMAyprietrof other alternatives must be considered ranging from development of alternative sites and alternative uses of the parcel. Two No Action Alternatives must also be considered including no development of the site entire (CEQA No Project Alternative) and no filling or alteration of Waters of the United States (NEPA No Action Alternative). Additionally, a CEQA No-Project option will be considered consisting of development of the property under the conditionally approved County LUP. our methodology will be to first identify all potential alternatives to the proposed action. These will be identified through meetings with the BCPC Working Group, the scoping process and consulting with other agencies. A set of initial screening criteria will be developed encompassing both development feasibility and environmental feasibility. These initial alternatives will be screened to eliminate the alternatives that are clearly not feasible. Those alternatives not eliminated in the initial screening will be more intensively evaluated and tested against a more detailed and rigorous screening procedure. Those alternatives remaining after the second screening plus, the No Action Alternatives and any mandatory alternatives, will be intensively studied in the EIS/EIR. The alternative eliminated from further consideration during the screening/scoping process will be identified in the document and the reasons for their elirrdnation will be briefly discussed to satisfy the requirements of NEPA and CEQA that all reasonably feasible alterations were considered. Chambers Group would recommend that the screening analysis be carried out in consultation with the city, and members of the BCPC Working Group. The City has also requested that alternatives screening be the subject of one or more public workshops. Screening criteria would be formulated in consultation with lead agencies, and the public. A thorough documentation of the screening process and the rationale for elimination of alternatives will be maintained so that this information will be readily available in the EIS/EIR. The alternatives selected for detailed study will be compared and analyzed via table or chart. A listing of the subsections to be included in Section 3 is included below: 3.1 The Proposed Action (Overview) 3.2 Alternatives Development and Screening Alternatives Involved with the Federal Action Alternatives Involved with the Local Project Screening Analysis and Comparison 3.3 Alternatives Eliminated From Further Consideration (including alternatives eliminated previously) 3.4 Description of Alternatives Considered in Detail 7 3.5 Comparative Analysis of Alternatives Considered 3.6 Other Alternatives (CF.QA) SECTION 4 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES This section provides the detailed baseline environmental information upon which the impacts will be evaluated. It also provides the impact evaluation for all resource topics and issues for all alternatives selected for detailed evaluation. Both construction-related effects and operational effects are discussed as are the direct, indirect and cumulative effects. The resource issues to be covered in this section are described below and each project alternative will be addressed to a similar level of detail. The scope of issues discussed below reflects scoping input as well as BCPC Working Group input. Each major resource issue is discussed with respect to four areas as follows: • Environmental•Baseline: Includes a-thorough discussion of the existing i tiow. services, physical and human setting of the project site and study area. • Environmental Impacts: Provides an analysis of the project alternative's project- related and cumulative impacts in a quantitative and qualitative manner, utilizing various significance criteria. • Mitigation Measures: Discusses the measures that are incorporated into the project alternatives or proposed which will minimize environmental impacts. • Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts: Indicates whether or not significant impacts remain after implementation of mitigation. The resource issues to be assessed and the technical approach to the analysis are given in the sections which follow. j 4.1 LAND.USE] A 4.1.1 Environmental Baseline The Environmental Baseline will include a comprehensive description of existing uses of lands in the project study area. Sources of information on existing land uses in the study area include city general paln and zoning maps, aerial photographs, and information contained in Draft Bolsa Chica Coastal Plan and Specific Plan. The various land uses, i.e., residential, commercial, recreational, transportation, etc. will be described and mapped. All uses within 3,000 feet of the project boundary will be included in the mapping. Information taken from the Specific Plan and that contained on existing land use maps will be selectively confirmed by windshield survey. 8 I Another aspect of the baseline conditions will be a comprehensive review and presentation of local, state and federal plans and policies affecting the site. The major plans to be presented include the Huntington Beach General Plan and various elements including the City LCP, the Bolsa Chica I&prepared by the County of Orange, and State Beach plans. Other important aspects to be reviewed include plans for traffic circulation and flood control improvements in the area. Regional plans of importance include SCAG's Growth Management and Regional Mobility Plan, and SCAQMD's Regional Air Quality Management , Plan. From the Federal perspective, wetlands areas subject to review and approval under f, the Clean Water Act and pertinent regulations affecting use of land such as EPA's wetlands delineation will be discussed. Review and presentation of these land use plans and guidelines will provide the regulatory and policy basis governing the area. Another purpose of reviewing these plans is to quantify the level of future use of the area as envisioned in the existing plans and the proposed Bolsa Chica LCP. An additional aspect of the baseline analysis will be to quantify and present information about landownership and private uses and plans (such as plans for continued or expanded oil operations). 4.1.2 Pro a impact Anal is Impact Significance Criteria For this analysis, a significant impact will result from the project being inconsistent with applicable plans and policy. Thus, the determination of the level of consistency between plans, programs and the proposed action will indicate significance or nonsignificance. The actual land use standards or policies will be the primary measure of the degree of consistency. This follows for the more physical impacts related to compatibility. The project's compatibility with adjacent existing land use will be judged on the basis of there being a , logical transition of densities and a recognition that neighborhood concepts and concerns, as described in the General Plan, are applicable and shall be adhered to. Land Use Impacts Concerning physical land use impacts, the proposed alternatives will focus on the issue of compatibility with existing surrounding uses. Compatibility will be assessed from the standpoint of density, i.e., that a normal transition of developed densities occurs between existing and proposed uses, and similarity of uses. It will also be assessed from a neighborhood concept perspective and will evaluate the extent that the project alternatives intrude upon or divide cohesive neighborhoods. This analysis will touch upon community design concepts such as architecture, streetscape and entry themes which are already within the plan and which may help mitigate these impacts. 9 Project alternatives also have the potential to physically alter the distribution of land uses within the City. These effects will be quantified and related to applicable standards contained in the various general plan elements. The physical arrangement of developed uses in the Specific Plan/LCP will be assessed for other impact and compatibility features, such as provision of tie-ins to local and regional trail systems, provision of adequate park acreage, and provision of appropriate buffering of wildlife, recreation, resource production, and hazard areas. With respect to regulatory land use impacts, a systematic analysis of all land use and regulatory policies applicable to the proposed action will be undertaken. Appropriate policy will be found in local plans as identified previously. The extent to which the proposed alternatives can be shown to be consistent with these policy and criteria will be assessed. On the local level, the important policy is contained in the City General Plan and various elements, including the City LCP. As Is required in an EIS, an identification of all applicable federal, state and local laws statutes and regulations that affect the action will be provided as well. An important regulatory analysis for the action, however, will be the consistency. determination for the proposed LCP relative to the policies contained in the-Californi"ai_ Coastal Acts. Projects requiring Federal actions, such as the granting of Section 404 and 10 permits, must be undertaken in a manner consistent with, to the maximum extent practicable, the California Coastal Act. Major consideration Is given in the Coastal Act i to preservation of biological resources,preservation and enhancement of natural resources, coastal access, and recreation. The extent to which proposed alternatives meet these criteria is an important project consideration. Therefore, a federal Coastal Act consistency determination will be included as part of the regulatory analysis within the EIS/EIR. Considerable attention will be given to the Wetlands Restoration Plan and its consistency with Coastal Act requirements. Other considerations for this analysis will include the effect of enhanced coastal access versus the tradeoff of eliminating public beach area for provision of a tidal inlet. Cumulative Impact A*ysis ' All potential cumulative land uses or activities whose impacts could add to those of the proposed alternatives to create more severe impacts on land use will be identified and quantified. Such cumulative uses could include major land development projects within the City of Huntington Beach or the surrounding communities, major transportation projects, developments affecting federal lands(such as Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station or federal offshore waters), and others. The effects of these cumulative projects or plans will be assessed using the same significance criteria as for project specific impacts. 10 4.1.3 Mitigation Meastn�es Mitigation measures will be developed for all impacts which are considered significant. Mitigation measures for physical land use relationships w[ll involve minor physical changes i to the alternatives, incorporating such things as adequate buffering, enhancement of resources and minor shifts in development density. Mitigation measures for policy related , impacts will include modification of the plan or project implementation strategies to satisfy or comply with regulatory or agency provisions. In addition, the document will specifically analyze the applicability of the EPA/Corps Memorandum of Agreement Concerning the Determination of Mitigation Under the Clean Water Act, February 1990. 4.1.4 Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts The impacts that remain significant after mitigation,based on impact significance criteria, will be discussed in this section. The discussion will include an analysis of the ability of various alternatives to reduce identified impacts. 4.2 EARTH RESOURCES 4.2.1 Environmental Baseline The environmental baseline will be summarized from the: extensive geotechnical studies conducted on site by the landowners as well as front the regional literature base. , Additionally,the applicant is conducting hazardous waste stove"of the site.-The approach will be to critically review the available studies, provide spot checks where necessary and synthesize the information into a comprehensive discussion. 4.2.2 Protect Impact Analys Impact Significant Criteria Significance of impacts-Wff be determined based on the following criteria: i • An existing geological hazard will have the potential to create major structural , damage to new structures built on the site or to increase the potential for injury or loss of human life. • The proposed project will create a geological condition or exacerbate an existing condition that will have a potential to create structural damage on or off site. • The proposed project exposes residents or the general public to hazardous or toxic wastes. 11 Earth Resource Impacts A comprehensive impact analysis will be prepared for each alternative. This analysis will Include the potential for significant impact from landform alteration and grading, and the impact associated with increased erosion potential. The overall seismic related impacts will be determined based both on potential for fault rupture, severe seismic shaking and liquefaction. The potential effect of a Tsunami will be addressed as well. Other impacts associated with development including potential slope failure and subsidence will be described. Potential engineering concerns including expansive soils will be identified, as will the impacts of channel construction, which will be coordinated with the oceanography section. Based on the studies performed by the landowners-and our-review of this information, we will identify any potential impacts associated with toxic and hazardous waste. This analysis will include both areas proposed for construction of residential units as well as areas where marsh restoration is proposed. Cumulative Impact Analysis The overall cumulative effect of construction of various projects within the Huntington Beach area will be described. This analysis will focus on the relative seismic impacts In the area and the suitability for construction and relative seismic risks within the area. 4.2.3 Mitigation Meastues Mitigation measures will be formulated for all significant project specific and cumulative impacts. It is anticipated that these mitigation measures will include setbacks from fault zones, construction methods and site specific investigations prior to construction. Remediation programs may also be identified In particular areas where toxic or hazardous materials may be present. 4.2.4 Unavoidable Slodficant Adverse Impacts The impacts that remain significant after mitigation,based on impact significance criteria, will be discussed in this section. The discussion will include an analysis of the ability of various alternatives to reduce identified impacts. 12 4.3 SURFACE AND GROUNDWATER HYDROLOGY , 4.3.1 Environmental Baseline The existing hydrological environment will be described based upon the existing data base as well as from onsite analysis. Existing runoff from the site will be estimated and existing drainage patterns on site including where site drainage now enters the wetlands will be described. Based on Orange County EMA data, the location and capacity of existing flood control features with emphasis upon the flood control channel on site will be presented. Existing flood potential on site will be defined both from overflow of flood control channels, sheet flow and from existing tidal surges. Groundwater onsite will be addre.med based on existing geotechnical and groundwater hydrological studies: The depth to groundwater in various portions-of the site as well as quality of the groundwater onsite and in the project victmitty will be assessed.*-, 4.3.2 Protect Impact Analysis Impact Significance Criteria j Hydrological impacts will be considered significant if peak runoff from the site is increased above baseline conditions. It will also be considered significant if existing or proposed units are subject to flooding from a 100-year or less event. Any potential degradation of the groundwater quality or decrease in potable groundwater supplies will be considered significant. Hydrologic Impacts Each alternative will be evaluated as to the increases in runoff from the proposed development. The overall increase in impervious surfaces as well as increases in peak ' runoff will be calculated. Areas of potential inundation from flooding will be identified from both overflow of existing channels as well as from. potential tidal surges (with or without the second channel opening). Any impact to groundwater resources will also be identified. Cumulative Impact Analysis , The overall cumulative impact of the proposed project rel.ative to the increased runoff in the region, the overall flood potential and the potential Impacts to groundwater will be analyzed. Consideration will be given to existing, planned and proposed projects that will contribute to cumulative effects. 13 i 4.3.3 Mitbration Measiaes Measures to mitigate any significant impact will be identified. These measures will include use of detention basins, improvement to flood control facilities, and flood control measures such as raising building pad elevations and construction of dikes and berms. 4.3.4 unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts The impacts that remain significant after mitigation,based on impact significance criteria, will be discussed in this section. The discussion will include an analysis of the ability of various alternatives to reduce identified impacts. 4.4 WATER QUALITY 4.4.1 Environmental Baseline There is some existing information on water and sediment quality in the Bolsa Chica. These data include measurements on water chemistry and chemicals in the sediments done by Feldmeth following the Phase I restoration (R.C. Feldmeth 1980 "Survey of Inner and Outer Bolsa Bays: Recolonization and Recruitment Study") as well as some more recent studies by Earth Technology on contaminants in soils and sediments. Because contaminants may be released to waters during dredging and filling activities,an adequate baseline of contaminants In sediments to be dredged and those to be used for fill is essential. The adequacy of the existing baseline for this analysis is marginal. We propose that additional sediment sampling and analysis be conducted. To determine the potential release of contaminants in the sediments an elutriate test will be done. The elutriate tests are chemical analysis of a filtered liquid extract prepared by mixing sediments with water. The program we propose would consist of sediment sampling at ten stations representing different environments within the wetlands. Sediments will. be analyzed for metals, pesticides, tributyltin, PAH and petroleum hydrocarbons. Elutriate tests will be done on the contaminants. . This sampling will add considerably to the precision of the impact analysis. However,-even without the sampling, existing data could be used as a baseline. Water and sediment quality data are available for offshore waters near Bolsa Chica and for Huntington Harbour and should be adequate for this assessment. Chambers Group has many years' worth of chemical data on nearshore sediments and waters at a station off Huntington Cliffs just down coast from Bolsa Chica as part of annual monitoring for a petroleum wastewater discharge. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has some data in 1 sediment quality from its Surfside-Sunset Beach Replenishment Program just up the coast from Bolsa Chica. The Southern California Coastal Water Research Project(SCCWRP)has recently collected data on chemical levels in sediments in Huntington Harbour. Other data may be available for the Homeowner Association of Huntington Harbour. 14 I The existing data, base and any additional information will be used to prepare tables and , maps of contaminants in sediments and waters throughout the project area. To the extent possible, these data will look at seasonal changes in these parameters. Feldmeth in his 1980 study found much higher levels of contaminants in. April compared to September because of inputs from urban runoff during the rainy season. The analysis of the existing water and sediment quality in the project area will delineate areas and seasons where problems may exist. 4.4.2 Prolect Impact Analysis Impact SIgnificance Criteria In terms of the magnitude of effects, an impact will be o:)nsidered significant If: • Water quality criteria are violated as a result of ftscharges or other operations, or • Although criteria may not be violated, water quality parameters or chemicals are considered to be altered to a significant degree as compared to baseline conditions and such alterations are judged to be persistent (e.g.,, last on the order of years or for larger changes, months). A change in a water quality parameter may not violate standards but might have significant biological effects. Water or sediment quality impacts will be considered low when small changes occur for brief periods of time. Impacts will be considered local when they occur In the Immediate vicinity of a discharge or localized area around the project. Impacts of regional significance will be considered to involve alterations impacting 10 percent or more of the: area within the region. Water Quality Impact , Construction impacts on marine and estuarine water quality will most likely come from dredge and fill activities in the wetlands. Both dredge and fill have the potential to release contaminants in the sediments into the water. Tbew :impacts will. be evaluated by examining the compositfoAt the sediments to be dredged and/or used for fillip Levels of contaminants in sediments will be compared to water quality criteria and to levels known to cause harmful effects to marine and aquatic organisms. Other impacts to marine and estuarine water quality during construction could come from accidents or runoff during constructioaof.upland development such as residential buildings and roads. Potential Impacts will be identified from a thorough evaluation of the project description and an assumption of reasonable worst case poeiailbilitfes for contamination. Long-term impacts on water quality will be related to changes in circulation patterns caused by dredge and fill in the wetlands and by construction of an ocean inlet. The Corps of Engineers' Waterways Experiment Station (WES) modeling studies will be the primary 15 tool used in this portion of the analysis. These studies address changes in tidal circulation, transport and water quality. Chambers Group is experienced in using WES studies to evaluate water quality effects as we performed a similar analysis when we prepared the water quality portion of the Long Beach/Los Angeles Harbor 2020 Plan EIS/EIR. Other long-term impacts on water quality which must be addressed include urban runoff from residential development and impacts on water quality from modification of the Wintersburg Flood Control Channel. These impacts will be addressed by using a reasonable worst case scenario based on the project description. The water quality analysis will be carried out in equal depth for each alternative. Cumulative Impact C p Analysis The first step in the cumulative impact analysis will be to evaluate potential foreseeable sources of degradation of water quality within Bolsa, offshore of Bolsa Chica and in Huntington Harbour. These sources would include modifications in Huntington Harbour as well as increased boat traffic, offshore oil discharges, Orange County Sanitation District discharges, and urban runoff. The second step in the cumulative analysis is to obtain information on current discharge levels from existing facilities and input on runoff (the Southern California Coastal Water Research Project (SCCWRP) has data on current levels of runoff) and to estimate likely future levels at various points of time within the next ten to twenty years. These data will be used to develop a time series of projected inputs. The contribution to these inputs from the Bolsa Chica project will be estimated to evaluate its relative impact on future water quality in the Bolsa Chica area. 4.4.3 Mitigation Meastaes A list of mitigation measures to eliminate or reduce impacts on water quality from the Bolsa Chica project will be developed. This list will be developed from a variety of sources including the project team's experience with similar projects, evaluation of the literature on similar projects, consultation with concerned agencies, and measures proposed in the project description. Measures would include ways to reduce turbidity and sediment spread (such as silt curtains, silt basins and dikes) during construction and possible changes in dredge and fill configuration to eliminate long-term impacts. Potential mitigation measures will be evaluated both for their feasibility and for their effectiveness. Effectiveness would be determined by analyzing to what extent the proposed mitigation measure would eliminate or reduce the identified impact. 16 4.4.4 Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts The impacts that remain significant after mitigation,based on impact significance criteria, will be discussed in this section. The discussion will include an analysis of the ability of various alternatives to reduce identified impacts. 4.5 OCEANOGRAPHY 4.5.1 Environmental Baseline Based on the extent of work performed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on the Bolsa Chica Project as well as on beach erosion problems at Surfside/Sunset Beaches just upcoast from Bolsa Chica, the baseline for the oceanographic analysis portion of the EIS/EIR should be adequate. The littoral drift processes operating along-the coast between Anaheim Bay and Newport Bay have been studied by the Corps of Engineers (for example, Hales 1980). Moffat and Nichol Engineers have done studies of tidal elevations, flow velocities and circulation dynamics in the Bolsa Chica wetlands and in Huntington Harbour. These data were used in the WES models. The existing data base will be evaluated by Dr. Robert Guza, an expert in southern California nearshore coastal processes. He will verify the adequacy of the information for the analysis. The baseline data will be used to prepare a description of relevant oceanographic processes in the project area and also to independently evaluate the results of the WES models. 4.5.2 Prof= Impact Analysis , Impact Significance Criteria An oceanographic impact will be considered significant if; • It causes interference with littoral processes, and/or • It creates areas within the Bolsa wetlands or in Huntington Harbour where lack of circulation would cause water quality criteria to be: violated or where there could be water quality problems that would have negative biological effects even if formal criteria were not violated. • It causes a persistent,measurable change in current;patterns in Huntington Harbour or in wave or current patterns offshore. Oceanographic Impacts , An analysis of the existing littoral drift regime as well as wave and current patterns along the Bolsa Chica shoreline will be performed to assess the: potential effects of a direct 17 ocean inlet to Bolsa Bay. An analysis of changes in circulation patterns within Bolsa Bay and Huntington Harbour will identify areas where wetlands restoration might cause problems in circulation which could lead to oxygen depletion or other water quality problems. The impact analysis will be performed against predetermined significance criteria. By proceeding in this manner, the analysis should be objective and unbiased. The most recent WFS models will be used as the primary basis of the impact analysis. Chambers Group has recently used WES models for impact analysis in its preparation of the oceanographic and water quality sections of the Los Angeles/Long Beach Harbors 2020 Plan EIS/R. Project oceanographer Dr. Robert Guza, who has nearly 20 years' experience studying southern California nearshore coastal processes will also independently evaluate the veracity of the models. Cumulative Impact Analysis The principal issue which must be addressed in the cumulative impact analysis is cumulative impacts on sand transport. Bolsa Chica is in the San Pedro littoral cell. The 17 mile stretch of coastline from Anaheim Bay to San Pedro Bay has a net southerly drift of 276,000 cubic yards and has experienced severe beach erosion problems particularly at 1 Surfside and Sunset Beaches just upcoast from Bolsa Chica but also downcoast in the Newport Beach area near Newport Canyon. The cumulative analysis will examine the sediment budget for this area as it will be affected by a number of relevant current and future projects. Among the relevant projects that will be addressed in the cumulative i analysis are the proposed construction of a new ocean entrance for recreational boating traffic in Anaheim Bay, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' beach replenishment program at Surfside/Sunset Beaches and flood control construction on the Santa Ana River. Effects on littoral processes will be addressed with and without the ocean inlet at Bolsa Chica. Cumulative impacts on circulation and water quality in Huntington Harbour must also be addressed. Other projects which might impact these processes in Huntington Harbour Include the proposed new ocean entrance, wetlands restoration activities and possible ' harbor modifications. 4.5.3 Mitigation Measures A list of mitigation measures to eliminate or reduce impacts on littoral processes and to avoid or alleviate circulation problems will be developed. This list will be developed from a variety of sources including the project teams' experience with similar projects, the WES studies, and evaluation of the literature on similar projects. Potential mitigation measures which could include changes in design would be evaluated for their feasibility, cost and effectiveness. Effectiveness would be determined by analyzing to what extent the proposed mitigation measure would eliminate or reduce the identified impact. 18 4.5.4 Unavoldable Significant Adverse Impacts The impacts that remain significant after mitigation,based on impact significance criteria, will be discussed in this section. The discussion will include an analysis of the ability of various alternatives to reduce identified impacts. A 4.6 14IARINE! QUATI C BIOLOGY 4.6.1 Environmental Baseline During the last decade, there have been extensive biological surveys within the Bolsa Chica wetlands. These existing data include studies by the California Department of Fish and Game of fish and bivalves in the Bolsa Chica wetlands; studies by Dr. Robert Feldmeth on fish and invertebrates in the Bolsa Chica wetlands; and studies by Chambers Group (as part of the MITECH team working under contract to the U.:i. Army Corps of Engineers) on estuarine fish populations. These studies provide a good baseline on fish and invertebrate populations as they vary seasonally and as they have changed following the Phase I restoration of the Bolsa Chica wetlands. There is also an extensive data base on offshore fish and invertebrate populations. Chambers Group recently completed four seasons of fish and invertebrate sampling in the coastal waters offshore Bolsa Chica. Feldmeth has also studied offshore fish populations In the Bolsa Chica area. Other baseline studies in the ares around Bolsa Chica include: • Recent fish and invertebrate sampling offshore from Surfside/Sunset Beaches by Chambers Group as part of the Corps of Engineers' studies of offshore impacts of Its Surfside/Sunset Beach Replenishment Program, • Ten years worth of data collected by Chambers Group on shallow subtidal , invertebrate populations around a petroleum wastewater outfall off Huntington Cliffs just downcoast from Bolsa Chica, and • Recent studies by Chambers Group of shallow subtidal invertebrate populations offshore Bolsa Chica as part of the assessment of impacts from the American Trader oil spill There is also an adequate data base on fish and invertebrate populations in Huntington Harbour. Chambers Group has completed four seasons of :fish sampling in the harbor and the Southern California Coastal Water Research Project has also performed biological sampling within the harbor. Because Chambers Group has performed field studies of fish and invertebrate populations throughout the project area, we are thoroughly familiar with the marine and estuarine resources of the Bolsa Chica area. This personal experience should make additional field studies for the EIS/EIR unnecessary. Chambers Group *11 compile and synthesize the 19 Nexisting data base and use it to prepare a description of marine and estuarine communities In the Bolsa Chica region as they vary on a seasonal basis and over the last decade since ' Phase I wetlands restoration. 4.6.2 Project Impact Analysis Impact Significance Criteria Significance of impact will be judged taking into consideration the fraction of and absolute numbers of the population impacted, duration of the impact, and the commercial, recreational, ecological, or legal significance of the resource. Impacts will be considered significant if they are likely to cause or substantially contribute to a measurable change in species composition or abundance in 10 percent or more of habitat within the project area for five years or longer. Two other factors that must be considered in impact assessment are 1) the length of time it takes a population to recover and 2) the spatial constraints to be considered in defining local and regional impacts. The length of time it takes a population or community to recover following termination of a disturbance will depend on a number of factors. Among these considered particularly important are 1) the natural energy level of the environment(e.g.,high energy levels versus low energy depositional areas), 2) proximity of disturbed areas to sources or recruitment, 3) characteristics of recruiting organisms (Larvae, juveniles, adults), 4) generation time of organisms, and 5) growth rates. ' Marine and Aquatic Impacts The short-term impacts of construction and restoration will be caused by the physical disturbance of dredge and fill. There may also be lethal and sublethal effects caused by turbidity and release of contaminants into the water during dredging and fill as well as by water quality degradation caused by spills and runoff during construction on the uplands. Short-term physical impacts will be evaluated by superimposing proposed areas of dredging and fill on fish and invertebrate populations in the impacted areas. Effects of turbidity and water quality degradation will be evaluated by working closely with the water quality impact analysis to ascertain locations where contaminants might cause a problem and what those contaminant levels in the water column are expected to be. The scientific literature on toxic effects of various chemicals (much of it is summarized in EPA's volume on water quality criteria) will be used to identify potentially harmful impacts. Long-term impacts caused by habitat alteration will be evaluated in two ways. The first is from empirical data from studies on fish and invertebrate populations from the Phase I restoration. For example, Feldmeth in his 1980 study found that the number of invertebrate species in Inner Bolsa Bay increased from 9 to 25 following Phase I restoration and that 8 additional fish species occurred following the Phase I restoration. Secondly, changes in habitat throughout the project area will be related to the known biology of 20 affected species. For example, increases in flushing should decrease fluctuations in temperature and salinity and species less tolerant of changes in these parameters should be able to live in areas that they previously could not tolerate. The ocean inlet should have a beneficial impact for fish like halibut and diamond turbot which use estuaries as a , nursery ground for the growth of juveniles. The biological impacts analysis will be carried out In equal depth for all project alternatives. Cumulative Impact Analysis Cumulative impacts on marine and estuarine fishes acid invertebrates are related to cumulative changes in habitat and cumulative water quality impacts. Cumulative impacts caused by habitat alteration will be evaluated by looking at changes in types of marine and estuarine habitats throughout the project region. For example, recent and proposed wetlands creation and restoration projects in Alamitos Bay will increase the amount of estuarine habitat in the region. Cumulative water quality impacts are more difficult to predict because long-term fate and effects of contaminant input are not well known. However, potential cumulative water quality problems will be identified from the water quality cumulative analysis. 4.6.3 Mitigation Measures A list of mitigation measures to eliminate or reduce identified impacts on marine and , estuarine fishes and invertebrates will be developed. This list will be developed from a variety of sources including the project teams' experience with similar projects, evaluation , of the literature on similar projects such as dredge and fill activities in harbors, consultation with concerned agencies and measures prop,Dsed in the project description. Many of the mitigation measures will be those identified to reduce water quality impacts. Others might be avoidance of sensitive areas or sensitive.seasons for example dredging in areas used by juvenile halibut in spring and summer. Potential mitigation measures will be evaluated both for their feasibility and for their effectiveness. Effectiveness would be determined by analyzing to what extent the proposed mitigation measure would eliminate or reduce the identified impact. 4.6.4 Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts The impacts that remain significant after mitigation,based on impact significance criteria, will be discussed in this section. The discussion will include an analysis of the ability of various alternatives to reduce identified impacts. 21 4.7 BOTANICAL AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES 4.7.1 Environmental Baseline 1 The environmental baseline will be compiled from existing studies prepared by both the landowner's consultants, from previous environmental documents, from agency studies and from other general sources. These data combined with data gathered by Chambers Group, under contract to the Corps of Engineers, will be used as the overall data base. The existing studies will be thoroughly reviewed and data gaps or inconsistencies identified and resolved. Field work is expected to be limited to field checks with the exception of the threatened/endangered/candidate plant survey. Based on our preliminary analysis, no systematic plant survey has been conducted; We propose to conduct a spring-time survey in order to identify sensitive plant species both within upland and marsh habitats. The analysis of vegetation will include a detailed vegetation map and will include a 1 quantitative estimate of the extent of each vegetation type. A species list will be prepared summarizing results of previous surveys. This analysis will focus on both upland and marsh vegetation. Emphasis will also be placed on sensitive or unique habitats such as the remanent secondary dune community along Pacific Coast Highway and the Baccharis community on Rabbit Island. Avian resource analysis will focus upon the types of habitats and the species occurrence and will depend upon the extensive literature base existing for the area. The extent of habitat such as open water, mudflats, etc. will be estimated for these species. Three ' federally listed and one State listed bird species occur within the area on a regular basis. The status and overall occurrence of these species will be obtained from California Fish and Game and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service documents. ' Amphibian and reptiles will be described in the baseline through the use of existing studies and habitat analysis. Emphasis will be placed on the occurrence of sensitive species such as the San Diego horned lizard, orange-throated whiptail lizard and the California legless lizard. Use of the area by mammals will be documented both from the existing data base and from small mammal trapping studies conducted by Chambers Group. Emphasis will be placed on the habitat occurrence of the sensitive southern salt marsh harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys rnegalotis limicola). Overall all species occurrence will be documented including the continued problems with red foxes and other non-native species. Based on surveys conducted by Chambers Group, under contract to the Corps of Engineers, we will describe occurrence of insects in the area with the emphasis placed upon both sensitive species such as the skipper and the monarch butterfly as well as the general fauna used for wildlife food sources. 22 4.7.2 Protect_Imnact Analysis Impact Significance Criteria Impacts to botanical and wildlife resources will be considered significant if the habitat of a threatened, endangered, or candidate species is lost or disturbed. Disturbance is defined as any physical or indirect loss of habitat without immediate replacement. Additionally, net loss of habitat values of sensitive habitats such as salt rnarshes,riparian corridors,dune communities and other habitats will also be considered significant. Loss of large areas of open space wildlife habitat may also be considered a significant impact. , Wildlife and Botanical Impacts The environmental impact analysis will be quantitative i:n nature and will focus upon the loss of vegetation communities. We will estimate the acrimge lost by each alternative and compare that with the amount of habitat gained in meirsh restoration. In addition to focusing on marsh vegetation, we will also focus on upland habitats and other unique habitats such as the remanent secondary sand dune system. Impacts to listed or sensitive plant species will be identified and the significance of these impacts determined. An overall analysis of the impact to wildlife will be conducted both as it relates to the wetlands restoration as well as the loss of upland habitat. The analysis will both be directed on a species approach and on an overall habitat interaction approach. Loss of habitat for raptors and other terrestrial oriented alrian species will be described for each alternative. This analysis will be focused on quantity and type of habitat lost and the species affected. , The impacts on birds from wetlands restoration can be assessed in two ways. One is from empirical data on changes in bird use following restoration of coastal wetlands in southern California. Data are available on changes in bird use after the Phase I restoration at Bolsa Chica. These studies include the 1983 study by the California Dept of Fish and Game - "Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve: Avian Response to Wetlands Restoration" as well as , studies by Feldmeth's group (see Guthrie, D.F, F. Clements and C.R. Feldmeth 1989 "Bird Studies at Bolsa Chica:The Effects of an Ocean Entrance on Water Birds in Inner and outer Bolsa Bays and Bolsa Chica State Beach"). There are also studies by Wilcox (Wilcox, C.G. , 1986"Comparison of Shorebird and Waterfowl Densities on Restored and Natural Intertidal Mudflats at Upper Newport Bay, California" Colonial Waiterbirds 9(2): 218-226) at Upper Newport Bay following a restoration project there. Other relevant studies are those by Kus and Ashfield In Tijuana Estuary (Kus, B.E. and B. Ashfield 1989 "Bird Use of the Tijuana River Estuary," prepared for the California State Coastal Conservancy). These studies compared bird use of the North and South Arm of the Tijuana Estuary. The North and South Arm represented different habitat types. 23 iThe other method to evaluate impacts of wetland restoration on bird populations will be to estimate the habitat suitability of restoration alternatives for various types of birds. ' As part of its Bolsa Chica studies for the Corps of Engineers, Chambers Group prepared habitat suitability models for a suite of bird species representing various guilds of bird use at Bolsa Chica. Chambers Group obtained measurements at Bolsa Chica for the relevant 1 model parameters. Habitat suitability for different bird groups at Bolsa Chica under current conditions and for various restoration alternatives will be estimated and compared. Changes in habitat suitability for various types of birds for the restoration alternatives will ' be compared to current use. Parameters include such variables as the amount of open water and emergent vegetation. These parameters should be possible to estimate for restoration alternatives. We will also evaluate the impacts to sensitive amphibians,reptiles and mammals both from a loss of open space habitat and loss of specific habitat. For instance, the southern salt marsh harvest mouse was found to occur in highest concentrations in dense Salicornia 1 habitat. We will also evaluate impacts to other sensitive species. The changes in this habitat due to the restoration program and overall development will be determined. Additionally, we will evaluate any change in the habitat for the invertebrate populations in the study area. This analysis will focus upon the impact to insect resources in the area. Ommilative Impact Analysis 1 The overall changes in biological resources at Bolsa Chica will be described in terms of local and regional biological impacts. This analysis will focus on other coastal projects occurring within southern California including projects associated with Naval activities in Anaheim Bay as well as projects at Playa Vista and other coastal wetlands. Changes in the amount and quality of both wetland vegetation as well as upland habitat will be documented in order to place the Bolsa-Chica project into regional perspective. > 4.7.3 Mitigation Measures A primary component of the proposed project is the wetlands restoration proposal as a portion of the proposed action. This will be evaluated in terms of replacement of habitat values both in total and in kind. Other mitigation measures will also be identified in terms of improving water quality, reducing public intrusion into the area, offsite mitigation and similar features. 4.7.4 Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts The impacts that remain significant after mitigation,based on impact significance criteria, will be discussed in this section. The discussion will include an analysis of the ability of various alternatives to reduce identified impacts. 24 I 1 4.8 CULTURAL. RESOURCES , 4.8.1 En mental Baseline The primary data source for this analysis will be from the survey and testing reports prepared by SRS and ERC, as well as any ongoing work under contract to the applicant. We will evaluate the adequacy of these studies relative t'D Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and make recommendations for any additional studies. Through archival research and literature review, we will ascertain that the entire project area has. been surveyed for cultural resources. If we cannot doca zaent that all areas have been surveyed, we will survey those areas where no or incomplete surveys exists We will also evaluate the status and requirements (if any) for Memoranda of Agreements in order to handle data recovery at any eligible site. 4.8.2 Protect Impact Analysis Impact Significance Criteria Impacts to historical and prehistorical resources will be considered significant if significant resources are lost without proper evaluation and data recovery. Cultural Resource Impacts , We will evaluate the proposed project relative to any significant or eligible site. Any remaining impact will be described and a program for evaluation and further testing will be identified. Cumulative Impact Analysis S Based on archival studies in the area, we will describe any impact to cultural resources , associated with the proposed project relative to the resources within the greater Huntington Beach area and adjacent coastal communities. 4.8.3 Mitigation Measures Mitigation measures will generally focus around the development of Memorandums of Agreement to allow for testing and, if required, data recovery for any eligible site on the study area. 25 ' 4.8.4 Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts The impacts that remain significant after mitigation,based on impact significance criteria, 1 will be discussed in this section. The discussion will include an analysis of the ability of various alternatives to reduce identified impacts. r4.9 PALEONTOLOGY 4.9.1 Environmental Baseline The potential for the site (primarily the mesa area) to contain significant fossiliferous material will be evaluated based on any existing studies, an analysis of geological formations and brief field surveys. The area will be rated as containing high, moderate or low potential for containing significant paleontological resources. r 4.9.2 Protect Impacts Impact Significance Criteria Impact to paleontological resources will be considered significant if fossiliferous material r is lost without proper evaluation and salvage (if warranted). ' Paleontological Impacts We will evaluate the potential for project-related grading to impact any fossiliferous formations. Cumulative Impact Analysis ' Any cumulative paleontological impacts will be identified and will be based on other proposed and planned projects in the area. 4.9.3 Mitigation Mitigation measures will focus upon monitoring during grading activities. i r 26 1 r 4.9.4 Unavoidable Sianificant Adverse Impacts , The impacts that remain significant after mitigation,based on impact significance criteria, will be discussed in this section. The discussion will include an analysis of the ability of various alternatives to reduce identified impacts. 4.10 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC CIRCULATION ' 4.10.1 Environmental Baseline A comprehensive review of the existing baseline traffic conditions as well as traffic modelling outputs conducted to date will be undertaken. The basic approach is to review for consistency in application of assumptions and in interpretation of results. Key factors in the traffic modelling analysis will be specifically reviewed including traffic generation assumptions, trip distribution parameters and the modelling applications and mitigation measures. The purpose of this task will be to review existing traffic conditions and to make any recommendations for improvement of the modeling procedure which should be incorporated into future modeling tasks. The existing conditions section of the EIS/EIR will be compiled based on information to be provided by the City of Huntington Beach. The main source of this information will be the , BDI report, dated August 1990, including the January 2:2, 1991 revision and the ongoing work. Information to be provided will include definiition and description of traffic circulation conditions in the study area and identification of the existing average daily , traffic volumes and ICU conditions at all studied intersections. 4.10.2 Proiect Impact Analysis Impact Significance Criteria , The significance criteria for the project will be the same as that developed for the ICU analysis in the BDI studies. This criteria has been approved by the City and establishes that Level of Service (LOS) D or worse for roadway segments would be considered significant, and LOS E or worse for intersections would be considered significant. Mitigation measures will be formulated for the road segments or intersections with significant impact. Transportation and Traffic Circulation Impacts It is anticipated that the City will provide modelling results for the alternative that will , be considered in detail. Alternately, it is expected that traffic reports for an alternative not included in modelling could be easily inferred from available modelling. The modelling 27 r 1 results will be reviewed the basic purpose of which is to insure consistency in application of assumptions and in interpretation of results. ' The impact analysis will evaluate transportation impacts caused by project construction. Such effects may include traffic detours or road closures, earth and equipment hauling or other circulation disruptions. The construction of a non-navigable ocean access at the south end of the project could cause temporary construction impacts on PCH which would need to be assessed. From an operational standpoint, the traffic modelling and analysis outputs from the City's traffic consultant will be evaluated and form the basis of the impact section. The traffic impact analysis for the EIVEIR will need to consider and analyze ingress and egress ' aspects, traffic volume to capacity, trip generation and distribution and ICU. The mitigation recommendations will be reviewed to insure that all significant impacts are mitigated to the extent possible. In addition, the proposed transportation system will be reviewed for consistency with the City's circulation element and the County's Master Plan of Arterial Highways. Cumulative Impact Analysis The cumulative traffic assessment will be based on the HOCfAM model results,.which reflect cumulative conditions in that trip distribution in the study area assumes a developed land use condition. However, cumulative projects will be reviewed for determination as ' to whether they have been accounted for in the analysis. Site specific and cumulative impact significance will be based on the significance criteria developed for the BDI study as described in the general approach section above. 4.10.3 Mitigation Meastu es The project team will develop mitigation recommendations and measures to Insure that all ' significant impacts are mitigated to the fullest extent possible. A full range of measures will be presented including specific roadway improvements, intersection improvements or project phasing. 4.10.4 Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts The impacts that remain significant after mitigation,based on impact significance criteria, will be discussed in this section. The discussion will include an analysis of the ability of ' various alternatives to reduce identified impacts. 28 i 4.11 AIR QUAL17T , 4.11.1 Environmental Baseline Existing air quality for the area will be characterized by available data from the closest , South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) air quality monitoring station in Los Alamitos. The general meteorological conditions of the area will also be presented , Including emphasis on wind patterns. A discussion of the regional air quality management plan, air quality regulations and how they relate to the study area will also be provided. Review of existing documentation for the area will also be used as a source for preparation of this section. 4.11.2 Protect Impact Analysis Impact Significance Criteria Impacts to air quality will be considered to be significant If emissions result in exceedance of state or federal air quality standards, result in the release of hazardous non-critical pollutants to the atmosphere, result in emissions of criteria pollutants exceeding AQMD significance threshold limits and/or result in dust generation exceeding the South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 403. Air Quality Impaet Dust-related impacts to the immediate area during construction will be estimated and discussed. ' Mobile emissions will be calculated based on the anticipated vehicular traffic generated by the proposed project. Emissions will be estimated using the URBEMIS No. 2 computer model as updated with the most recent EMFAC7PC California auto emissions sub-model. The emissions associated with stationary sources and construction activities will also be estimated. The total expected emissions will be summed wrid compared with the SCAQMD ' threshold criteria for significance. Project impacts and their relationship to the air quality management plan and Federal attainment objectives will be described. Cumulative Impact Analysis , Cumulative effects on air quality of identified cumulative projects will be presented. The anticipated impacts resulting from cumulative projects will also be measured and discussed In terms of the air quality management plan. Such cumulative uses could include major , land development projects within Huntington Beach and the surrounding cities, major transportation projects, federal land developments and others. 29 ' ' 4.11.3 Mitigation Meastues Measures in terms of transportation strategies and other standard techniques will be ' identified to reduce emissions. Mitigation measures for control of dust-related emissions will focus on use of dust-control ' measures such as the use of watering and/or chemical dust suppressants and limiting grading activity during periods of high wind. i4.11.4 Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts The impacts that remain significant after mitigation,based on impact significance criteria, will be discussed in this section. The discussion will include an analysis of the ability of various alternatives to reduce identified impacts. 4.12 NOISE 4.12.1 Environmental Baseline 1 Existing conditions will be described based on on-site noise level readings which will be conducted for the area. Sources of existing noise and locations of any sensitive receptors will be identified. Previous documentation on noise prepared for the project will be reviewed and incorporated as appropriate. Existing noise ordinances for the project area will be presented and discussed as to how these ordinances relate to both construction and post-construction activities. 4.12.2 Protect Impact Analysis Impact Significance Criteria Impacts will be considered to be significant if project produced noise levels exceed local noise ordinances. If not specified by City ordinance, noise exposure impacts on proposed uses will be assessed using FHA noise compatibility criteria. Noise Impact Analysis ' The potential increase in noise levels generated by the proposed project during both construction and from vehicle generation after construction will be assessed. Noise related ' impacts from project construction will be identified using accepted noise criteria applicable to construction equipment. The collective noise level of simultaneous operation of equipment will be estimated and related to sensitive receptors using typical atmosphere attenuation curves. Additionally, we will analyze the potential noise impacts associated 30 i with vehicular traffic on arterial roadways in and near the; site. Such noise levels will be modelled using the F.H.W.A. Traffic Noise Predictions Model in conjunction with the latest California vehicle noise curves(CALVENO--85). Noise contours for future traffic levels will be developed. Project noise impacts will be related to the City Noise Element land use compatibility guidelines and appropriate mitigation measures will be developed. Noise increases along PCH as well as other areal streets will be discussed based on projected traffic increases. Noise increases and impacts to adjacent land uses next to the proposed ' residential developments will also be evaluated. Impacts on sensitive receptors will be discussed based on their compliance with the local noise regulations or other noise compatibility criteria such as FHA. ' Cumulative Impact Analysis Cumulative noise impacts from other local construction projects and other projects that will be expected to also generate an increase in noise due to increases in traffic will be assessed. These could include nearby adjacent developments as well as other developments in the local vicinity which are expected to generate traffic. 4.12.3 Mitigation Measures Mitigation for impacts due to noise from construction may include a limitation of hours of construction and the provision that all equipment be: fitted with properly operating mufflers. For other areas of impact resulting from an increase in general areal traffic, , mitigation will include consideration of the use of buffering by landscaping or a soundwall, use of building setbacks, and alternative roadway alignments or sections. 4.12.4 Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts The impacts that remain significant after mitigation,based on impact significance criteria, will be discussed in this section. The discussion will include an analysis of the ability of various alternatives to reduce identified impacts. 4.13 -XX,-KWX146AdMAND RECREATION ' 4.13.1 Environmental Baseline The environmental baseline for socioeconomic factors will be compiled based on the , existing data base for the City of Huntington Beach and the surrounding area. The specific factors that will be included in the Socioeconomic analysis include population/ ' demographics, housing considerations and policies and financial considerations. 31 The recreation analysis will consider City standards for providing park acreage in new developments and will review City open space and recreation needs. Visitor use both on Bolsa Chica and at the Bolsa Chica State Beach will be presented based on existing records and estimates. 4.13.2 Protect Impact Analvsil Impact Significance Criteria The impact on population and housing will be considered significant if the project would be inconsistent with adopted plans, policies or projections. 1 Impacts will be considered significant if the proposed project results in a negative cost/benefit ratio regarding public services. Additionally, loss of existing recreational areas or pursuits will also be considered significant. ' Socioeconomic and Recreation Impacts For socioeconomic factors, the analysis will consist largely of determination of consistency ' of projected project population and housing characteristics with existing projections and policy. Specifically, this will include examination of jobs/housing balance goals for the region and project/city consistency with these goals. A simplified cost-revenue analysis ' will be conducted indicating the projected revenue to the City based on various revenue sources as well as potential expenditures by the City and other agencies for infrastructure improvements. The overall impact to recreation opportunities will also be assessed for ' impacts on naturalist pursuits as well as any impacts to Bolsa Chica State Beach. Cumulative Impact Analysis We will identify the overall cumulative socioeconomic and recreational impacts relative to the proposed development. Consideration will be given to existing,planned and proposed projects including adjacent residential uses, beach uses, and other projects which may effect the socioeconomics and/or recreation resources of Huntington Beach. 4.13.3 Mitigation Meastues ' Mitigation measures will be identified for any significant impacts. These measures will include developer funded improvements, provision of onsite recreation and naturalistic ' features and measures to compensate for the loss of any beach use at Bolsa Chica State Beach. 32 I 4.13.4 Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts The impacts that remain significant after mitigation,based on impact significance criteria, will be discussed in this section. The discussion will include an analysis of the ability of , various alternatives to reduce identified impacts. 4.14 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES ! 4.14.1 Environmental Baseline The environmental baseline will include a description of public services and utilities expected to serve the project study area. The analysis will include the following services and utilities: • Law Enforcement • Fire Protection • Emergency Medical • Educational Facilities , • Water Supply • Wastewater Generation and Disposal • Solid Waste , • Gas and Electric Utilities The initial source of information on available public services and utilities Is expected to ' be the City, special districts and utility companies. The various public services and utilities required will be described in terms of services offered, availability and capacity. Information taken from the Specific Plan will be selectively confirmed by contact with ' various public agencies and utility companies. Another aspect of the baseline conditions will be a comprehensive review and presentation of local, state and federal plans and policies affecting the site. The major plans to be presented include the Huntington Beach General Plan and Orange County General Plan. Other important aspects to be reviewed include plans for resource use reduction and ' recovery. Review and presentation of these public serfice and utilities guidelines will provide the regulatory and policy basis governing the area. Another purpose of reviewing these plans is to quantify the level of future public service and utilities use of the area as ' envisioned in the existing plans. 33 ' 4.14.2 Protect Impact Analysis Impact Significant Criteria The project's compatibility with existing public service and utilities availability will be judged based on capacity of facilities or planned capacity of facilities. Those requirements exceeding existing or future capacity will be considered significant impacts. ' Public Service and Utility Impacts The physical public services and utilities impacts assessment of the proposed alternatives will focus on the issue of compatibility with existing services and resources. Compatibility will be assessed from the standpoint of demand, i.e., that a normal transition of available public services and utilities will occur between existing and proposed demands. Project ' alternatives have the potential to alter the distribution of public services and utility uses within the City and/or change the amount of available resources. These effects will be quantified and related to applicable standards to determine significance. ' This analysis will also touch upon community design concepts such as waste and resource use reduction, recycling, environmental crime and fire prevention designs which may help mitigate these impacts. The physical arrangement of utilities in the Specific Plan/LCP will be assessed for other impact and compatibility features,such as provision of tie-ins to local and regional systems. ' Chambers Group will undertake a systematic analysis of all public service and utilities policies applicable to the proposed project. Appropriate policies will be found in local plans 1 as identified previously. The extent to which the proposed alternatives can be shown to be consistent with these policies and criteria will be assessed. The analysis will include the identification of all applicable federal,state and local laws that affect the proposed action. i Cumulative Impact Analysis We will identify and quantify all potential cumulative land uses or activities whose impacts could add to those of the proposed alternatives to create more severe impacts on public ' services and utilities. Such cumulative uses could include major land development projects within the City of Huntington Beach or the surrounding communities, major transportation projects, developments affecting federal lands (such as Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station ' or federal offshore waters), and others. The effects of these cumulative projects or plans will be assessed using the same significance criteria as for project specific impacts. 34 4.14.3 Mitigation Measwes ' Mitigation measures will be developed for all impacts which are considered significant. Mitigation measures for policy related impacts will include modification of the plan or ' project implementation strategies to satisfy or comply with regulatory or agency provisions. Mitigation measures for physical public service and utilities relationships will involve minor physical changes to the alternatives, incorporating such things as waste and ' resource use reduction, resource recovery, and environmental crime and fire prevention design. The percentage contribution of the developer to the public service infrastructure mitigation will be identified. 4.14.4 Unavoidable Sienificant Adverse Impacts The impacts that remain significant after mitigation,based on impact significance criteria, will be discussed in this section. The discussion will include an analysis of the ability of various alternatives to reduce identified impacts. 4.15 AESTHETICS ' 4.15.1 Environmental Baseline Existing baseline information will focus on the identification of high value visual resources including views of the ocean looking across the project area and views of the existing ' wetlands and surrounding mesa areas. A description of the existing conditions will be described for the general public who travel through the area on PCH as well as those who view the area from within the wetlands area itself. Other vista points adjacent to the proposed project area will also be described. A photographic essay of the area will be prepared and described as part of the existing baseline data. Conditions related to night lighting will be described. The sensitivity of the area to the various types of viewers will ' also be presented and discussed. Any scenic or sensitive areas and policies towards scenic resources which are identified in ' such planning elements as the Huntington Beach Genexal Plan and various elements including the City LCP, the Bolsa Chica LUP, prepared by the County of Orange, and State Beach plans will also be discussed. 4.15.2 Proiect Impact Analysis , Impact Significance Criteria Impacts are considered to be significant if the proposed project results in either/both of the following criteria as measured against viewer sensitivity: 35 • Changes in the landscape which substantially degrade an existing viewshed or alter the character of the viewshed by the addition of anomalous structures or elements. 0 Changes in the character of the existing visual environment which would result in an incompatible visual setting with adjacent areas. ' These criteria will be measured against the visual sensitivity of the viewer to a particular viewshed. Viewer sensitivity is a non-economic measures of public concern for scenic quality and is a measure of the changes in the expectation of viewers and the importance ' of a particular viewshed. Factors such as whether a viewer is stationary (from a residence), mobile (travelers along PCH) or is a recreational users in the area are each considered. Aesthetic Impacts ' Impacts will be presented in both narrative and pictorial form to depict the changes to those areas where development will occur. Both general and specific visual impacts associated with project implementation for each of the alternatives will be discussed. Impacts will focus on changes in the character of the environment which degrade or result in an incompatible setting will be described. Special attention will be placed on viewsheds ' of the area from the sensitive areas identified in the environmental baseline. Cumulative Impact Analysis Impacts will be described for general visual resources as they relate to other projects ' identified in the immediate vicinity. The overall effects of additional night lighting on a cumulative basis will also be described. Projects may include adjacent developments, including modifications in Huntington Harbour, road improvements and others within the same viewshed as proposed project components. The same significance criteria will be used to assess significance as those for the project specific impacts. 4.15.3 Mitigation Measures ' Methods such as screening, buffering, use of landscaping and natural types of vegetation, coloring and height limitations, as well as use of low level lighting will be discussed as mitigation measures for any identified impacts. A discussion of community design concepts such as architecture, streetscape and entry themes which are already within the plan and which may help mitigate impacts will also be presented. The effectiveness of these measures and any residual impacts that would remain even with incorporation of such ' measures will be presented. 36 4.15.4 Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts , The impacts that remain significant after mitigation,based on impact significance criteria, will be discussed in this section. The discussion will Inclfude an analysis of the ability of ' various alternatives to reduce identified impacts. 4.16 ENERGY ' 4.16.1 Environmental Baseline ' Current energy characteristics of the site will be estimated. The primary focus of this information will be the production of hydrocarbons from wells onsite, the estimates of ' remaining reserves and the phase out of production facilities. 4.16.2 Protect Impact Analysis , Impact Significance Criteria Energy impacts will be considered significant If energy is consumed in a wasteful or unnecessary manner. Energy Impacts ' The proposed action has implications for continued production of hydrocarbons at Bolsa Chica. The impacts of phasing out production and related activities/facilities will be ' addressed. The possible purchase of reserves remaining in the ground but not produced has potential environmental consequences from an energy standpoint that will be assessed. In addition, the project alternatives will create long-terns demands for electrical energy, ' natural gas and vehicle fuels. An estimate of the demand for each alternative will be provided. Cumulative Impact Analysis Energy expenditures and loss of hydrocarbon production will be compared to the overall , regional energy situation. Cumulative energy demand to support urban developments will be estimated. ' 4.16.3 Mitigation Measures ' Measures for mitigation will generally focus upon the use of energy conservation measures. 1 37 ' ' 4.16.4 Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts ' The impacts that remain significant after mitigation, based on impact significance criteria, will be discussed in this section. The discussion will include an analysis of the ability of various alternatives to reduce identified impacts. SECTION 5 - TOPICAL LSSUES ' This section will provide the analysis for various mandatory topical issues under NEPA and CEQA. The various topics are listed below: 5.1 Growth Inducing Impacts of the Proposed Action 5.2 The Relationship Between Local Short-term Uses of Man's Environment and the Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-term Productivity ' 5.3 Significant Irreversible Changes Which Would Be Involved in the Proposed Action Should It Be Implemented ' 5.4 Effects Found Not To Be Significant ' SECTION 6 - PREPARERS AND CONSULTATION A listing of the persons, organizations and agencies contacted during preparation of the ' EIS/EIR will be provided in accordance with CEQA. The preparers of the EIS/EIR will be provided along with their discipline and experience in table format in accordance with CEQA and NEPA. 6.1 Organizations and Persons Consulted During Preparation of the Draft EIS/EIR ' 6.2 EIS/EIR Preparers ' SECTION 7 - EIS/EIR DISTRIBUTION A listing of the persons, organizations and agencies receiving a copy of the Draft EIS/EIR ' will be provided in accordance with NEPA's requirements. ' SECTION 8 - REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY Sources of information and references will be listed. ' 38 SECTION 9 - IIYDEX ' A subject index will provided in accordance with NEPA requirements. APPENDICES Technical reports pertinent to the environmental analysi:;,,+ill be provided in this appendix. ' Other information to be included is the NOI, NOP, Initial Study and NOP and NOI responses. 1 39 , 1 ' STUDY PLAN AND OUTLINE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT/ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE BOLSA CHICA LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AND WETLANDS RESTORATION PROJECT 1 SECTION 3 - OTHER STUDIES AND TASKS 3.1 SCOPING AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ' 3.1.1 ScoDinsr Notices ' The scoping process for the project involves issuance of the CEQA Notice of Preparation of Draft EIR to CEQA responsible agencies (with a 30-day review period) and issuance of a NEPA Notice of Intent to Prepare an EIS(which is published in the Federal Register and has a 45-day review period). These notices solicit input from interested agencies and organizations relative to the scope and content of the EIVEIR. ' Chambers Group will assist the City of Huntington Beach and the Corps of Engineers in the issuance of these notices in the following ways: ' • Review and Comment to City of Huntington Beach relative to Notice of Preparation. • Review and Comment to Corps relative to Notice of Intent. ' 3.1.2 ScoDing Hearinrrs Input from the general public, agencies and other interested parties will be obtained ' through conduct of a scoping meeting(s). Chambers Group will assist the City of Huntington Beach and the Corps of Engineers in ' conducting the scoping meeting(s) in accordance with applicable state and federal requirements. Chambers Group will provide input as follows: ' • A protocol for conducting the meeting(s) will be developed for approval by the City and Corps. The protocol will detail how the meeting(s) will be moderated, recorded and documented. ' • A notice for the scoping meetings will be prepared. ' • The City's proposed method of public notification will be reviewed. 40 I 1 • Chambers will assist the Corps in the mailing of hearing notices. , • Chambers Group will participate by making a presentations) at the meetings. 3.1.3 Public Involvement Workshops ' Efforts will be made during the EIS/EIR process to involve the public. Public involvement will be achieved through the conduct of public workshop(s) and through the EIS/EIR public hearing process. Chambers Group will support the City of Huntington Beach and the Corps in public involvement efforts as follows: • Chambers Group will jointly conduct with the City and/or Corps public workshop(s) ' on alternatives development and screening. Protocol and agendas for these meetings will be developed with City and Corps input. ' • Handouts will be provided. • Chambers Group will participate by making a presentation(s) at the workshops. 3.1.4 Public Hesrinses ' Chambers Group will attend all formal public hearings, on the proposed action including ' those before the City and Corps at the Draft EIS/EIR stage and the Final EIS/EIR stage. Chambers Group will support the City of Huntington Beach and the Corps at public hearings as follows: • Chambers Group will provide written and oral siunmaries of the EIS/EIR. • Chambers Group will respond to questions relative the EIS/EIR content, analyses and ! conclusions. 3.1.5 Public Participation Report A summary of the public scoping and involvement tasks will be compiled and be included ' in the EIS/EIR appendix. 1 3.2 BIOLOGICAL A MU NT A Biological Assessment will be prepared pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. This document will closely follow the analysis placed in the EIS/EIR, but will function as a stand-alone document which will highlight the existing conditions, projected impacts ' and will focus upon the mitigation/ compensation progrzan. We propose that the document 41 , 1 ' be oriented for use by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service and the California Department of Fish and Game. The major focus will be on the impact to federal and/or state listed species, but we will also address the potential impact on ' candidate species In either a second section or an appendix. The overall approach In using a combined document has been successfully used by Chambers Group on several similar projects. An outline for the Biological Assessment is provided below. Outline of Biological Assessment The final structure of the biological assessment will be determined after consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service and the California ' Department of Fish and Game. The objective of the Biological Assessment will be to produce a stand alone document that will address the concerns of all three agencies and will allow them to initiate consultation and render a biological opinion. A generalized ' outline is provided below. It is intended that information in this document will track with that information contained In the EIS/EIR. ' TOPICAL OUTLINE FOR THE BIOLOGICAL SSMENT BOLSA CHICA LOCAL. COASTAL PROGRAM AND ' WETLANDS RESTORATION PROJECT SECTION 1.0 - INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose And Need 1.2 Project Location SECTION 2.0 - DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVE ' 2.1 Description Of The Proposed Action 2.2 Description Of Alternatives 1 SECTION 3.0 - SPECIES ACCOUNTS OF FEDERALLY LISTED SPECIES ' 3.1 California Least Tern ' 3.2 Clapper Rail ' 3.3 Brown Pelican ' 42 • 1 3.4 Peregrine Falcon ' 3.5 Other Species? SECTION 4.0 - SPECIES ACCOUNTS OF STATE LISTED SPECIES , 4.1 Belding's Savannah Sparrow 4.2 Other Species ' SECTION 5.0 - IMPACTS TO FEDERALLY LISTED SPECIES ' SECTION 6.0 - IMPACTS TO STATE LISTED SPECIES ' SECTION 7.0 - MITIGATION/COMPENSATION MEASURE. ' 7.1 General Measures 7.2 Measures For Federally-Listed Species , 7.3 Measures For State-Listed Species ' SECTION 8.0 - SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION ' SECTION 9.0 - REFERENCES ' APPENDIX A - SUMMARY OF IMPACTS TO PROPOSED OR CANDIDATE SPECIES ' 3.3 SECTION 404(B)(1) ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS ' It is Chambers Group's understanding that the applicant and the City may require support ' in Section 404(b)(1)Alternatives analysis. This analysis is required in all areas where filling of wetlands is proposed. We can provide support in two aspects. The first aspect will be to critically review the applicant's analysis, adding additional technical substance and other , alternatives if necessary. The firm has considerable experience in conducting these analyses and will, if requested, provide the alternatives analysis for Core Group review. In this instance, we will use the alternatives screening procedure described in Section 2.3 ' 43 ' 1 ' as a basis for the analysis and will then focus this analysis upon the wetland areas in question. 3.4 MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN In addition to the other documents, Chambers Group will prepare under separate cover a comprehensive Mitigation Monitoring Plan. This plan will list all mitigation measures, ' describe how they will be implemented and by whom. Additionally, it will identify the responsibility as to who will monitor these measures and how the completion of these measures will be documented. 1 1 r ' 44 STUDY PLAN AND OUTLmE , ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT/ ' ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EWEIR) FOR THE BOLSA CI-IICA LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AND WETLANDS RESTORATION PROJECT ' SECTION 4 - EIS/EIR SCHEDULE AN13 MILESTONES , TASK/ACTMTY DATE Kick off Meeting 02/05/91 Staff Begins LCP Review 02/07/91 ' BCPC Begins LCP/SP Review 02/11/91 Contract Approval (City Council) 02/19/91 Study Plan (Draft) 02/25/91 ' Consultant Status Report To BCPC 02/25/91 •i Consultant Status Report to BCPC 03/25/91 .. NOI/NOP Released 04/12/91 ' Notice of Public Scoping Distributed 04/13/91 / Consultant Status Report to BCPC 04/15/91 Public Scoping Meetings 04/23/91 Baseline Review Complete 05/30/91 Consultant Status Report to BCPC 06/03/91 i Public Workshop Alternatives Development's Screening 06/11/91 l ' Alternatives Refinement Complete 06/25/91 Scoping Document 07/05/91 Project Description 07/08/91 ' Draft Impact Analysis 07/22/91 Consultant Status Report to BCPC 07/29/91 Biological Assessment 08/12/91 , Screencheck Draft EIS/EIR to Staff 9 Screencheck Draft EIS/EIR to BCPC 8/29/91 EIS/EIR Presentation to BCPC 09/09/91 ' Final Screencheck Draft EIS/EIR to Staff 10/20/91 Draft EIS/EIR Public Review Period 12/91'nl ' Draft Response To Comments/Screencheck Final EIS/EIR 02/27/92 -� Final EIS/EIR Available 3 0/92 45 ' d U a Q TOPICAL OUTLINE ' ELS/E R FOR THE BOLSA CHICA LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AND WETLANDS RESTORATION PI.AN COVER SHEET (Abstract) r EXECUTIVE SUMMARY S.1 Summary of Federal Action Summary of Proposed Federal Action and Alternatives ' S.2 Summary of Local Project (CEQA) Summary of Proposed Project Alternatives S.3 Summary of Major Finding and Conclusions Major Findings and Conclusions Areas of Controversy Unresolved Issues Relationship to Environmental Quality Statutes Permits, Federal and Local Approvals Previously Prepared Documents (NEPA and CEQA) S.4 Comparison and Evaluation of Alternatives S.5 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures (Table) TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 1 - INTRODUCTION 1.1 Organization of the EiS✓EIR ' 1.2 EWEIIZ Process and Index SECTION 2 - PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE ACTION 2.1 Program Overview 2.2 Federal Action and Objectives 2.3 Local Project and Objectives A-1 ' i 2.4 Objectives of the Project Proponent and Permit Applicant SECTION 3 - ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 3.1 The Proposed Action (Overview) 1 3.2 Alternatives Development and Screening Alternatives Involved with the Federal Action Alternatives Involved with the Local Project Screening Analysis and Comparison 3.3 Alternatives Eliminated From Further Consideration (including alternatives eliminated previously) 3.4 Description of Alternatives Considered in Detail 3.5 Comparative Analysis of Alternatives Considered 3.6 Other Alternatives (CEQA) SECTION 4 - AFFECTED ENVIRONW_M AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEOUENCES 1 4.1 Land Use 4.1.1 Environmental Setting 4.1.2 Project Impact Analysis Impact Significance Criteria Construction Direct and Indirect Operation Direct and Indirect Cumulative Impact 4.1.3 Mitigation Measures 4.1.4 Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts 4.2 Earth Resources 4.2.1 Environmental Setting 4.2.2 Project Impact Analysis Impact Significance Criteria Construction Direct and Indirect Operation Direct and Indirect Cumulative Impact 4.2.3 Mitigation Measures 4.2.4 Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts 4.3 Surface and Groundwater Hydrology 4.3.1 Environmental Setting A-2 4.3.2 Project Impact Analysis Impact Significance Criteria Construction Direct and Indirect Operation Direct and Indirect Cumulative Impact 4.3.3 Mitigation Measures 4.3.4 Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts 4.4 Water Quality 4.4.1 Environmental Setting 4.4.2 Project Impact Analysis Impact Significance Criteria Construction Direct and Indirect Operation Direct and Indirect Cumulative Impact 4.4.3 Mitigation Measures 4.4.4 Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts 4.5 Oceanography , 4.5.1 Environmental Setting 4.5.2 Project Impact Analysis Impact Significance Criteria Construction Direct and Indirect Operation Direct and Indirect Cumulative Impact 4.5.3 Mitigation Measures 4.5.4 Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts 4.6 Marine and Aquatic Biology 4.6.1 Environmental Setting 4.6.2 Project Impact Analysis Impact Significance Criteria Construction Direct and Indirect Operation Direct and Indirect Cumulative Impact 4.6.3 Mitigation Measures 4.6.4 Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts 4.7 Botanical and Wildlife Resources 4.7.1 Environmental Setting 4.7.2 Project Impact Analysis Impact Significance Criteria Construction Direct and Indirect Operation Direct and Indirect Cumulative Impact A-3 4.7.3 Mitigation Measures 4.7.4 Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts r 4.8 Cultural Resources 4.8.1 Environmental Setting 4.8.2 Project Impact Analysis Impact Significance Criteria Construction Direct and Indirect Operation Direct and Indirect Cumulative Impact 4.8.3 Mitigation Measures 4.8.4 Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts 4.9 Paleontology 4.9.1 Environmental Setting 4.9.2 Project Impact Analysis ' Impact Significance Criteria Construction Direct and Indirect Operation Direct and Indirect Cumulative Impact 4.9.3 Mitigation Measures 4.9.4 Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts 4.10 Transportation and Traffic Circulation 4.10.1 Environmental Setting 4.10.2 Project Impact Analysis Impact Significance Criteria Construction Direct and Indirect Operation Direct and Indirect Cumulative Impact 4.10.3 Mitigation Measures r4.10.4 Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts 4.11 Air Quality 4.11.1 Environmental Setting 4.11.2 Project Impact Analysis Impact Significance Criteria Construction Direct and Indirect Operation Direct and Indirect Cumulative Impact 4.11.3 Mitigation Measures 4.11.4 Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts A-4 � r 4.12 Noise 4.12.1 Environmental Setting 4.12.2 Project Impact Analysis Impact Significance Criteria Construction Direct and Indirect Operation Direct and Indirect Cumulative Impact 4.12.3 Mitigation Measures 4.12.4 Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts 4.13 Socioeconomics and Recreation 4.13.1 Environmental Setting Population Housing Public Finance Recreation and Parks Public Health and Safety 4.13.2 Project Impact Analysis Impact Significance Criteria Construction Direct and Indirect Operation Direct and Indirect Cumulative Impact 4.13.3 Mitigation Measures 4.13.4 Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts 4.14 Public Services and Utilities 4.14.1 Environmental Setting Law Enforcement Fire Protection Emergency Medical Educational Facilities Water Supply Wastewater Generation and Treatment Solid Waste , Gas and Electric Utilities 4.14.2 Project Impact Analysis Impact Significance Criteria Construction Direct and Indirect Operation Direct and Indirect Cumulative Impact 4.14.3 Mitigation Measures 4.14.4 Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts A-5 4.15 Aesthetics 4.15.1 Environmental Setting ' 4.15.2 Project Impact Analysis Impact Significance Criteria Construction Direct and Indirect Operation Direct and Indirect Cumulative Impact 4.15.3 Mitigation Measures 4.15.4 Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts 4.16 Energy 4.16.1 Environmental Setting 4.16.2 Project Impact Analysis Impact Significance Criteria Construction Direct and Indirect Operation Direct and Indirect Cumulative Impact 4.16.3 Mitigation Measures 4.16.4 Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts SECTION 5 - TOPICAL ISSUES 5.1 Growth Inducing Impacts of the Proposed Action 5.2 The Relationship Between Local Short-term Uses of Man's Environment and the Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-term Productivity 5.3 Significant Irreversible Changes Which Would Be Involved in the Proposed Action Should It Be Implemented 5.4 Effects Found Not To Be Significant SECTION 6 - PREPARERS AND CONSULTATION 6.1 Organizations and Persons Consulted During Preparation of the Draft EIS/EIR 6.2 EIS/EIR Preparers SECTION 7 - EIS/EIR DISTRIBUTION SECTION 8 - REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY A-6 i SECTION 9 - INDEX APPENDICES NOP/NOI and Responses Scoping Documentation Biological Assessment ' Section 404 (B)(1) Analysis Mitigation Monitoring A-7 20 1761-A E. Garry_ Ave Santa ^na. CA 9270_, Fax. (714( 261-8950 a: (714) 261 -414 Chambers Group, Inc. MEMORANDUM DATE: Apt i t 18, 1991 TO: Laura Phillips 1 FROM: Noel Davis As we Just discussed on the phone, i have reviewed Michael Josselyn's Draft Sc;upe of Wurk and I basically think It is fine. Most of the tasks seem to state that he will be available for consultation and review on an as needed basis. I do agree that we do not need additional detail on design of the buffer areas at this time. As long as we know the location size and general vegetation type of the buffers that will be sufficient for analysis. However, I do thick that we need,as•,,_ d- N1 as we-can possibly get on the design of the wetlands restoratiQM M�ause Much bf the area to a wetlands-now and restoratlon will turn It Into a different kind of wetlands-some-species--will gain habitat and some will lose: In order to analyze those changes as prec:iseli as pm1ble in the EIR/9 we need to know as much about the new habitat- as posslble� loiecise'del.aiii on the design o[ the restored habitat we ace radoced.tcl: AISWILM :which-mulis,In.a much weak... analysit, a. less.:dereY,slb1 .docujaent and a�hioie conservative docurnent. because we► generally have to-asatm`te-worst case,-Istrongly recommend that Dr. Josselyn proceed with a more detailed wetlands design. I will be available in the office all afternoon if you would like to discuss Lhis furttiCr. v _ I J'1 21 FAX COVER PAGE Date: Tue Mar 24, 1992 2:34 am EST To: Laura Phillips ' Destination Fax: 714-374-1540 From: Wetlands Research Assoc./Wetlands Research As Subject: Review of draft Wetland Restoration Plan (first half) Number of pages excluding cover page: 4.0 Number of delivery attempts: 1 This facsimile message was electronically transmitted by NO AMP Call 800-444-6245 (in the U.S.) or 202-833 8484 for information about Ala Ate' I a ;-9 1 1 47F1:1 F: I Wetlands Research Associates, Inc 2169-G East Francisco Blvd. San Rafael, CA 94901 (415) 454-8868 FAX (415) 454-0129 March 23, 1992 TO: Marie Campbell , MBA FROM: Michael Josselyn SUBJECT: Review of draft Wetlands Restoration Plan/Conservation Plan , I have been greatly impressed with your firm's involvement in bringing "life" to the plan that I developed with the State Coastal Conservancy. There is a substantial amount of detail in the document--far more than is usual in this ' regard. Much of the hard work is hidden between the lines, but I wanted to let you know I appreciate the effort you have put into this. My comments are directed towards improving the document and providing more internal ' consistency. (I have not spent much time on editing and spelling--there are a few minor errors that hopefully your editor will. catch.) My comments are as follows: , Page 2-1 : Replace "continually degrading" with "degraded" Page 3-3: Jetties. that. axt'.ed tn. -7.It MSL.Wnn't_,hg copsidered_ minimiz_atior of shoreline impacts. I think we need 1:o recognize this as a' significant impaet. However, Dave may be able to adjust this with further analyses of jetties such as the one on the Talbert Channel in Huntington Beach that only extends to MSL. Page 4-5: Please be consistent in the use of the reference to the original restoration plan alternatives. It should be State Coastal Conservancy and Romberg Tiburon Center ('1990) . Also, this reference is NOT listed in your references section and needs to be added. Page 4-5: It would be useful to reference the work done by Moffatt and Nichol on the muted tidal regime and perhaps use a figure from their reports showing the tidal range that will exist on the muted tidal areas. Some additional description of how muted tidal will be achieved in these systems could be added, i.e. more outflow culverts than inflow. Page 4-6: More information/description needs to be! provided on the freshwater irrigation type of wetland. I really would prefer managed non- tidal wetlands. I don't really think we! will just flood and submerge pickleweed all winter and sprirg. That would probably kill the pickleweed and would definitelLI result in vector control problems. It will more likely be some controlled, short term inundation. Obviously, we need to distinguish this management from the seasonal ponds which also receive freshwater from rainfall. In addition, we may want to flood the site with salt water in the summer to maintain higher salinities. Perhaps you should look at the description of managed non-tidal that I worked up in my report. As it is now, I can see that there will be substantial confusion as to what is really meant by "freshwater irrigation" and how this will sustain and "salt marsh" system. ' Page 4-8: Despite Feldmeth's finding, isn 't it true that the plan must still provide the 20.5 acre "eucalyptus" ESHA? In fact, the plan really doesn't deal very explicitly with the maintenance of ESHA acreage and somewhere some positive language needs to be added to deal with this issue. Page 4-8: Later in Table 5-1 , show only 6.7 acres of "eucalyptus" ESHA. Need ' to be consistent. Page 4-8: Replace "previously preferred" with "Coalition preferred". They still like 3B and have not reviewed or officially accepted Alt 1 as proposed here. Page 4-9: Phasing area 1E: We had discussed placing some sand on Rabbit Island that could result in some grading/filling/disruption of vegetation. Page 4-10 Remove "Josselyn's" and replace with SCC/RTC. It should be clear that Alt 2 is NOT SCC/RTC plan 2B. It IS Alt 2B, but without a ocean entrance in the northern part of the project site. I realized, with advice from Moffatt and Nichol, that a tidal entrance was essential for this configuration to work and by saying Alt 2 is derived from SCC/RTC 28 implies we thought it was feasible without a new tidal entrance. Page 4-12 Need more specifics as to why ALT 2 was rejected. . .or determined to be infeasible. How did the City make its determination? Page 4-12 Provide reference for the hydrologic modeling studies that were used to reject Alt 2. Exhibit 4-5 Should be labelled as Alt 5 Page 5-3 You need to mention that a vegetation map was not done for the Huntington Mesa, eventhough this was part of the study area. It is sometimes confusing concerning the acreage calculations as to whether Huntington Mesa is included or not. Exhibit 5-1 The colors did not come out very well on this map. Are all the colors really shown. Page 5-5 The acreage in the text does not correspond to the Table 5-1 in all cases. Page 5-5 Ruderal and open water/mudflat are greater in acreage than pickleweed. Page 5-10 Huntington Mesa is not mapped in the figure and the acreage is not the same as developed from the figure. Needs some explanation. F,re F . Table 5-2 Malkoff and Associates 1990 is not in the references. Malkoff and Associates 1991 lists the target species originally given in the SCC/RTC report. Page 5-20 We need to state the criteria used to develop the list of "target species". This list is different than the list in the SCC/RTC plan. Why did we change the list of target species? Why were some , species such as the southwestern pond turtle not included when it has the same status as some that we listed? Who identified this list and why? Page 5-40 Behind the dike jurisdiction is properly referred to as Section 10 jurisdiction and the other as Section 404 jurisdiction. Also, need correct Section 10 from "which remain below" to "that were below". Otherwise, the entire site is currently below MHW due to subsidence. Page 5-42 Last paragraph on this page has nothing to do with Section 10 jurisdiction as implied by the heading. Page 5-43 Since you mention Section 10 jurisdiction, shouldn't we also provide the acreage under Section 10 coverage. Base map 6-1 Colors are different from 5-1--can that be corrected , Table 6-1 Should be titled "Summary of Residential and Transportation facility impacts on habitats". Also why do you have the 0 data points. . .is just seems to be redundant here. The impacts are to the total acreage listed under each heading. Page 6-4 The basis for determicing,.".significant_.impacts" is not well documented here. If brackish marsh and saltgrass are "wetlands",' then why isn't their lost considered significan4. On what basis do you reach a decision--just on acreage? This presents a problem for cordgrass habitat, .for example. Since it is habitat for an I endangered species, A&_ loss..cannat_-be caiisidered insignificant eventhough it- is a small acreage amount. Page 6-5 There is confusion in these sections over vegetation as vegetation and vegetation as habitat. Of course, open water has no vegetation; but it is also a habitat. , To evaluate impacts of loss of habitat, it might be useful at some point to develop a matrix table showing the "target species" and the habitats in which they are found. It would then become clear that the loss of cordgrass habitat is more crucial than just the loss of cordgrass vegetation. Page 6-6 Inconsistency throughout text between coastal sage scrub and coastal bluff scrub. Choose one term or the other. Also since you have stated that this habitat was included in the DFG's "eucalyptus" ESHA, shouldn't it be considered an ESHA and therefore the impacts are significant. Page 6-8 LFCR has been seen on the site and therefore should not be presumed absent. Table 6-2 Some abbreviations are combined in ways that are difficult to interpret such as PINSI and NI,T,E. Please try to simplify. Also, isn't the DFG cell used by the CLT and therefore there would be a significant impact to the species in those ALTs where the DFG cell is removed. ALT 1 ,3, and 4 could effect the LT, ET, LFCR in the Ecological Reserve when the perimeter berm near Rabbit Island is reconstructed. Warner Pond is an ESHA not shown in Table 6-1 that will be impacted by the Residential development. Page 6-14 Loss of grasslands is listed as significant impact, but not significant on Page 6-7. Needs clarification and consistency. The statement at the bottom of this page is far too broad and needs clarification and explanation. How was this conclusion reached? Page 6-15 "red fox to return". . . .HELP Page 6-15 I doubt that brine flies will be impacted to any significant ' degree. Page 6-15 Add Southwestern Pond Turtle to list of herptofauna that will be adversely impacted. Page 6-16 Why isn't the LFCR considered here. . .it is on the "target species" list. Page 6-17 The paragraph on the salt marsh shrew is contradictory. . .it states it could be elsewhere and then states that because it is not documented elsewhere on the site the impact is insignificant. Also, translocation has not been shown to be successful and therefore it cannot be considered an appropriate mitigation. ' Page 6-20 Locate the "helicopter pad" on the maps. . .it is not shown anywhere on the exhibits. Page 6-20 Have surveys for the shrew been conducted in the Development areas. On page 6-17, you state it could be widespread. Why would it not be found in the development areas. Page 6-23 How will tidal restoration enhance peregrine falcon foraging? Stopped at this point. . . .further review pending. cc David Cannon, Moffatt and Nichol Laura Phillips, City of Huntington Beach i r ' FAX COVER PAGE Date: Mon Mar 30, 1992 1 :49 am EST To: Laura Philips Destination Fax: 714-374-1540 From: Wetlands Research Assoc./Wetlands Research As Subject. Continued review of WRP by M. Josselyn Number of pages excluding cover page: 3.5 ' Number of delivery attempts: 1 This facsimile message was electronically transmitted by AfU A40148 Call 800-444-6245 (in the U.S.) or 202-833-8484 for information about A"A&P Wetlands Research Associates, Inc 2169-G East Francisco Blvd. San Rafael, CA 94901 (415) 454-8868 FAX (415) 454-0129 , March 29, 1992 TO: Marie Campbell, MBA ' FROM: Michael Josselyn SUBJECT: Continued review of the WRP/CP 1 serve the continuation of m earlier review of the WRP/CP , This memo will ser as e y 1 that was distributed to the Avoidance Team Committee in March. I am sorry that I am unable to attend the upcoming meeting on April 7th. I teach on , Tuesdays (my only teaching day during the week) and therefore cannot attend. I hope to be kept up to date on the meeting results through the minutes prepared by Dave Cannon. Here are my continued comments: Page 6-26 We discussed placing sand on Rabbit Island to restore habitat and , replace sand lost due to wind erosion. The sand placement will result in an impact that can hopefully be mitigated; but cannot be ignored. Page 6-26 Without some proven success in transplantation of small mammals, one can't place much confidence in this concept. Do we have any supporting evidence that this will work? Maybe it should be stated as an experimental procedure. Page 6-27 Will the Pacific tree frog really find suitable habitat in an area dominated by pickleweed? This seems far--fetched. Page 6-27 When we discuss freshwater irrigation system, it may be difficult , for the reader to understand that it is a "seasonal" freshwater system totally reliant upon water sources from precipitation and some flood flows. This may be why someone assumes it could support tree frogs. It has to be clear that it will be primarily managed for saline habitat by either evaporation in the summer (thereby drawing in saline groundwaters) or by introducing saline water in the summer through controlled tidal events. , Page 6-28 Will the "freshwater irrigation" system be designed to work by gravity in the distribution of water throughout the site. Can it be drained in the case of stagnation or mosquito problems? Did Dave develop any specific criteria for the operation of the system aside from residence time and channel configuration? Page 6-28 It would probably be useful to mention the quantity of material to be excavated. Also, where will most of this material be placed? How will it be excavated. . .these issues are likely to be of concern to the Chambers Group. F)I f Page 6-29 I assume from your lack of reference that California least tern are not known to use the CDFG cell. I would find this peculiar since they are immediately adjacent to the cell in large numbers. I would also expect the elegant tern to use the cell as well. Page 6-31 This is just a question to verify that the 15 pairs of BSS were specifically seen in area 2B and not the entire ER cell. Page 6-32 Here and in other subsequent pages, we need to recognize an impact due to conversion of the site from managed non-tidal (freshwater irrigation) to managed tidal (muted tidal) regimes. It is likely that some plants and animals will become adapted to the freshwater irrigation system that will succumb to the muted tidal regime (Pacific tree frog?) . I assume there are others e.g, amphibians, fish, and mammals that might not use the muted tidal regime habitat. In addition, some plants might be lost, especially some pickleweed areas that would be inundated for more than 60X of the time under the muted tidal regime. We should recognize these impacts as temporary, but present. Page 6-39 Shrew mitigation needs to be stated as a possible measure since we don't know that it will be successful. Page 6-43 Since this alternative does not have a tidal inlet; we can't state that we will get sand from such an inlet for Rabbit Island enhancement. Page 6-45 I question whether there will be a permanent impact to BSS within the 2A cell as a portion will be restored to pickleweed habitat as part of the design. This will be approximately half the area adjacent to the 2B cell. Page 6-46 I still remain skeptical about not introducing some fill to this cell. The elevations are so low that it will be difficult to drain this cell. I notice that we don't propose any pumping or drainage facilities to drain out excess storm water. I still think it will pond too much water and have additional water seep in via groundwater; resulting in a ponded habitat. I think we should not grade to existing elevations; but push the oil road soil around to create higher elevations if possible. Page 6-53 I always get nervous when biologists (which I assume are the primary authors of this section) take quotes from court decisions. How do we know these are appropriate and that they have not been superseded by some other decision or regulation? Does Koll Development and the City agree with these legal opinions? I would prefer that they not be included and we just stick to the facts as to the acreages impacted by the project. Page 6-53 You should state that not included in this analysis are the impacts to wetlands that would occur in all alternatives for the construction of the various wetland restoration cells. In some cases, wetlands as defined by the regulations will be removed and replaced with open water, mudflats, or other special aquatic habitat. Therefore, these conversions are also subject to permit • authority. 1 Page 6-57 It is interesting that you mention the 1A dredging impact here; but don 't reference all the other significant dredging impacts on ' wetlands throughout the project. At some point, I suppose we will need a cell-by-cell accounting of the conversion from one type of "waters of the United States" to anothE!r. Just to keep track of ' the changes. Page 7-7 I assume that we will have more details on the pickleweed nursery at some point. It seems vague in this description and doesn't provide much assurances that the quant:Lties of pickleweed required will be available. Have you calculated the amount of pickleweed needed for the plantings? Table 7-5 How did you calculate exposure in the managed nor -tidal areas and will it really be the same as in the managed tidal condition to be created later. It seems to me that the managed non-tidal areas ' will have greater exposure--closer to 90-957 depending upon the availability of freshwater during the winter. June biomass should be stated as "above-ground" biomass. When will these criteria need to be met. . .I would suggest 2-3 years after planting. . .especially in the managed non-tidal areas. Given our lack of experience in this type of restoration in southern California, we might want to lower the 1000 gm/m2 criteria. Is there a reason to select this level? Page 7-10 It is likely that more cordgrass habitat can be created in 2A of , Alt 3 and 5; especially in the area near cell 2B. Page 7-11 Some explanation needs to be given here on how we have divided up the eucalyptus ESHA into wooded habitat and coastal sage (or is it bluff) scrub. In other words, DFG has a specified acreage as eucalyptus ESHA and we need to state how the restoration of wooded ' habitat and css habitat will meet the mitigation requirement of full replacement of this ESHA. Is it assumed that none will be left on the Bolsa mesa? We may have some problems with DFG if we totally eliminate wooded habitat here, especially for animals foraging over the entire lowland area. Color maps Hopefully, we can get better distinction between urban and dune habitat so that the least tern islands aren't mistaken for "highrises". Table 7-12 and 7-13: Under sources, correct name of my firm to Wetlands , Research Associates, Inc. Actually, I not sure we provided any information to this table specifically. Table 7-14 and others Assumes that Koll Development will only have a 1 :1 requirement which is perhaps an appropriate starting point; but one! that is subject to negotiation. Also the CCC may have different criteria. Which brings to point that no where do we really discuss the CCC jurisdiction and ' mitigation requirements. By focusing on the Federal level, we have ignored a significant aspect of the regulation (as Maguire Thomas Partners have found out at Ballona) . No other comments at this time. cc. David Caonon, Moffatt and Nichol ' Laura Philips, City of Huntinqton Reach ' ...>c, ...: ii�1:2E2j.-. 2••::ftgt;.�-,2<i a <C2+N+::2- •.>.•, ^:T't..�.T)Cgi;fi?).Y(R•;.`:=4 << ••,,-ti,rl::i' � i>`.>(-..- a2e4?'StR-..?.?�,'^�•t•' rc3;:>� .;irc:i ��<:: i FAX COVER PAGE ' Date: Wed Oct 9, 1991 2:35 PM EDT To: Laura Phillips ' Destination Fax: 714-374-1540 From: Wetlands Research Assoc./Wetlands Research As Subject: Bolsa Chica wetland plant distribution for a muted tidal mar Number of pages excluding cover page: 1 .5 ' Number of delivery attempts: 1 ' This facsimile message was electronically transmitted by MCI Mhr Call 800-444-6245 (in the U.S.) or 202-833-8484 for information about MCI MM's r • Wetlands Research Associates, Inc. 2169 East Francisco Blvd. , Suite G ' San Rafael, Cn 94901 (415) 454-8868 FAX (415) 454-0129 1 October 9, 1991 T0: David Cannon ' FROM: Michael Josselyn ' SUBJECT: Wetland plant distribution ranges This memo is a follow-upto memo of October 7, 1,991 concerning appropriate y 9 elevations for pickleweed. I agree with your plar to determine the precise elevation of flourishing pickleweed populations within the Ecological Reserve , as one means to determine its most likely distribution within the proposed muted tidal areas. I am sending some further information with this fax on its distribution in fully tidal wetland areas. ' Zedler has observed the distribution in a variety of tidal wetlands as ranging between 4 ft above MLLW to 5.9 ft above MLLW. This would relate to ' a tidal elevation above NGVD of approximately 1 .2 ft to 3.1 ft. These elevations are roughly equivalent a tidal datum range of MLH to 0.6 ft above MHHW. As I have stated, pickleweed generally does best between MHW to MHHW. Maximum continous submergence for these elevations are usually less than 6 ' hours and can pickleweed can be exposed for extremely long periods of time compared to species such as cordgrass. It seems to me that you could develop a statistical occurrence of the percent time submergence from just knowing ' the tidal range of pickleweed. Two cautions to note; however. First, the range merely specifies the ability of pickleweed to survive over certain tidal elevations. We cannot use the ' lower part of that range to indicated the best condition for pickleweed, but should use a condition in the middle of its range. Therefore, just because pickleweed can survive with as low a period of 60Y exposure does not mean we , should use that criteria as the primary condition. It does grow well at higher periods of emergence and therefore, you should provide some safety factor. In other words, we want to avoid an error that may allow for too much submergence, but can allow for an error that does not submerge the plant as frequently. It seems to me that it would be prudent to plan for some criteria surrounding BOX emergence in the muted tidal regime. Secondly, fully tidal regimes allow for drainage to occur in the root zone of the plant ' as the tide recedes to 2-3 ft below the root zone. A muted tidal regime will not allow for this drainage and may adversely affE!ct the plant and its survival. Therefore, examining the muted tidal rE!gime at Bolsa Chica ER is useful, but needs to be considered in light of thE! greater degree of ' submergence of the root zone that will occur under the proposed muted tidal regime with lower elevations. 1 I suggest that you work up the statistical relationships for the proposed muted tidal regime so we can all see the periods of submergence that will ' occur for the elevations proposed without filling. (Attachments under separate cover) cc. Laura Phillips, City of Huntington Beach Marie Campbell, MBA Darlene Shelley (w/o attachments) 22 CORPS OF ENGINEERS PERMITTING PROCESS Pre Application Add Required Application j Information District Incomplete En ineer p Interagency Review g Application ' Review 1.Clean Water Act§401 Certtflcation 2.Coastal Zone Management Complete Certification Application Public ' 3. Endangered Species Act§7 Comment Certification 4. Historic Preservation N.E.P.A. Certification Compliance E.I.S. No E.I.S. Public ' Required Re uired Hearing (not mandatory) Decision Public Modified Making Concerns Process Application Approved ' Den it ElevatioNVeto ' FINAL PERMIT ISSUED 1 ■ District Engineer Review ■ Endangered Species Act 15 Days § 7 Certification 90 to 150 Days ■ Public Comment Tolls 60 Day Decision Period 15 to 30 Days From Public Notice ■ Coastal Zone Management Certification ' ■ Public Hearing 6 Months More than 30 Days After Notice ■ Historic Preservation Certification ■ Incomplete Application No Mandatory Deadlines ' 45 Days to Correct Deficiency ■Clean Water Ad§ 401 Certification ■ Decisions Making Process 60 Days 60 Days w/o Delays Can Be Extended to I Year 23 ALGEIVED JAN 3 11994 REAL PROPERTY LAw i R Volume 17 / Number 1 / January 1994 Filling Wetlands: California Law and Regulation ' JAMES T. BURROUGHS Filling wetlands in California is always a controversial proposition and one that i is heavily regulated by the resource management agencies.Although regulation has traditionally been the province of the federal government, California has to some extent adopted its own program. Relatively little is written about this program because it is not as detailed or comprehensive as the federal regime. For the regulated community,however,state restrictions on filling wetlands are no less important than the better known federal limitations. California's regulatory program has evolved in an unusual way. 'There is no i comprehensive wetlands regulatory regime under state law,but there are several state statutes and legislatively mandated policies that directly and indirectly re- late to wetlands management. This article surveys the four most important of these statutes—the California Coastal Act of 1976(Pub Res C§§30000—30900), the McAteer-Petris Act of 1969(Gout C §§66600-66682),the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Wat C §§13000-14076), and the California i JAMES T.BURROUGHS received his B.A.from Whitman College in Walla Walla,Washing- too, and his J.D.from Georgetown University. He is an associate with Beveridge&Diamond, San Francisco, where his practice emphasizes wetlands, endangered species, and hazardous waste issues. 1 i � -�___.—`- LL.. •_ - _- ON THE INSIDE 1 11 Hold on to Your Cattails:The 34 1993 Legislation Relating to Real Tide Is Changing in Wetlands Property Regulation 42 Regulations 16 Real Property Cases 43 MCLE Self-Assessment Test 32 Cumulative List of Real Property 45 Summary of Cases Reported Cases Pending Before the j California Supreme Court 47 Table of Cases Reported 34 Subsequent History 48 Table of Legislation Reported i _ f I ©1994 by The Regents of the University of California PAGE 1 2 January /1994 7 CEB Real Property Law Reporter Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)(Pub Res C§§21000- Real Property Law Reporter(ISSN 0898-1698), Volume 17, 21178.0—and finds that they vary Significantly in their Number 1 (January 1994).Publisned eight times a year in Jan- regulatory requirements and effects.The first two are tar- uary. February, Aprd, May, July, August, October, and No- geted solely toward the coastal zone;the third and fourth vember by continuing Education of the Bar—California,Uni- are implemented lhroughoutthe state.None was conceived versity of California Extension.Mailing address:Department CEB—RPLR, 2300 Shattuck Avenue, Berkeley, California with any statewide wetlands regulatory scheme in mind. 94704. Consequently,the rigor of state-mandated wetlands regu- Second-class postage paid at Berkeley, California and addi- lation often depends on the location of the wetland in ques- tional mailing offices.POSTMASTER:Send address changes tion. to CEB Real Property Law Reporter,2300 Shattuck Avenue, These inconsistencies are most likely the product of the Berkeley, CA 94704-1576. shifting priorities inherent in the state legislative process rather than a scientifically based or deliberate decision to EDITOR treat different types of wetland habitat differently. The ' Professor Roger Bernhardt' fact that coastal wetlands, for example, are more heavily Golden Gate University School of Law regulated than inland wetlands is most likely due to the ASSISTANT EDITOR state's long-standing commitment, motivated in signifi- ' Noel W. Nellis cant part by economic concerns, to protect its pristine Morrison & Foerster, San Francisco coastline.The result,for better or worse,is a de facto sys- •Assisted by Tatua Toter-Sarkissian tem of classifying wetland resources that has less to do with intrinsic wetland values than with overriding con- PUBLISHER EDITORS cerns about growth management, tourism and other in- Johanna Sherlin and Michael J. Haas, CEB Attorneys dustry, and general aesthetics. Josie Munn, CEB.Copy and Production Editor Robert W. Denham,CEB Legal Research Analyst Whether this regulatory structure should be main- tained,revamped,or abolished is the focus of several ini- issues beginning December 1977 are$22 tiatives at the state and regional levels. Governor Pete handling. 128 back issues SUBSCRIPTION: for one year,plus for shipping and Wilson's recently announced California Wetlands Con- each to subscribers. Storage binders are$12.50 plus tax. For servation Policy is by far the most significant.See Gover- more information: in northern California phone (510) nor Pete Wilson, "California Wetlands Conservation 642-7590 or mail your order to CEB, 2300 Shattuck Ave., Policy, (Aug. 1993). The Berkeley,CA 94704;in southern California phone Scott Dun- lap (310) 825-5301; or call toll-free 1-800-924-3924. Governor's program contains a broad range of new policy initiatives aimed at increasing the quality and quantity of CEB Is Self-Supporting California's wetlands while at the same time reducing the CEB is a nonprofit organization established by the State Bar procedural complexity that is traditionally associated of California. It receives no subsidy from State Bar dues or with wetlands regulatory management. As part of the from any other source. CEB's only financial support comes from the fees that lawyers pay for CEB publications and pro- Governor's initiative,for example,the San Francisco Bay grams. Regional Water Quality Control Board is considering op- The editors welcome suggestions and comments for making tions for taking; over certain types of wetland permitting the Reporter more useful to California lawyers. responsibilities from the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). See also San Francisco Estuary Proj- This Reporter may be cited as 17 CEB Real Prop L Rep_ ect,Draft Comprehensive Conservation and Management (]an. 1994): the short citation is 17 CEB RPLR _ (Jan. plan or the Bay and Delta, 14(Jul 1992), which sug- gests f y P Y that a study be undertaken to assess the "implica- Continuing Education of the Bar—California publications and tions for state assumption of the wetlands regulatory pro- programs are intended to provide current and accurate in- formation about the subject matter covered and are designed gram—Section 404 of the Clean Water Act—and of to help attorneys maintain their professional competence. improved regulatory coordination through establishment Publications are distributed and programs presented with the of single agency authority for wetland alteration activi- understanding that CEB does nct render any legal, account- ties"; S 1114(1laucus/Chafee), introduced July 28, 1993, ing.or other professional service.Attorneys using CEB publi- cations or orally conveyed information in dealing with a spe- which proposes, among other things, to grant states the cific client's or their own 1'egal matters should also research Opportunity to assume broader permitting responsibilities original sources of authority. under the gui:ie of the general permit provisions of J §404(e) of the Clean Water Act (33 USC §1344(e)). ' 17 CEB Real Property Law Reporter January 1994 3 Much of what is contained in the Governor's newly ar- sumption of the§404 program.)This opening allowed the ` ticulated wetlands policy needs to be fleshed out with fur- passage and implementation of the California laws that ther studies, pilot projects, and interagency agreements are the subject of this article. regarding wetlands management. Significant new reform The first mention of "wetlands" in California law is proposals will be a likely outgrowth of this undertaking. found in the McAteer-Petris Act which established the San It is in this context that this article discusses the four main Francisco Bay Plan under the jurisdiction of the San Fran- state statutes for purposes of helping to provide a frame- cisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission work for discussion about the future of state-mandated (BCDC). Regulatory jurisdiction over wetlands was ex- wetlands regulations in California. (For comprehensive tended beyond the San Francisco Bay and throughout the discussion of the federal regulatory scheme, see Ivester, rest of the coastal zone seven years later in 1976 with pas- Guide to Wetlands Regulation, 2 CEB Land Use Forum sage of the California Coastal Act.The Coastal Commis- 197(Spring 1992). For a series of articles discussing wet- sion implements the Coastal Act, but its jurisdiction does lands mitigation, see Hori et al., "No Net Loss": The not include that of BCDC in the San Francisco Bay area. Challenge of Protecting Wetlands, 2 CEB Land Use Fo- There is no specific regulatory body charged with reg- rum 241 (Summer 1992). For a detailed discussion of the ulating wetlands inland of the coastal zone, but their fill- reform proposals made by both Governor Wilson and the ing is subject to regulation under two statewide regulatory Clinton Administration, see Morrison & Caligari, Hold programs that have equal applicability in coastal and non- on to Your Cattails: The Tide Is Changing in Wetlands coastal areas. The first is the Porter-Cologne Act, which Regulation, p 11.) establishes a regulatory regime for protecting the quality of the state's waters. Permits may be required for dis- Overview charges into these waters, including discharges into wet- lands. The second is CEQA, which requires state and lo- One reason that the California wetlands regulation pro- cal agencies to identify any "significant effect" that a gram is so disjointed may be that this area of law has been proposed project under their jurisdiction may have on the dominated by the federal government since 1972. Federal environment, including wetlands. Pub Res C §21082.2. regulation of dredge and fill activities actually dates back CEQA may require that a project be disapproved if wet- to the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 USC §§401— land impacts have been identified and have not been suffi- 467n), which prohibits the placement of dredged spoil, ciently mitigated. Pub Res C §§21002, 21081; 14 Cal ' among other things, in "navigable waters of the United Code Regs §15021. States"—a term which does not include wetlands—except The permitting standards and even the definition of in accordance with a permit issued by the Corps. 33 USC "wetland" varies with each of these statutes. Unlike the §407. But it was with the passage of the 1972 law now federal program where the Corps is the lead permitting known as the Clean Water Act(33 USC§§1251-1387)that agency for all proposed wetland fills under the Clean Wa- ke regulation of all waters of the United States,including ter Act(subject to EPA veto and input from other federal wetlands,began in full.Natural Resources Defense Coun- resource management agencies), the lead state agency— cil, Inc. v Callaway(2d Cir 1975)524 F2d 79. Under the and the governing state law—for any proposed wetland Clean Water Act,the discharge of any pollutant,including fill depends in part on where the wetland is located in the fill or dredged spoil,into waters of the United States is pro- state. The proposed construction of a restaurant, for ex- hibited except as otherwise allowed by aCorps-issued per- ample,that involves the filling of wetlands will be treated mit. 33 USC §1311. differently under state law depending on whether it is in There has been no compelling need to respond legisla- the San Francisco Bay area,elsewhere on the coast,or in- lively to wetland development pressures with a statewide land of the coastal zone. program because the Corps and the United States Envi- ronmental Protection Agency (EPA) have developed and California Coastal Act implemented a comprehensive regime of wetlands regu- lation under §404 of the Clean Water Act. These federal The California Coastal Act provides a comprehensive agencies today remain the primary wetlands regulatory program for regulating development in the coastal zone. force in California. The Act does not preempt, however, Filling wetlands is considered to be a development proj- the development of a state wetlands program. Indeed, it cat and is thus subject to the Act's permitting require- allows a state to assume the §404 program. 33 USC mcnt. -Development" is defined in the Coastal Act to ' §1344(g). (To date, only one state (Michigan) has taken mcan -the placement.. .of any solid material . . .on land. this route. New Jersey has an application pending for as- in ,lr under water." Pub Res C §30106. 4 January 1994 17 CEB Real Property Law Reporter Depending on the circumstances,either the affected lo- quires the presence of"shallow water"whereas the three- cal government or the Coastal Commission will serve as pronged approach. used by the federal agencies requires the permitting agency. Pub Res C§30600.Permit applica- only evidence of "saturation" to the surface (in addition Lions will be reviewed for conformity with the local gov- to evidence of hydric soils and hydrophytic vegetation). ernment's Local Coastal Program (LCP) if one has been The Coastal Commission's guidelines, however, have in- certified by the Commission,or with the provisions of the terpreted the Coastal Act's definition of wetlands to in- Coastal Act generally if the relevant LCP has not yet been elude "soil or substrate that is at least periodically satu- certified. Pub Res C §30604. Proposed fill projects lo- rated with or covered by water." California Coastal cated on tidelands,submerged lands,or public trust lands Commission,Stat--wide Interpretative Guidelines on Wet- always require a permit from the Commission,even if the lands and Other WFt Environmentally Sensitive Habitat local government has been certified as the permitting Areas, Appendix D (Feb. 4, 1981), adopted pursuant to agency for coastal development permits. Pub Res C Pub Res C §30620(a) and (b) (Guidelines). These guide- §§30600(b), 30601. For purposes of this discussion, all lines have not been adopted as regulations according to references to the permitting agency will be to the Com- the California Administrative Procedure Act (Govt C mission. §§11340-11373.3), which makes the Commission's de- Although the permitting program is relatively detailed, termination that"saturated"soil qualifies as"shallow wa- the reach of the Commission's jurisdiction is somewhat ter" legally suspect. The issue has not been treated by the limited. For significant coastal estuaries,habitat,and rec- courts. reational areas, the coastal zone (which defines the Com- In the only reported decision that directly addresses mission's jurisdiction) extends inland to the first major the Coastal Act's definition of wetlands, the issue was ridge line parallel to the sea or five miles from the mean whether to give literal effect to the definition when high tide line of the sea, whichever is less. Pub Res C a storm damaged a seawall and thereby allowed en- §30103. The coastal zone does not include the area of ju- croachment of previously restrained waters onto upland risdiction of the BCDC. Pub Res C §30103. property. The court refused to concur in the classifica- Wetlands are defined in the Coastal Act as land"which tion of the newl) inundated property as wetlands, even may be covered periodically or permanently with shallow though the land was covered with "shallow water." water and include saltwater marshes, freshwater marshes, Beach Colony 11 v Coastal Comm'n (1984) 151 CA3d open or closed brackish water marshes, swamps, mud- 1107, 1113, 199 CR 195. See also City of Carmel-By- flats, and fens." Pub Res C §30121. (Compare with Pub The-Sea v Board of Supervisors (1986) 183 CA3d 229, Res C §5812, which defines "wetlands" for purposes of 248, 227 CR 899 (commenting on the Coastal Act's the Keene-Nejedly California Wetlands Preservation Act definition of wetlands that had been incorporated into (Pub Res C §§5810-5818), which authorizes the Depart- a disputed land use plan, the court found that the defini- ment of Fish and Game and the Department of Parks and tion might be descriptive for a layman, but that it was Recreation to acquire, restore, and enhance endangered "unworkable for field study purposes"). California wetlands.) The permitting; restrictions that apply to development Federal regulations define wetlands as "those areas projects in coastal wetland areas are significant. Such that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water projects are subject to a three-step review process. First, at a frequency and duration sufficient to support,and that the proposed project must fall into one of eight enumer- under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of ated categories of permissible projects (Pub Res C vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil §30233(a)). conditions."33 CFR §328.3(b).This definition is fleshed 1. New or expanded port, energy, and coastal-depen- out by the Corps in its Wetlands Delineation Manual, dent industrial facilities,including commercial fishing fa- Technical Report Y-87-1 (Jan. 1987), which sets forth a cilities: three-parameter test(hydrology,hydric soils,hydrophytic 2. Dredging existing navigational channels, turning vegetation) for delineating wetlands.(The federal method basins. %essel berthing and mooring areas, and boat for delineating wetlands has recently been the subject of launching_ ramps; much controversy and is currently under review by a spe- 3 Boahng facilities in degraded wetlands if in con- cial panel of the National Academy of Sciences. Mean- junctWn .%ith such construction, a substantial portion of while, the Corps' 1987 manual remains in effect.) the k1 !'r.1k1Cd �%etlands are restored; On its face, the definition of"wetlands" in the Coastal 4 1' -111n_ ►acilities and pilings for new piers in open Act is narrower than the federal definition because it re- coa�,i.d A.ticr, outer than wetlands; , 17 CEB Real Property Law Reporter January 1994 5 5. Incidental public services, including burying of An example of the Commission acting on this basis cables or pipes or maintenance of existing intake or out- was its conditional approval in 1986 of a wetlands resto- ' fall pipes; ration project at Bolsa Chica in Orange County.This proj- 6. Mineral extraction; ect contained several urban development components 7. Restoration purposes; (housing, marina, roads) located in wetlands in order to 8. Nature study, aquaculture, or similar resource-de- create an economically feasible restoration plan for the pendent activities. degraded Bolsa Chica wetlands.See Coastal Commission Generally, such projects must be "coastal-depen- certification of Orange County's Local Coastal Program dent"—i.e., except for "incidental public services" and Land Use Plan for the Bolsa Chica Segment(Jan. 1986). "mineral extraction," the project must require "a site on, This action by the Commission is still referred to in cur- or adjacent to, the sea to be able to function at all." Pub rent decisional documents as an example of a non-coast- Res C §§30101, 30255. al-dependent project being permissible under a combined It is interesting to compare this coastal-dependency reading of Pub Res C §§30233 and 30411. See Coastal requirement with the water-dependency test under the Commission, Proposed Findings on Combined Consis- federal §404 program. In reviewing a federal permit ap- tency Certification and Coastal Development Permit for plication, one of the most important preliminary deter- the Proposed Construction of the San Joaquin Hills n-dnations for the Corps is deciding whether the proposed Transportation Corridor, p 28 (Mar. 17, 1993). project is"water-dependent."If the Corps determines that For wetlands that have not been officially classified as the project does not require water to achieve its basic pur- degraded, the coastal-dependency requirement looms pose (e.g., residential housing as opposed to a marina), larger. There is, however, one other circumstance that then the applicant bears the difficult burden of overcom- would permit an exception to this requirement: the con- ing the rebuttable presumption that there are alternative flicts resolution provision found in Pub Res C §§30200 sites available that would have a lesser aquatic ecosystem and 30007.5. These provisions allow a conflict between impact. 40 CFR §230.1 0(a)(3). As difficult as rebutting two or more competing Coastal Act policies to be re- this presumption may be, it is done on occasion. There- solved in a manner that is,on balance, most protective of fore, the mere fact that a project is non-water-dependent coastal resources. In a recent application of these provi- does not mean that it cannot be permitted under the §404 sions, the Commission found that the construction of a program. toll road in wetlands was permissible because, when The Coastal Act's coastal-dependency requirement can viewed in its entirety,the public access and recreation po- orly be overcome under narrowly prescribed circum- licies of the Act that were to be served by the construction stances, one of which is the case of a degraded wetland. of the proposed road outweighed the resulting loss to wet- The Act authorizes the construction of"boating facilities" land resources, taking into consideration that the project in wetlands identified by the Department of Fish and was the least damaging feasible alternative and adequate Game as "degraded" if a substantial portion of the de- mitigation measures were provided. See Coastal Com- graded wetlands are restored and maintained. Pub Res C mission, Proposed Findings on Combined Consistenc.v §30233(a)(3). But the Department of Fish and Game is Certification and Coastal Development Permit for the not limited to considering proposed "boating facilities." Proposed Construction of the San Joaquin Hills Tran.\- Instead,it may also consider whether"there are otherfea- portation Corridor, p 30 (Mar. 17, 1993). Bible ways to achieve" the restoration of the degraded The second step in the permitting process, assumin , :t wetlands. [Emphasis added.] Pub Res C §30411(b)(3). proposed wetlands development project qualifies for 1 The "other feasible ways" language is important because permit, requires the project applicant to prove that there it has been interpreted in the Commission's guidelines to are not any feasible,less environmentally damaging aiter- include other development alternatives such as housing or natives available that are capable of accomplishing ific commercial development if a boating facility is not feasi- project's objectives. Pub Res C §30233(a). ble. See California Coastal Commission,Statewide.Inter- In practice, a Corps-approved "alternatives analv.i, pretative Guidelines for Wetlands and Other Wet Environ- prepared according to the §404(b)(1) guidelines tnav he mentally Sensitive Habitat Areas, p 56 (Feb. 4, 1981). sufficient for Coastal Act purposes. A"404(b)(1)aiterna- Thus, a non-coastal-dependent project can be permitted tives analysis" is a requirement of the §404 prograin It F in coastal wetlands under the Coastal Act as long as it is analyzes potential alternatives to the proposed proje,.+ i, part of a larger restoration project in wetlands determined determine if they accomplish the project purpose and .o.- to be degraded by the Department of Fish and Game. available to the applicant and capable of being done .iii. i 6 January 1994 17 CEB Real Property Law Reporter taking into consideration cost, existing technology, and lion of coastal we tlands is a state law concept and is not part logistics. No§404 permit may issue if a viable alternative of the Corps' §434 permitting authority. is identified which would have less adverse impact on the Aggrieved pe:-sons have somewhat limited administra- aquatic environment than the proposed project,as long as tive appeal opportunities. Before the Commission's certi- the alternative does not have other significant adverse en- fication of an LCP, any person may appeal any local gov- vironmental consequences. 40 CFR §230.10(a). ernment action on a coastal permit application to the Alternatively, a CEQA "alternatives analysis" may Commission. Pub Res C §30602. After the LCP has been serve this same function. CEQA requires a review of all certified, proposed developments in coastal wetlands can feasible alternatives that would substantially lessen the be appealed to the Commission only if the permit applica- significant environmental effects of the proposed project. tion is approved. Pub Res C §30603(a).The Commission Pub Res C §21002; 14 Cal Code Regs §15126(d). hears appeals on de novo review. Pub Res C §30621. If Regardless of the form of proof, the Commission must a project is disapproved, no administrative review by the be convinced of the unavailability of less damaging alter- Commission is available. natives. See e.g., Sierra Club v California Coastal However, for those decisions by local governments Comm'n(1993) 19 CA4th 547,559,23 CR2d 534(Com- that are not app,-alable to the Commission, and for those mission's determination that a proposed plan for the res- decisions that have been decided by the Commission on toration of the Batiquitos Lagoon was the least environ- appeal,any aggrieved person has a right to judicial review mentally damaging alternative was "amply supported in by filing a petition for a writ of mandate. Pub Res C the record"). Difficult issues that constantly arise in this §§30801,30802..The standard of review employed by the analysis include the definition of "project purpose" courts is the substantial evidence test. See City of Chula (which affects the range of alternatives that must be con- Vista v Superior Court (1982) 133 CA3d 472, 183 CR sidered)and the determination of which potential alterna- 909; City of San Diego v California Coastal Comm'n tives are "feasible." - (1981) 119 CA3d 228, 174 CR 5. Third, and finally, the Coastal Act requires a project applicant to demonstrate that all feasible mitigation mea- San Francisco Bay Conservation and sures have:been provided in order to minimize any ad- Development Commission verse environmental effects. Pub Res C §30233(a). See e.g., Sierra Club v California Coastal Comm'n, supra. As The McAteer-Petris Act provides for the regulation of with the alternatives analysis test, mitigation require- wetland fill projects in the San Francisco Bay Area by ments may simply track those that are imposed on the BCDC. BCDC's jurisdiction generally includes the San project by the Corps as a condition of the§404 permit that Francisco and San Pablo Bays, and, under the Suisun would be required for the wetland fill.Like the Corps,the Marsh Preservation Act of 1977 (Pub Res C §§29000— Coastal Commission is allowed to take payment of a fee 29612),the Suisun Bay including the Suisun Marsh.Even into a mitigation bank in lieu of actual restoration if resto- though the origins of this program predate the passage of ration sites are unavailable. Pub Res C §30607.1. Such the federal §404 program in 1972 and the California proposals, however, have not been favored by the Com- Coastal Act in 1976, the Bay Area wetlands regulatory mission. regime is not as well-developed or as restrictive as those Beyond these three permitting requirements for devel- under the Clean Water Act or the Coastal Act. For exam- opment projects in coastal wetlands,the Coastal Commis- ple, the McAteer-Petris Act does not define "wetlands" sion also has the authority to condition or deny nonwetland or"marshlands" by reference to intrinsic values. Instead, project developments for purposes of protecting adjacent wetlands are identified by land use function and high tide coastal wetlands.Pub Res C§30240(b).An upland project lines. may be required to use setbacks,buffer strips,noise barn- Wetlands protected by the McAteer-Petris Act include ers, off-site drainage improvements, and other devices to all salt ponds on the San Francisco Bay that were used to avoid degradation of an adjoining wetland.In one case,the make salt between 1966 and 1969 and all "managed wet- Commission denied a permit for a 700-unit hotel complex lands" (e.g., privately owned duck clubs) in operation on a40-acre upland area because it determined that the ad- during the same period. BCDC's jurisdiction also extends jacent marsh ecosystem would be harmed by the noise, to all areas touched by the line of the highest tidal action, light, and other disturbances caused by the hotel project. including marshlands, tidelands, and submerged lands, a See City of Chula Vista v Superior Court(1982) 133 CA3d 100-foot-wide shoreline band extending around the bay, 472, 491, 183 CR 909. Significantly, buffer zone protec- and certain creeks and tributaries. Govt C §66610. 11 CEB Real Property Law Reporter January 1994 7 �. Approximately 50,000 acres of historic diked bay- or "water-dependent" project under the other two pro- lands, many of which exhibit wetland characteristics, es- grams. Water-oriented uses include traditional water-de- cape BCDC's jurisdiction, and that of the Coastal Com; pendent projects such as port expansion, but also include mission, because they are neither subject to tidal action airports and water-oriented commercial recreation and nor qualify as "salt ponds" or "managed wetlands.' public assembly uses such as restaurants and other visitor- BCDC's jurisdiction, however, will follow the tide in the serving facilities.Govt C§66605(a);BCDC,San Francis- event that a diked bayland is intentionally breached. co Bay Plan, p 21 (Jan. 1969, as amended). Except for Where a levee has been breached by natural causes,juris- port projects, these "water-oriented" projects would face diction will follow if repairs have not been made within severe regulatory restrictions under the federal §404 pro- one year of the breach. 14 Cal Code Regs §10132(a)(1); gram or the Coastal Act program because they would People ex rel BCDC v Gianulias (1986) 188 CA3d 520, probably not be considered to be water-dependent. It is 233 CR 621; Blumenfeld v BCDC (1974) 43 CA3d 50, significant to note, however, that "water-oriented" uses 117 CR 327(construed"subject to tidal action"to include under the McAteer-Petris Act do not necessarily include property connected to the bay solely by means of man- residential development. See Mein v BCDC (1990) 218 made culvert where water reached the property through CA3d 727,267 CR 252(court upheld BCDC finding that the culvert occasionally during high tide at certain sea- destruction and proposed replacement of a private house sons). and deck found not to be a water-oriented use or an im- The permitting restrictions in wetlands subject to provement in shoreline appearance or access). BCDC's jurisdiction are less stringent, at least on paper, In practice, it cannot be said that there is a significant than those contained in the Coastal Act or the federal wet- difference in the types of projects that are permitted under lands program. BCDC may issue a permit to fill waters the McAteer-Petris Act and the Coastal Act. Moreover, Pr Tn� Y if the project is "water-oriented" (Govt C §66602), or if any project applicant proposing to fill wetlands under ei- it involves a minor fill to improve shoreline appearance ther act would most likely have to secure a §404 permit or access to the bay, or is necessary to the health, safety from the Corps.Nonetheless,the regulatory regime differ- or welfare of the public in the bay area.Govt C§66632(f). ences remain.The accent on shoreline appearance and ac- BCDC is required to determine that there are no alterna- cess in the San Francisco Bay Plan,for example,may allow tive upland locations available for the proposed project. a project to proceed that might not otherwise be permitted Govt C §66605(b). See Save San Francisco Bay Ass'n v by the Coastal Commission in its zone of jurisdiction. BCDC(1992) 10 CA4th 908, 13 CR2d 117(court upheld BCDC is charged by the McAteer-Petris Act with en- determination by BCDC that no suitable alternative forcement of the Act's provisions. BCDC is authorized to upland location was available for aquarium project). issue a cease-and-desist order against any person engaged The McAteer-Petris Act does not expressly require in an unauthorized fill (i.e., fill without a permit) or who mitigation for a fill project, but BCDC is directed to au- is in violation of a term or condition of an existing permit. thorize only projects where the public benefit clearly ex- Govt C §§66637, 66638; 14 Cal Code Regs §11300. See ceeds the public detriment. Govt C §66605(a). To that Mein v BCDC(1990)218 CA3d 727,267 CR 252(upheld end, BCDC is authorized to grant permits subject to rea- BCDC's cease-and-desist order requiring the removal of sonable terms and conditions(Govt C§66632(f)),and ac- unauthorized fill); Leslie Salt Co. v BCDC (1984) 153 cordingly has been requiring mitigation for unavoidable CA3d 605, 617, 200 CR 575 (upheld BCDC's cease and adverse environmental impacts from fill projects since desist order requiring the removal of unauthorized fill that 1974. See BCDC, Mitigation Practices Guidebook, p 1 had been placed on Leslie's property by an unknown third (May 7, 1987). Examples of mitigation conditions im- person). BCDC is also authorized to levy administrative posed by BCDC in the past include requirements to create penalties against any person who violates the Act, al- new tidal marsh, cleanup of shoreline debris, removal of though such persons are also subject to civil penalties in existing deteriorated pile-supported and submerged fill, superior court. Govt C §§66641.5,66641.6. Enforcement and contributions to a mitigation bank. BCDC Guide- actions have tended to focus more on unauthorized tills book, p 8. than on monitoring the terms and conditions of issued Although this regulatory regime appears to be roughly permits. similar to that contained in the Coastal Act and federal Judicial review of a cease-and-desist order or fine is- §404 programs,there ate some important differences.For sued by BCDC is available to any aggrieved person in a example, a "water-oriented" project under the McAteer- superior court by filing a petition for writ of mandate. Petris Act is more inclusive than a "coastal-dependent" Govt C §§66639, 66641.7. When the aggrieved party January 1994 17 CEB R w Reporter 8 ary Real Property Law p claims that BCDC's findings are not supported by the evi- piers "waste" under the Porter-Cologne Act to include dence, the standard of review employed by the courts is "concentrated sediment." the substantial evidence test. Govt C §66639(b). Notwithstanding this asserted authority, regional boards to date have generally elected to not "write" re- Porter-Cologne Act Waste Discharge quirements for projects proposing to fill wetlands. Requirements Instead,they will make their views known on a particular project, and if necessary, condition or even deny project The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act autho- approval, under the authority of the water quality certifi- rizes regional water quality control boards (regional cation process required by the Clean Water Act. 33 USC boards)to issue"waste discharge requirements"(i.e.,per- §1341.This provision requires a§404 permit applicant to chits) for any proposed discharges into waters of the state provide to the Corps a certification from the state that its within their respective jurisdictions. Wat C §13263. Such proposed project is consistent with applicable state water permits are intended to implement the relevant regional quality standards. 33 USC §1341. In California, this board's"water quality control plan"which contain"water means that a proposed fill project must be consistent with quality objectives" and "beneficial uses to be protected." the relevant"water quality control plan."The State Water Wat C §§13050(j), 13241. Beneficial uses identified in Resources Control Board ultimately makes this deter- these plans often include wetlands, swamps, marshlands, mination (based on the recommendation of the relevant and other such similar terms, thereby giving rise to a po- regional board) and may waive its review, certify, condi- tential permit requirement for discharges into these wa- tionally certify, or deny a water quality certification ap- ters. See, e.g., California Regional Water Quality Control plication based on any limitations imposed by applicable Board,San Francisco Bay Basin Region(2),Water Quali- state water quality standards. 33 USC §1341(a), (d). A ty Control Plan, p 11-4 (Dec. 1986, as amended). §404 permit cannot be issued by the Corps if the water A legal question arises,however, as to whether the re- quality certification is denied by the state. 33 USC gional boards are authorized to regulate all discharges,or §1341(a), (d). only waste. discharges. Filling wetlands for the primary When wetland fill permits in the form of waste dis- purpose of construction, not waste disposal, is arguably charge requirements are issued by a regional board under outside the scope of the regional boards' authority to issue the Porter-Cologne Act,they often relate to water quality "waste discharge requirements" because the Porter-Co- control considerations, not the protection of the wetland logne Act defines "waste" to include "sewage and any itself. Paving over a wetland area, for example, may af- and all other waste substances, liquid, solid, gaseous, or feet an area's groundwater recharge system, thereby radioactive . . . ."Wat C §13050(d).Fill material is not in- prompting the regional board to require appropriate mid- cluded in this definition,thereby potentially depriving the gation measures.Occasionally,a regional board will issue regional boards of any authority to regulate wetland fill waste discharge requirements for purposes of protecting projects. the intrinsic values of a wetlands system. In one case,the This issue has never been directly addressed in a re- Central Valley regional board was ordered by the State - ported court decision. The question, however, has been Board to issue waste discharge requirements with ap- the subject of an opinion by the Chief Counsel of the State propriate mitigation measures to the United States Bureau Board. Opinion of Chief Counsel to Danny Walsh, Board of Reclamation that would require compensation for the Member, July 28, 1987. In that opinion, the Chief Coun- loss of wetland habitat values occasioned by the Bureau'N sel relied on the mandate of the Porter-Cologne Act "to proposed closure of the Kesterson National Wildlife Ref- protect the quality of waters in the state from degrada- uge. See/n re.Petition of Robert James Claus(State Wa- tion"(Wat C §13000) to find that the State Board(and its ter Resources Control Bd., Mar. 19, 1987) 1987 W L nine regional boards)do have the authority to issue waste 54534, Order No. WQ 87-3. discharge permits even when an applicant proposes to fill Regional boards have at least two tools to enforce their a wetland purely for construction purposes.Thus,accord- mandate to protect the beneficial uses of the waters of the ing to this opinion,"waste"includes fill materials that are state. First, they are empowered to issue cease-and-desi,�t used to create an upland out of a wetland, even if those orders where: a discharge is occurring in violation of any same materials would not be considered a"waste"materi- applicable waste discharge requirement or in violation ,,I al in any other context. In support of this thesis,see Lake a discharge prohibition.Wat C§13301.Second,they m:,,, Madrone Water Dist. v State Water Resources Control Rd. issue cleanup and abatement orders,or,if necessary. iak (1989) 209 CA3d 163, 256 CR 894, which broadly inter- action to cause the remediation of the unwanted dischar;_c 17 CEB Real Property Law Reporter January 1994 9 _ and recover the reasonable costs thereof from the illegal Homeowners Ass'n v County of Ventura(1985) 165 CA3d discharger, Wat C §13304. 357, 212 CR 127. Persons aggrieved by regional board actions or omis- When a significant adverse environmental effect is sions have 30 days in which to appeal the matter to the identified, no permit may issue if feasible alternatives or State Board. Wat C §13320. Judicial review of State feasible mitigation measures are available that would Board decisions is expressly authorized. Wat C §13330. lessen the identified wetland impacts of the proposed Although the issue is by no means settled an aggrieved project (unless the permitting agency finds compelling party would be prudent to exhaust all administrative rem- reasons otherwise). Pub Res C §21002. Although this edies before the State Board before seeking judicial re- CEQA requirement is potentially burdensome for the view of a regional board decision.See Hampson v Superi- project applicant,it is not nearly as limiting as the restric- or Court (1977) 67 CA3d 472, 136 CR 722. tions under the Coastal Act or McAteer-Petris Act. For example,there is no requirement under CEQA that California Environmental Quality Act a wetlands fill project be water-dependent or even water- oriented. In fact, there are no restrictions at all on the Projects that require an authorization from a state or types or locations of a wetland fill project other than the local public agency are generally subject to CEQA. Like requirement that sufficient mitigation be provided. Even its federal counterpart, the National Environmental in the absence of adequate mitigation,a proposed project Policy Act(NEPA) (42 USC §§4321-4370d), CEQA re- can still be approved if the permitting agency finds that quires the preparation of environmental review docu- "economic, social, or other conditions make it infeasible ments that are intended to alert the public and responsible to mitigate one or more significant effects of a project on officials to the potential environmental consequences of the environment.. ..provided that the project is otherwise proposed public agency action. Unlike NEPA, however, permissible under applicable laws and regulations." Pub CEQA contains a substantive component that prohibits a Res C §21002.1(c); 14 Cal Code Regs §§15091-15093. permitting agency from approving projects "if there are See, e.g., Citizens for Quality Growth v City of Mount feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures Shasta (1988) 198 CA3d 433, 243 CR 727 (city's deci- available which would substantially lessen the significant sion to amend its general plan to allow development in environmental effects of such projects." Pub Res C wetlands overturned when it failed to make the necessary §21002. "Project" is a term of art under CEQA that is findings to support its statement of overriding consider- broadly defined to include all "activities involving the is- ations); Sierra Club v Contra Costa County (1992) 10 suance to a person of a. . .permit. . .by one or more pub- CA4th 1212, 13 CR2d 182 (statement of overriding con- lic agencies;."Pub Res C §21065(c). In one case,the mere siderations must be supported by substantial evidence rezoning of land to accommodate a planned hotel resort contained in the EIR and/or other information in the re- was held to be a "project" for CEQA purposes because cord). Thus, filling wetlands for purposes of building an it defined the boundaries of a disputed wetlands area, office complex might be prohibited in the coastal zone "thereby also fixing the size and maximum density of the under the coastal-dependency requirements of the Coastal developable acreage." City of Carmel-By-The-Sea v Act,but could otherwise be allowed inland of the coastal Board of Supervisors(1986) 183 CA3d 229,245,227 CR zone under CEQA as long as the mitigation requirement 899. was either met by the applicant or waived by the permit- If the proposed project will have a significant adverse ting agency. environme:ttal effect or effects,then mitigation and proj- Alleged failure to comply with CEQA can be reviewed ect alternatives analyses are required."A project will nor- in a court of law. Pub Res C §§21168,21168.5. Rules af- mally have a significant effect on the environment if it fecting standing for such suits are very liberal. See Bo- will . . . [s]ubstantially diminish habitat for fish, wildlife zung v Local Agency Formation Comm'n(1975) 13 C3d or plants." 14 Cal Code Regs §§15000-15387,Appendix 263, 118 CR 249. The standard of review to determine G.Most proposed wetland fill projects probably will meet whether to set aside an agency determination under this standard and therefore trigger CEQA review. In one CEQA turns on whether the agency complied with the case, for example, a potentially significant impact was procedures required by law and whether the agency's found by the court where a proposed project would have findings are supported by substantial evidence. Sierra affected less than a quarter of an acre of wetlands. The Club v Gilroy City Council(1990)222 CA3d 30, 271 CR EIR adopted by the county was deemed inadequate for 249; Mira Monte Homeowners Assn v Ventura (1985) failing to ;onsider this potential impact. Mira Monte 165 CA3d 357, 212 CR 127. 10 January 1994 17 CEB Real Property Law Reporter Other State Laws state with wetlands regulation. Bu t ut taken individually,tm- Several other state laws, regulations, and policy pro- portant regulatory differences become apparent. nouncements bear on wetlands management and regula- The restaivant example posited at the outset of this ar- tion in California. For a survey discussion of this subject, ticle serves as a good reference. Under the Coastal Act, see Ivester, Guide to Wetlands Regulation, 1 CEB Land restaurant construction does not fail within one of the Use Forum 197, 204 (Spring 1992). None, however, has eight enumerated categories of allowable uses of wet- direct regulatory impacts comparable to the four primary lands in the coastal zone. But under the McAteer-Petris statutes described above. Nonetheless, two of these other Act, the same restaurant is potentially permitable under statutory requirements deserve mention. the provision for "water-oriented recreation and public The Department of Fish and Game is charged with the assembly"(Govt C §66602)along the San Francisco Bay. responsibility of securing"agreements"for the protection Inland of the:coastal zone,neither the Porter-Cologne Act of fish and wildlife from any person who is proposing to nor CEQA ,-,ontains any statutory provisions that would "substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow or sub- dictate an outcome on the question of whether the restau- rant could tie authorized. Instead, both require fact-spe- stantially change the bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream or lake designated by the department." Fish & G cific inquiries intended to aid the authorizing agency in C §§1601, 1603. Any failure on the part of the project making a decision consistent with the precepts of the rele- proponent to notify the Department of Fish and Game and vant act. Are any of these differences in the State's wetlands reach agreement on measures necessary to protect fish regulatory regime significant in light of the fact that wet- and wildlife may be submitted to an arbitration for bind- land fill projects, regardless of their location, must in any ing resolution. Fish&G C§§1601, 1603.Failure to prop- e erly notify the Department of Fish and Game, or acting vent be authorized by the Army Corps of Engineers un- in a manner contrary to any agreement or contrary to any der the federal §404 program? The short answer is yes. binding resolution subjects the project proponent to pen- There may be instances, for example, in which the state alties. Fish & G C §1603.1. has jurisdiction over an alleged "wetland" but the Corps From a wetlands permitting perspective, the most im- does not because the property in question does not meet portant thing to know about Department of Fish and the federal definition of wetlands or is considered to be Game requirements is that a plain reading of the statute an "isolated wetland" without interstate commerce con- suggests that wetlands which do not include a "river, nections and therefore outside of the Corps' domain. See stream or lake" are not covered. Where a wetland in- Hoffman Homes, Inc. v Administrator, U.S. EPA (7th Cir eludes a meandering stream, for example, only that por- 1993) 999 F2d 256. Also, certain fill projects are poten- don of the wetland project which encompasses the normal tially authorized under the §404 program that would be high water mark of the stream is likely to be covered by prohibited under state law. Restaurant construction in ' this provision of the Fish and Game Code.See Rutherford wetlands,fir example,is allowed by the Clean Water Act v State (1987) 188 CAM 1267, 1279, 233 CR 781. under limited circumstances, but is not allowed under Finally, the State Lands Commission is prohibited most circumstances in the coastal zone subject to the from issuing permits and leases for the extraction and re- Coastal Commission's jurisdiction. m In sum,:�imilaz situations are treated dissimilarly under oval of minerals, other than oil and gas or other hydro- California wetlands law. Ultimately the state legislature carbon substances on state lands where such activity would result in any net adverse impact to wetlands or and the Governor must decide whether these differences riparian habitat. Pub Res C §6890(a). should be erased in the interests of uniformity and predict- ability,or retained as a reflection of regional and geograph- ical differences in the need to protect wetland values. Ei- ther way, wetland management issues are sure to remain Considered together,the Coastal Act,the McAteer-Pe- controversial, but at least statewide wetlands regulation tris Act, the Porter-Cologne Act, and CEQA blanket the will be infised with a sense of direction and purpose. 24 CITY OF HUNTINOTON BEACH Lim COUNCIL - ADMINISTRATOR COMMUNICATION rasff*1GWN Wna+ TO. HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: RAY SILVER, ASSISTANT CITY ADMINISTRATOR QR,� DATE: MARCH 12, 1993 SUBJECT: SUMMARAY OF MEETING WITH CORPS OF ENGINEERS ON BOLSA CHICA PROJECT ON MARCH 11, 1993 1 Attached is a summary of the key points expressed at a meeting held in San Francisco at the EPA Office on Wednesday, March 11, j 1993. The purpose of the meeting was to provide the Corps of Engineers with input from a number of Agencies on the Draft EIS for the Roll Bolsa Chica Project. The City requested to be included in the meeting and was so invited. The City was represented by Laura Phillips and me. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or comments regarding the attached. cc: Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrator Mike Adams, Director of Community Dev pment Laura Phillips, Associate Planner 1r 1 90 L Bolsa Chica Interagency Meeting March 10, 1993 EPA Office 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA _ Attendees Alex Watt Army Corps of Engineers Michele Waltz Army Corps of Engineers Frank Piccola Army Corps of Engineers Bruce Henderson Army Corps of Engineers Ken Winter County of Orange - HBP Ron Tippets County of Orange - EMA Cheryl Heffley CA - Department of Fish & Game Jack Fancher U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Hugh Barrall EPA - Counsel Harriet Hill EPA - Wetlands Permits Clyde Morris EPA - Wetlands Tom Yocom EPA Mike Josselyn San Francisco State University Chris Parry CA Coastal Commission Teresa Henry CA Coastal Commission Stephen Rynas CA Coastal Commission Ray Silver City of Huntington Beach Laura Phillips City of Huntington Beach Meeting Notes - Dr. Josselyn's Coastal Conservancy Report of 5/90 analyzed three (3) wetlands restoration alternatives . Existing conditions were not evaluated relative to the conservancy's goals. Mike Josselyn prefers Alternative No. 3 (tidal inlet) because it provides greater open area, balances cut/fill better, provides greater diversity, meets agency goals, has less maintenance and management. (Report is available in City Planning Division. ) General agreement by EPA and ACOE that a tidal inlet is a desirable element for a wetland restoration plan, for water quality reasons. - EPA made the point that more than 1,000 acres of restoration are possible if that was the primary goal and money was available. The 927 or "1,000" number is based on EPA' s delineation of existing wetland. - Agencies cannot let City Council's funding search bias regulatory decisions. This is not relevant in terms of wetlands alternatives to be analyzed and whether the wetlands need to be filled to be "saved" . There does not appear to be anything in EPA's record that would support housing or transportation in a wetland in exchange for mitigation. - ACOE believes that lowland development for the purpose of housing is not going to be permittable. That's why Koll is arguing that the project purpose is wetland restoration. Koll is looking at possibilities for restoring the whole lowland to bolster their argument that the project is a wetlands restoration. Possibilities include: - Modifying the dredged areas to shallower, i .e. , less expensive. - Natural attrition of oil wells rather than immediate buyout. - Keep the inlet and other plan components (lowland housing) . This would maximize their dollar contribution. Projected cost of modified plan is $43-$46 million. - EPA is concerned about the hazardous materials on the site and how this would affect oil phase out and restoration as proposed. - Koll has been informed (verbally) by ACOE that their plan as currently proposed including lowland development, compensatory mitigation, and donation of land, will not likely be 1 permittable. By extension, this also means the Coalition plan will not be permittable. They have also been told that if they do full restoration on the remainder of the site they may get further in the process, but the permit still may be denied. Bolsa Chica -2- (6174d) i r ' This is because the concept of a mitigation bank or third party restoration is not really restoration. Its mitigation or compensation for wetlands fill somewhere: else (such as in the ports) . Compensatory mitigation may not: be the least environmentally damaging alternative. In any case, Koll has not shown why a mitigation bank over the whale site is infeasible. - EPA feels that lowland residential cannot be permitted for two (2) primary reasons: 1. If Koll has had feasible alternatives for locating housing outside of wetlands anytime in the planning process, even outside the City jurisdiction, EPA will consider this to have been a viable project alternative. So, if anyone has made any money on any housing in Orange County since 1985 (at least) , Koll loses the "no feasible less environmentally damaging" argument. So, they need to use the argument that the "no project" alternative is more damaging than their project. 2. EPA and other agencies are not convinced that "no project" is worse than Koll' s project. They do not believe Koll's degradation report is accurate and believe they need a critical analysis of the report, as well as of the downside of waiting - both economic and environmental. A possible "no action" scenario could include eventual removal of oil wells through attrition, removing the need to pump water off the site, thereby enhancing the wetlands. EPA believes this could counter the degradation argument: (as one example) and be better than lowland residential. - The Army Corps of Engineers cannot issue permits without Coastal Commission concurrence. Coastal staff does not believe that Koll has demonstrated compliance with the Coastal Act. By extension, this would also apply to the Coalition plan. EPA noted that if this is determined to be a housing project with compensatory mitigation, Koll should withdraw and stop serious consideration. However, all agreed that Koll has the right to proceed through the process. EPA believes that Ap-t building in the lowlands is almost certainly practicable, and less damaging alternative. From a financial, regulatory and environmental standpoint, they believe mesa development only will work. Discussion regarding how much Koll should be allowed to continue modifying their plan before the agencies say "stop", and take that plan, whatever it is, through the process. The agencies cannot keep trying to analyze a moving target. Bolsa Chica -3- (6174d) . 1 - EPA believes the Draft EIS/EIR is a good document. It contained correct information, just not enough for them to determine compliance. That's the reason they rated it inadequate. - Army Corps of Engineers will make a decision on the project purpose and need by April 30. - If ACOE determines that there are multiple purposes, such as restoration and housing•, or mitigation and restoration, . EPA sees no linkage between the purposes. Even if "leftover" areas after mitigation are defined a restoration areas, this does not justify housing as the purpose for the proposed fill and mitigation. Staff's general impression is that lowland housing and the cross-gap are probably not permitable, no matter what is offered in return. I� t Bolsa Chica -4- (6174d) 25 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE ,...,04 Southwest Region 501 West Ocean Boulevard, Suite 4200 Long Beach, California 90802-4213 TEL(310)980-4000; FAX(310)980-4018 June 3 , 1993 F/SWO2I:RSH Ms. Flossie Horgan President Bolsa Chica Land Trust 207 21st Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 Dear Ms. Horgan: ' Thank you for your recent letter requesting information regarding the status of the National Marine Fisheries Service's (NMFS) role as it relates to the Bolsa Chica Coalition. NMFS did serve as a support member to the Coalition. However, that involvement was limited to assisting in the development of restoration alternatives for the lowlands. Throughout the planning process NMFS, as well as other support members, consistently voiced objection to the plan developed by the five members of the Coalition. My position continues to be that the construction of homes in areas designated as wetlands at Bolsa Chica is an inappropriate land use. Hopefully, this information clarifies the current role of NMFS in the planning process for Bolsa Chica. Should you have any questions, please contact Mr. Robert Hoffman at (310) 980-4043 . Sincerely, Gary Matlock, Ph.D. Acting Regional Director CC: CDFG - Sacramento (R. Radovich) USFWS - Carlsbad (J. Fancher) EPA - San Francisco (H. Hill) fb d UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY AW o REGION IX rn71 75 Hawthorne Street 1� San Francisco, CA 94105.3901 MAR 4 1993 Grace Winchell, Mayor City Council Members City of Huntington Beach , City Hall 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Mayor Winchell and Council Members: I understand that on February 22, 1993, the Huntington Beach City Council held a Study Session on the Bolsa Chica project. Further, I understand that project proponents distributed documents during this meeting that listed the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a "support member" of the Bolsa Chica Planning Coalition and its development plan (see enclosure) . Such listing is incorrect. EPA is not, and has not been a member of this or any organization advocating development in wetlands at Bolsa Chica. It is true that Thomas Yocom of my staff was invited to *several plenary meetings of the Bolsa Chica Planning Coalition in 1988 and early 1989 in order to explain Clean Water Act (CWA) regulations applicable to the various development alternatives being considered by the Coalition. Mr. Yocom was careful to clearly state at each meeting he attended that EPA was not a member or supporter of the Coalition in any way. Mr. Yocom informs me that this same neutral position was taken by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers at the meetings he .attended; I mention this because I noted that the Corps (as well as other federal agencies) is also listed as a "support member" of the Bolsa Chica Planning Coalition (see enclosure) . Regarding regulatory requirements, EPA repeatedly has expressed concerns about anticipated difficulties that the proposed housing and transportation corridor would have complying with CWA regulations, given that such facilities are proposed in "waters of the United States, " including wetlands. These strong agency concerns have been consistent since 1989 and were most recently reiterated in EPA' s December 17, 1992 comments on the DEIS/EIR for the Bolsa Chica project. Accordingly, it is incorrect to characterize EPA ' s position as one of support for the "Coalition Plan. " EPA will continue to work to assist the Corps, Los Angeles District in its review of 1 Printed on Recycled Paper the permit application for the proposed development at Bolsa Chica, and will continue to strive to assure that wetland functions at Bolsa Chica are preserved or enhanced consistent- with EPA's goal to achieve no net loss of wetlands resources . I trust that this letter clears up any misunderstandings that the City of Huntington Beach may have had regarding EPA' s position and role in this matter. Sincerely, Harry Seraydarian Director Water Management Division Enclosure cc: District Engineer, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles Lucy Dunn, Koll Company U.S. EPA, Washington, D.C. (A-104F) III 2 United Suites Department of the Interior MERJCA�� 44 WW��11���11� F iN -'0 1•1S1-Y gEO ADLL SfbFF A& ffl.' .® .y+q N s• � v CARLSBAD FIELD OFFICE 2730 Loker Avenue West Carlsbad, California 92008 Apri . �I Honorable Harriett Wieder l 19, 1993 Orange County Board of Supervisors 10 Civic Center Plaza �I Santa Ana, California 92701 Re: Bolsa Chica Open Space / tlDear Supervisor Wieder: As you may recall, the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has for a long time endeavored to be involved in the public discussions about the existing and future conditions of the Bolsa Chica area. We were frustrated by the conduct and conclusions of the "Bolsa Chica Planning Coalition" for its failure to address applicable State and Federal regulatory issues and requirements. To our knowledge, no public agency has yet approved or is likely to -approve the "Koll Plan", which is often mistakenly referred to as the "Coalition Plan". The Service opinion has been and continues to be tha= the Koll Company's proposed project at Bolsa Chica can not obtain necessary State and Federal permits. The draft Environmental Impact Report/Statement, circulated last year, was so significantly inadequate that it must be! redone. Recently, it has appeared that the Koll Company, apparently perceiving you and the County of Orange to be more favorable to their own point of view than any other agency, instigated a move to establish the County of Orange as local lead agency. In any event, the State and Federal planning and permitting requirements must still be addressed. It is further our view that this litany of failed planning argues for a different approach char. the one so adve:sel./ manipulated by the Koll Company, a part owner of the Bolsa Chica open space . The Service may be ready to embark on a planning partnership with State and local governments and established organizations aimed at an enviroomencal consensus plan for the whole of the Bolsa Chica open space. Just one possible vision for the this area could be a "biological diversity park" that expands the premise of a traditional Ecological Reserve or National Wildlife Refuge to include native habitat restoration, education and passive recreation aspeccs of unimproved public parks. Completion of such a consensus plan cou:.d lead to local , State, and Federal dollars for acquisition and impleme:icztion. We wish to inquire as to the likely role that you and the Count; of Crange would care to have in such an alternative plar. preparation.. The Ser-vice representative remains Mr. Jack Fancher who may be reached at (619) 431-9440. -ircere _J .�� F?eI S.�er STATE OF CAiIFORNIA—THE RESOURCES AGENCY PETE WILSON, Go—nor DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME 1416 NINTH STREET d< ,.0. BOX 944209 iACRAMENTO, CA 942".2090 (916) 653-4875 March 19, 1993 Ms. Flossie Horgan, President Bolsa Chica Land Trust 207 21 Street Huntington Beach, ,California 92648 Dear Ms. Horgan: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Bolsa Chica Plan and the status of the Department of Fish and Game as a "Support Member" of the Bolsa Chica Planning Coalition. The Department has numerous concerns regarding both the adequacy of the most recent Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS) for the Bolsa Chica planning area and the desirability, permitability, and legality of the preferred alternative (and several other developmental alternatives) specified by the Draft EIR/EIS. As we indicated in the comments submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the City of Huntington Beach, our concerns regarding the Plan have been repeatedly stressed over the course of the development of the Plan. That our concerns have not been addressed is not a result of a failure by the Department to make its concerns known. Rather, it would seem to be a result of the Coalition simply ignoring our concerns. Regarding your question concerning the status of the Department as a "Support Member", such status (whatever it means) can not be used to infer that the Department is supportive of the Plan. In point of fact, no fewer than seven of the "Support Members" commented adversely with regard to the recent Draft EIR/EIS and several of these agencies have repeatedly indicated concerns regarding the Plan throughout its evolution. Apparently, "Support Members" are merely those agencies and other entities which were repeatedly contacted during the development of the Plan. Use of the term "Support Member" may be intended to foster an impression of unanimous support for a plan which has never enjoyed such support from the "Support Members." In conclusion, our letter of comment regarding the recent Draft EIR/EIS constitutes the position of the Department. That the Department is listed as a "Support Member" means that we were contacted during the development of the Plan, that we provided r Ms. Flossie Horgan March 19, 1993 Page Two extensive recommendations to the Coalition, that our recommendations were largely ignored, and that our concerns have not yet been addressed. We hope this letter adequately responds to the questions you have posed. We suspect that if you asked the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, Environmental Protection Agency, California Coastal Commission, State Coastal Conservancy, and California Department of Parks and Recreation whether their status as "Support Members" means that , they are supportive of the Plan, their responses would be similar to ours. We look forward to continuing our involvement in Bolsa Chica planning issues and are encouraged by the recent Bolsa Chica Wetland Restoration action of the Huntington Beach City Council. Should you have questions regarding this response, please contact me at the letterhead address and telephone number. Sincerely, Bob Radovich Environmental :specialist Mr. Peter Douglas California Coastal Commission Mr. Reed Holderman California Coastal Conservancy Mr. Jack Fancher U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Laguna Niguel, California Mr. Bob Hoffman National Marine Fisheries Service Terminal Island, California r ' TATE OF CALIFORNIA—THE RESOURCES AGENCY PETE WILSON. Governor :ALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION S FREMONT, SUITE,:000 AN FRANCISCO. CA 94105-2219 CICE AND TOD (415) 904.5200 March 31, 1993 Flossie Horgan, President Bolsa Chica Land Trust 207 21st Street 1 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Ms. Horgan: This letter is in response to your letter of March 3, 1993, requesting information on the California Coastal Commission's involvement in the Bolsa Chica Planning Coalition. You stated in your letter that a document circulated at a recent study session of the Huntington Beach City Council, listed the Coastal Commission as a "support member" of the Bolsa Chica Planning Coalition. The Commission staff was invited to and attended a number of the coalition meetings, but the purpose of the staff's attendance was to provide the coalition with technical information on the Coastal Act policies. The Commission staff did not vote for or in any way "support" a particular design concept, including the currently proposed "coalition plan." The Commission staff has serious concerns regarding the proposed coalition plan. The proposed residential and road development in the lowland portion of the Bolsa Chica site are inconsistent with the Coastal Act. The specific concerns are described in two recent letters: the Coastal Commission staff's comments on the Draft EIS/EIR for the Bolsa Chica project, dated December 10, 1992; and the Coastal Commission staff's preliminary comments on a draft Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Program, submitted by the Koll Company, dated December 10, 1992. I hope this letter responds to your questions. I would be happy to answer any other questions that you might have. Sincerely, Christiane Parry ' Deputy Manager Energy and Ocean Resources Unit r ATE.OF CALIF.ORNIA—RESOURCES AGENCY _ PETE WILSON,Govemor _ PARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION Orange Coast District - North Satellite ' 18331 Enterprise Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92648 (714) 848-1566 May 10, 1993 Ms. Flossie Horgan, President Bolsa Chica Land Trust ' 207 21st Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Ms. Horgan: I have been requested by Mr. Richard Rayburn, Chief, Resource Management Division, to respond to your letter of March 31, 1993. First let me apologize for the delay in responding. Although I have recently reported to Orange Coast District as the North Satellite Superintendent, the Bolsa Chica proposal was one of the first issues Superintendent Roggenbuck brought to my attention. It is my understanding that the Department has been in attendance at the coalition meetings to provide input during the planning process. This input identifies the impacts the proposals would have to the resources and recreational opportunities provided at Bolsa Chica State Beach. The State agency responsible for reviewing the proposed project is the Department of Fish and Game. I sense that your organization has concerns that our Department is listed as a "support member' of the Bolsa Chica Planning Coalition and hope this information addresses those concerns. Since I am new to the operation, I would like to take the opportunity to meet with you. Please give me a call at the North Satellite office, (714) 848-8700, so we can meet at your convenience. Sincerely, Donald H. Ito ' Superintendent 26 BOLSA CHICA PLANNING COALITION CONCEPT PLAN i BOLSA CHICA PLANNING 'OALITION The concept plan set forth in this document is intended to provide a viable alternative plan to the 1986 Certified Local Coastal Program/Land Use Plan for Bolsa Chica. The 1986 Plan includes a public marina, navigable ocean entrance,915 acres of wetlands and various residential and commercial development. Since the adoption of the 1986 Plan by the Orange County Board of Super%isors and California Coastal Commission, there has been growing public concern as to pote..anal significant adverse impacts related to the proposed public marina and navigable ocean entrance. There exists also a growing desire to maximize restoration of degraded wetlands at Bolsa Chica. In response to these concerns, the Bolsa Chica Planning Coalition was formed in November 1988, to develop an alternative land use plan for the Bolsa Chica area. The Coalition is composed of five executive or core members, including: the County of Orange, the City of Huntington Beach, the California State Lands Commission, the Amigos de Bolsa Chica and Signal Landmark. The core members rely on input and support from numerous other public and private interests, wildlife agencies, environmental groups, land owners, neighboring homeowners, on-site oil operators and numerous federal, state and local public agencies. Following six months of intense meetings and discussion, the Coalition, on May 22, 1989, unanimously adopted the alternative land use concept plan presented in this document. The concept plan alternative excludes the proposed marina and navigable ocean entrance and provides for a minimum 1000 acres of restored wetlands at Bolsa Chica. The wetlands are balanced with less intense residential development in the lowlands. The concept plan is now proceeding through public hearing and permitting processes before local,state and federal agencies. 1 1 r ,r r EXECUTIVE MEMBERS AMIGOS de BOLSA CHICA CALIFORNM STATE LANDS COMMISSION CITY OF HUNTING TON BEACH COUNTY OF ORANGE SIGNAL LANDMARK SUPPORT MEMBERS CALIFORNM ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE CALIFORNM COASTAL COMMISSION CALIFORNM COASTAL CONSERVANCY CALIFORNM DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME CALIFORNM DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION CITIZENS A GAINS T RE-ROUTING PCH(CARP) CITY OF HUN77NGTON BEACH FIELDSTONE COMPANY NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE ORANGE COUNTYENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENTAGENCY SENATOR M.4RI4N BERGESON'S OFFICE SHELL WESTERN E&P, INC. ' SUNSET BEACH LCP REVIEW BOARD U.S.ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS U.S.ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTTONAGENCY U.S.FISH&WILDLIFE SERVICE i � BOLSA CHICA PLANNING COALITION CONCEPT PLAN PLAN COMPONENT:? ADOPTED 5/22/89 i 1 1 EACH COMPONENT AND ITS POLICIES ARE AN IN'MRGRAL PART OF THE PLAN,AND NOT TO BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY FROM ONE ANOTiL3R. BOLSA CHICA PLANNING COALITION CONCEPT PLAN • PLAN COMPONENTS - Each Component is an integral part of the plan, and is not to be considered separately from the others. A. PLAN MAP-The Coalition Concept Plan is as shown on the map dated 5/22/89. B. ACREAGE DETERMINATION-The number of acres for each land use category is as follows: Wetlands/ESHAs/Open Space 1104.9 ac. Residential 412.3 ac. Linear Park/ESHAs 50.9 ac. Designated Road R/W as shown on map 53.7 ac. Flood Control Channel 13.2 ac. TOTAL 1635.0 ac. C. RESIDENTIAL DENSITIES-Three (3) areas are shown on the map for residential development. The exact number of units within each area will be determined through ordinary City and County Planning procedures. Traffic studies and other infrastructure requirements such as sewers will also determine the number of housing units allowed at Bolsa Chica. The residential density ranges reflect City and County acceptable standards for those areas and will show a range of up to 6.5 units per acre in the area behind the cross gap connector,up to 12.5 on the MWD property and up to 18 maximum reflecting a mix of densities on the Mesa. All final decisions on the type and densities in each geographic area will be determined by County and City through the usual public hearing process. Lowland development will require federal permitting. D. WETLANDS RESTORATION PLAN AND IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM ' A Wetlands Restoration Plan and Implementation Program for the entire Bolsa Chica area will be developed as part of the Local Coastal Program. It will provide for wetlands,ESHAs,and open space areas, and will indicate 1)the type and extent of various habitats,2) phasing of wetlands restoration as petroleum production diminishes,3) funding sources,4) ownership and management of restored areas,and 5) regulatory requirements for plan implementation. The 1986 Certified Local Coastal Program/Land Use Plan (LCP/LUP Policies,or where not ' directly applicable,concepts,will apply to the Wetlands Restoration P1an.The Wetlands Restoration Plan will also determine whether additional non-navigable sources of ocean water are needed to accommodate the habitat to be restored,and if so,how to design and provide for them. * This concept plan is a replacement plan prepared by the Bolsa Chica Planning Coalition as an alternative plan to the 1986 Certified Local Coastal Program/Land Use Plan. l I This plan will also delineate areas to be available for mitigation. Areas at Bolsa Chica may be made available for restoration as mitigation of other off-site development projects beyond those ' required for development at Bolsa Chica,subject to property owners' receipt of fair market value or other equitable compensation. E. MESA DEVELOPMENT- Upon approval of the Wetlands Restoration Plan and Implementation , Program by the County and the Coastal Commission,mesa development will be allowed to proceed. For this provision to take effect,the Implementation Program must contain assurance of wetland restoration through financing mechanisms such as bonding, trusts,etc. ' F. TRANSPORTATION ISSUES -Transportation decisions regarding the necessity and feasibility of a cross-gap connector will be made by the Huntington Beath City Council and the Orange County , Board of Supenzsors after results of the Transportation Land.Use Base Model Studies being jointly undertaken by the City and the County are available for public review. G. PERMIT APPROVALS AND UNEXPECTED DEVELOPMENTS -All Coalition members agree to support adoption of the plan as it progresses through the permit approval process which is scheduled to be completed on or before 5/21/90. Should there be changes required by permitting agencies,or should other unexpected developments occur,the Coalition members will meet to discuss what to do. Ultimately,Coalition members are not bound to support the plan if it fails to meet substantial permit requirements of local,State and Federal laws. lI. PROCESSING OF PLAN A. ROLE OF COUNTY EMA PLANNING-All local,State, and Federal NEPA environmental ' assessments and impact analyses undertaken on the plan,the Local Coastal Program,or associated documents will be coodinated by County EMA Planning to bring all interests together. B. LOCAL AND STATE APPROVALS-All local,State,and Federal laws apply to the plan and to the approval process. A revised Local Coastal Program than embodies the Coalition Land Use Plan alternative will first be submitted to the County for approval, and then to the State Coastal Commission. ' C. FEDERAL APROVAL PROCESS-Similarly, provisions of the revised Local Coastal Program will need Federal approval,and a pre-application review under Section 404 will be undertaken , concurrently with the LCP/LUP planning process. III.DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ' A. LAND-USE AGREEMENT-All land use entitlements will tie vested under a pre-annexation development agreement among affected landowners,the County of Orange,and the City of ' Huntington Beach. B. PROPERTY DEDICATIONS- dedication of property for public infrastructure, road rights-of-way, the Linear Regional Park, local parks and trail systems, and wetlands restoration areas will be as specified within a development agreement. rr rr rr �r rr r�l r� rr rr rl Ir Ir ri rr r �r r� rr rr BOLSA CHICA COALITION PLAN ALTERNATIVE RESIDENTIAL DENSITIES 5/22/89 ` LINEAR PARK/ESHA "F UP TO 6.5 UNITS PER ACRE FLOOD CONTROL CHANNEL 7 V. - UP TO 12.5 UNITS PER ACRE U I♦ UP TO 18.0 UNITS PER ACRE MWD GAP ACREAGE SUMMARY 6.1 -- - _-__ ACRES LAND USE TYPE 412.3 RESIDENTIAL t 1104.9 WETLANDS/ESHA/OPEN SPACE MESA ::_:iE _ - • - - - ._ 50.9 LINEAR PARK/ESHA ?= O `•?'I`�;_ -- _ ' _ - -- 53.7 ROADWAYS 13.2 FLOOD CONTROL CHANNEL 1635.0 TOTAL J� _ `_r - if� _ �;f�/- - -'WETLANDS/ESHA/OPEN SPACE•' _ - -_- - Mgiii �, :`r�''^.���i��~�......^•n�-i.:�.?�.�^�/�f. -- 'i. .! �• - -- � _ .'._• _ �+mot. - __::�:� - r.,• - -� y -_�' -' LINEAR PARKJESHA PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY POTENTIAL NON-NAVIGABLE EXISTING RESTORED WETLANDS OCEAN CONNECTION BOLSA CHICA PLANNING COALITION ' CONCEPT PLAN 1 SUPPORT POLICIES 1 ADOPTED 10/30/89 r 1 r _ 1 1 r r EACH COMPONENT AND ITS POLICIES ARE AN INTERGRAL PART OFTHE PLAN,AND NOT TO BE CONSIDERED ' SEPARATELY FROM ONE ANOTHER. i r I COMPONENT A Plan Map ' The Coalition Concept Plan is as shown on the map dated 5/22/89 ' 1. All references to the component plan document and support policies specifically pertain and apply to the Coalition Concept Plan dated 5/22/89. 2. A trail system connecting Warner Avenue at Pacific Coast Highway to Central Park, Huntington Beach Mesa,will be included in the Bolsa Chica Coalition Alternative Plan. 3. A detailed access plan shall be developed providing for bicycle, pedestrian and equestrian access (where appropriate) to the State Beach, proposed recreational or visitor serving facilities, public viewing or passive recreation areas and suitable open space areas. 3. Local park code requirements will be provided for within areas proposed for residential development or linear regional park development. I I. r r COMPONENT B ' Acreage Determinations The number of acres for each land use category Is as follow:;: Wetlands/ESHAs/Open Space 1104.9• , Residential 4123" Linear Park/ESHAs 50.9 Designated Road R/W as shown on map 53.7 Flood Control Channel 132 Total: 1635.0 Wetlands shall include a minimum of 1000 acres. The Open Space component of this land use category provides for additional acres as necessary for wetlands buffers, biological corridor (Edward's Thumb area) and trail facilities. Residential acreage of 412.3 excludes areas for wetlands, ESHAs and open space as provided above, and areas designated on map for roadways and flood control channel. The residential acreages include local streets(not shown on map) and open space set backs(e.g.,fault set backs and mesa trail system). r COMPONENT C Residential Densities 1 Three (3) areas are shown on the map for residential development. The exact number of units within each area will be determined through ordinary City and County Planning procedures. Traffic studies and other infrastructure requirements such as sewers will also determine the number of housing units allowed at Bolsa Chica. The residential density ranges reflect City and County acceptable standards for those areas and will show a range of up to 6S units per acre in the area behind the Cross Gap Connector,up to 12.5 on the M"property and up to 18 maximum reflecting a mix of densities on the Mesa. All final decisions on the type and densities in each geographic area will be determined by the County and City, through the usual public hearing process. Lowland development will require Federal permitting. i rAll members of the Coalition support residential development within the lowlands as a necessary part of the Coalition Plan Alternative, again,subject to all permitting requirements. I Although all members support residential development, Amigos are not bound to advocate any specific density amount or type as a part of the permit process and will not take an active role in the public hearing process if the above-mentioned densities are not increased in the ranges set forth herein. Lowland residential development is an integral part of lowland restoration (i.e.,complete restoration in the lowland could not be accomplished without the mitigation of wetlands displaced for lowland development). r 1 r r r r COMPONENT D , Wetlands Restoration Plan and Implementation Program A comprehensive Wetlands Restoration Plan and Implementation Program for the entire Bolsa Chica area will be developed as part of the Local Coastal Program. It will provide for wetlands,ESHAs,and ' open space areas, and will indicate 1) the type and extent of various habitats; 2) phasing of wetlands restoration as petroleum production diminishes;3) funding sources;4) ownership and management of restored areas;and S) regulatory requirements for plan implementation. The 1986 Certifled Local Coastal Program/Land Use Plan (1.CP/LUP) Policies, or where not directly applicable,concepts,will apply to the Wetlands Restoration Plan. The Wetlands Restoration Plan will also determine whether additional non-navigable sources of ocean water are needed to accommodate the habitat to be restored,and If so, how to design and provide for them. This plan will also delineate areas to be available for mitigation. Areas at Bolsa Chica may be available for restoration as mitigation of other off-site development projects beyond those required for development at Bolsa Chica, subject to property owners' receipt of fair market value or other ' equitable compensation. A. Bolsa Chica Conservancy. , 1. A Conservancy will be formed to monitor the restoration effort at Bolsa Chica, to establish an educational/administrative facility, and will be managed by a board of directors. 2. Coalition members will constitute the initial members on the Conservanc.Ys board of directors. A board of trustees will be formed to assist the board of directors in an advisory capacity. The board of trustees should include members from the fields of education, business, finance, environmental concerns, local citizens,and other interested public or private agencies. 3. The State Coastal Conservancy will be requested to assist in the formation of such a Conservancy. ' B. The Bolsa Chica Planning Coalition requests that the following policies be considered in the future Specific Plan/Local Coastal Program planning process f)r the Bolsa Chica Wetlands/ESHA Restoration Program. All policies pertaining to lowland development and wetlands restoration are subject to receipt of the Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 permit. 1. Fish and wildlife values encompassed within the Bolsa Chica planning area shall be enhanced through ' expansion of wetland acreage,and through restoration and enhancement programs. 2. A minimum of 1000 acres of wetlands shall be preserved,restored, and maintained as high quality, fully ' functioning wetlands within the Bolsa Chica Study Area. 3. The Wetlands/ESHAs Restoration Plan shall provide for: a. Establishment of a minimum of 1000 acres of high quality, fully functioning wetlands providing high biological productivity and habitat diversity. b. Preservation and/or restoration of ESHAs. c. Design consistent with low capital and operation costs. d. Whenever possible, and consistent with restoration and resource protection needs, mutual compatibility of public and private development, including present and future oil operations, with wetlands restoration. ' e. High predictability of success and establishment of criteria for evaluating success of wetland and ESHA restoration. f. Protection and/or restoration of endangered species habitat. g. Assurance of water of sufficient quality and quantity to provide for high productivity. h. Protection of the wetlands from any significant adverse impacts emanating from urban areas. i. It is the desire of all that ESHAs remain in place but where they are required to be relocated in conjunction with the Linear Park, they shall generally be restricted to the slope face of the Huntington Beach Bluff and that the Huntington Beach Mesa top be set aside for park facilities. Linear Regional Park should provide for the establishment and protection of some but not all ESHAs while accommodating public recreational values and uses. Department of Fish and Game shall have final approval of this provision. j. Compensation of fish and wildlife habitats in the form of replacement which duplicates or surpasses those lost. k. Phasing of wetlands,urban development and oil operations. 1. Identification of funding source(s) for restoration, operation, maintenance and a monitoring program. m. Buffer elements contained in Wetlands/ESHA/Open Space category as delineated in Component B to protect wetland habitat shall be of adequate width and character to reduce disturbance factors from adjacent urban development,as specified by Department of Fish and Game. n. Educational opportunities and scientific research where feasible. o. Identification of the agency or organization that will take title to all land designated ' wetland/ESHA/open space. 4. a. To the maximum extent feasible,oil facilities shall be sited so as not to conflict with restoration, and oil production shall be managed to protect biological resources. b. Oil operator shall expeditiously cease and clean up oil operations in the waste handling site, including removal of pipelines, other support facilities and any hazardous material, etc., upon expiration of ' their current NPDES permit. Further, as part of the Energy Facilities Plan included with the LCP and in accordance with their obligations under the existing Bolsa Surface Use Agreement, local, state and federal laws and other applicable agreements,oil operator shall be responsible for clean up ' of the areas to permit development and restoration consistent with the Wetlands Restoration Plan and Implementation Program's phasing component. 5. Wetlands and ESHAs shall be protected from intrusion by feral/domestic animals. ' 6. Wetlands restoration shall proceed as expeditiously as possible. 7. Where practicable, urban construction and wetland restoration activities :.hall be conducted so as to minimize adverse impacts to existing wildlife resources and any unavoidable adverse impact shall be , mitigated to levels of insignificance. 8. The following general policies shall provide the framework for interpreting the Land Use Plan: a. Where policies within the Land Use Plan overlap, the policy which is the most protective of coastal resources shall take precedence. b. Where there are conflicts between the policies set forth in the Land Use Plan and those set forth in ' any element of the County's General Plan, existing ordinances, or other County regional plans, the policies of this Land Use Plan shall take precedence. c. In the event of any ambiguities or silence of the LUP not resolved by a. or b., above, or other LUP provisions,the policies of the Coastal Act shall guide interpretation. 9. Wetlands Phasing Policies r a. No urban development as proposed in the LUP shall occur in the Bolsa Chica LCP segment area prior to Coastal Commission concurrence with the Wetland Restoration Plan. The relationship of urban development and wetlands restoration, including the relationship of mesa activities and lowland activities,shall be clearly identified in the Wetland.Restoration Plan. b. No portion of the habitat of any endangered species shall be disturbed for development until an equivalent area of high quality, fully functioning habitat has been established and its maintenance assured. Prior to the development of high pickleweed saltmarsh, high pickleweed saltmarsh of equivalent quality shall be created, or existing high pickleweed saltmarsh shall be enhanced so that no reduction in carrying capacity for the Belding's Savannah sparrow shall result from permitted development. Additionally, and consistent with the wetland design criteria established by the Habitat Conservation Plan, Coastal Act section 30232, the area of high pickleweed saltmarsh shall not be less than 200 acres at any time. c. Development shall be permitted only after the Wetlands Restoration Plan has been reviewed and approved by the County and Coastal Commission and all other applicable restoration plan policies have been met. Urban lowland development cannot be completed until all mitigation requirements for such development are completed in accordance with Policy 9.h. d. The Wetland Restoration Plan and Implementation Program: shall provide a system for "Banking" ' credit accumulated for any amount of restoration completed by either public or private agencies. e. Where wetlands acreage above 852 acres* is to be restored but land within the designated wetlands restoration areas is unavailable,due to oil operations for em m.ple,interim on- or off-site restoration may be accomplished with the former being of higher priority. If interim off-site restoration is chosen,it shall be completed only if: ' (1) two acres shall be restored for each acre lost; 1 State/Department of Fish and Game 852 acres ' Federal/EPA 927 acres r r (2) at the earliest feasible opportunity, but in no case later than the final phase of development, the restoration shall be completed on-site; and ' (3) upon replacement of interim off-site restored wetlands with the required on-site restored wetlands,said interim off-site wetlands shall be permanently maintained and protected. 1 f. (1) Prior to the initiation of any development which results in adverse impacts to ESHAs identified by the Department of Fish and Game in its report, "Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas at Bolsa Chica", ESHAs of equivalent size, character, and quality as determined by DFG shall be created and functioning so that the ESHAs shall be protected in perpetuity, and so that at not time during the phasing of development shall there be less than the existing ESHAs within the LCP Study Area. The ESHAs shall be composed of those elements and respective acreages determined by the Department of Fish and Game in its report to the Commission entitled"Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas at Bolsa Chica". (2) Where ESHA acreage may be unavailable for replacement on site due to oil operations, for example, ESHA acreage may be temporarily prodded off-site at the ratio of 2 acres for each on-site acre lost. g. Bolsa Chica has been planned as a single, integrated plan to restore, permanently protect, and maintain the wetland system, while allowing residential development in accordance with the Coalition plan. Title to all lands designated for wetlands or ESHA shall be conveyed to a public agency or other approved organization capable of protection and/or enhancement of fish, wildlife and other environmental values identified by the Wetlands Restoration Plan, and approved by the County Board of Supervisors and Coastal Commission Executive Director. Upon the issuance of permits required for development on the Mesa, but prior to the commencement of grading or construction on the Mesa, the permit applicants shall: (1) Convey to the approved agency or organization a legal or equitable interest in those lands under the applicants ownership that are designated on the Land Use Plan for wetland and ESHA areas subject to receipt of fair market value or other equitable compensation per Component D (such as,but not limited to,tax benefits,mitigation banking). The interests conveyed shall be, at a minimum, the same number of wetland acres shown on the Land Use Plan for residential development owned by the applicant in the lowlands. (2) For any land which a legal or equitable interest has not been conveyed pursuant to (1) above, the landowners may- (i) Place all or a portion of such lands in a private trust for wetlands restoration purposes. (ii) Convey to the approved agency or other organization a conservation easement for the wetlands restoration purposes. (iii) Sell all or a portion of such lands for the purpose of wetland mitigation providing such buyers agree to convey said property to the approved agency or organization above, in accordance with the terms of the Wetlands Restoration Plan/Implementation Program. �i I i h. Prior to commencement of grading or construction in the lowlands, there shall be restored an area f no less than equal in size to the wetland area to be displaced by such development. The restoration will be accomplished sufficiently far enough in advance for the habitat to meet the criteria of success , as established in the Wetlands Restoration Plan and Implementation Program. The rate and amount of wetland acreage to be restored is mitigation of urban development in the lowlands at Bolsa Chica shall be established through the Specific Plan/LCP planning process ' (including Department of Fish and Game) and Corps of Engineers Section 404 permitting process. Restoration of wetlands acreage by others (including Ports of Los Angeles/Long Beach) at Bolsa ' Chica shall be specifically detailed in the Wetlands Restoration Plan/Implementation Program in accordance with Policy 3 above. (Those details will include, but not be limited to, timing, phasing, target dates for completion, ratio of restoration for mitigation requirements or "credits", type and habitat,supervision and administration,maintenance and continuing operation of wetlands.) , At completion of restoration activities by the landowner, fete title to that restored parcel shall be conveyed to the approved agency if it has not been previow,ly conveyed. 10. A monitoring program shall be established for mitigation requirements as part of the Wetlands Restoration Plan and Implementation Program to insure continued viability of restored wetlands and ESHAs. A test program may also be established,if feasible,as aL prelude to major restoration efforts to document conditions by which various habitats are best established under criteria for success in the Wetlands Restoration Plan and Implementation Program. 1 i i i r 1 COMPONENT E Mesa Development Upon approval of the Wetland Restoration Plan and Implementation Program by the County and the Coastal Commission, mesa development will be allowed to proceed. For this provision to take effect, the Implementation Program must contain assurance of wetland restoration through financing mechanisms such as performance bonding,trusts,etc. Prior to the commencement of any development on the Bolsa Chica Mesa,the following must occur: 1. A Wetlands Restoration Plan/Implementation Program shall be established and in place prior to the commencement of development. The Wetlands Restoration Plan and Implementation Program must be approved by the County, the Coastal Commission, California Department of Fish and Game and State Lands Commission in consultation with the Amigos de Bolsa Chica. It is understood that once a Wetlands Restoration Plan and Implementation Program have been approved, development on the mesa may proceed independent of local, State or Federal permits required for development within the lowlands,subject to all applicable component conditions,as may be incorporated in the revised Specific Plan/LCP. 2. Coalition members shall review and comment on the draft Wetlands Restoration Plan/Implementation Program prior to public hearings before the County and City. ' 3. Any wetlands mitigation required for mesa development shall be accomplished on site at Bolsa Chica and in accordance with the Wetlands Restoration Plan/Implementation Program. 4. All areas designated as part of the 1104.9 acres of wetlands, ESHAs and open space on the lowland owned by Signal must have legal or equitable interest conveyed to an approved agency or organization with legal restrictions that run with the land sufficient to assure those areas will be utilized solely for wetlands,ESHAs and open space. All remaining property owners constituting the balance of the 1104.9 acres of wetlands, ESHAs and open space shall be required to participate in the Implementation Program to the extent of their wetlands ownership interest. 5. a. The Wetlands Restoration Plan and Implementation Program must contain a mechanism whereby ' financial resources sufficient to assure the restoration of all Bolsa Chica wetlands,ESHAs and open space on the lowlands are identified and the legal mechanism for their receipt is in place. The intent is to provide Signal maximum flexibility yet still insure that the financial and legal mechanisms are in ' place prior to commencement of development of the mesa so that restoration of all of the wetland and ESHA acres is assured to happen in the future. It is understood that Signal Landmark cannot guarantee or assure that restoration of Wetlands/ESHA/Open Space will occur other than that required for mitigation of its own actual development impacts. However,to the extent of its lowland ownership, and subject to permitting its lowland residential development, Signal Landmark will assure that the opportuni for restoration of Wetlands/ESHA/Open Space will be created through the imposition of a perpetual open space easement over those acres and the dedication of wetlands to be restored. b. Legal and financial mechanisms to be considered as part of the implementation program for assuring wetlands restoration may include performance bonding, community facilities district (Mello-Roos), special district, trust, open space easements over lowland, open space and resource/conservation zoning, wetlands banking through conservancy, development fees, public funding, e.g., State tidelands funds, coastal conservancy funds, Ports of Los Angeles/Long Beach and other r development project participation, tax increment financing;, dedication, reimbursement agreements, and joint powers agreement. Such legal and financial me clianisms will be explored and established to secure and fund restoration and maintenance of wetlands. c. Upon the issuance of all permits required for the development on the Mesa, but prior to the commencement of grading or construction on the mesa, Signal shall make an offer of dedication of ' 82 lowland acres to a public agency or other approved or.3anization. This acreage to be restored as wetlands equals Signal's net acreage of wetlands proposed for development in the lowlands. d. As a condition of final map approval for Signal's lowland development, Signal shall provide for a ' performance bond or irrevocable letter of credit equivalent in value to the cost of restoring those wetlands to be displaced by such development is the lowlands. 6. The intent of this Component is that Signal shall VQS be solely financially responsible for Wetlands ' restoration,maintenance and operation over the entire Bolsa C-hica lowlands. 7. Archaeological concerns shall be met in accordance with the Specific Plan/LCP. ' 1 1 COMPONENT F Transportation Issues Transportation decisions regarding necessity and feasibility of a cross-gap connector will be made by ' the Huntington Beach City Council and the Orange County Board of Supervisors after results of the Transportation Land Use Base Model Studies being jointly undertaken by the City and the County are available for public review. ' 1. It is understood that Traffic Modeling Study will specifically review whether or not the cross-gap connector is necessary and/or feasible. 2. The study will also review whether existing Graham,Talbert or Springdale Streets need to be connected to the cross-gap connector in order to meet local transportation needs. 3. It is understood that the Traffic Modeling Study shall be completed so as to allow timely data input to ' the overall permit and approval process deadline of 5/21/90 per Component G. 4. In consideration of potential impacts to existing development and if the cross-gap connector is necessary and feasible, the Coalition Plan Alternative shall specify that the road be no closer than 900 feet to ' existing homes(CARP). 5. The roadway right of way shall be limited to 90 feet as set forth in the 1986 adopted LCP/LUP (Policy ' 81). 6. The height or elevation of the roadway shall be minimized as necessary to balance flood control requirements with residential concerns for light,views and air circulation for the existing neighborhood. ' 7. If it is determined that the cross-gap connector is not necessary or feasible, the Coalition will meet to decide on the reallocation of that acreage. COMPONENT G ' Permit Approvals and Unexpected Developments ' Coalition members agree to support adoption of the Plan as it progresses through the permit approval process which is scheduled to be completed on or before 5/21/90. Should there be changes required by permitting agencies, or should other unexpected developments occur, the Coalition members will meet to discuss resolution. Ultimately, Coalition members are not bound to support the Plan if it fails to meet substantial permit requirements of local,State and Federal laws. , The Coalition will meet on a regular basis to address any problems and to be kept informed on the ' progress of the Bolsa Chica planning effort. Each meeting will be held on the fourth Monday of each month with June 26,1999 as the first scheduled ' meeting to be held in Room 238 at 11:00 a.m.at the County of Grange. 1 _ 1 ' II Processing of Plan 1 A. ROLE OF COUNTY EMA PLANNING - All local, State and Federal NEPA environmental 1 assessments and Impact analyses undertaken on the plan, the Local Coastal Program, or associated documents will be coordinated by County EMA Planning to bring all interests together. B. LOCAL AND STATE APPROVALS - All local, State and Federal laws apply to the plan and to the 1 approval process. A revised Local Coastal Program that embodies the Coalition Land Use Plan alternative will first be submitted to the county for approval, and then to the State Coastal Commission. ' C. FEDERAL APPROVAL PROCESS - Similarly, provisions of the revised Local Coastal Program will need Federal approval, and a pre-application review under Section 404 will be undertaken concurrently with the LCP/LUP planning process. i i 1 1 1 1 i . 1 � III , Development Agreement ' A. LAND-USE AGREEMENT - All land use entitlements will be vested under a pre-annexation ' development agreement among affected landowners,the County of Orange,and the City of Huntington Beach. B. PROPERTY DEDICATIONS - Dedication of property for public infrastructure, road rights-of-way, the Linear Regional Park, local parks and trail systems, and Wetlands restoration areas will be as specified within a development agreement. 1 1 _ I 1 27 MATERIALS INCLUDED I. Chronology of events surrounding dumping by Signal Landmark of hazardous materials on private property on Otay Mesa in San Diego County. 2. Summary of Lawsuit brought by individual private parties against Signal Landmark (Including the Henley Group and the Bolsa Chica Group). 3. Bolsa Chica Company (Now Koll Real Estate Group, Inc.) Corporate History and Background. 3A. Parcel Map and Site Aerial Photograph. San Diego County Assessor's Map, Book 646, pp. 10 and 19. 4. Exhibit II to the Construction Agreement dated June 25, 1987 between Coronado Landmark, Inc. and Pullaro Construction Co. for the site grading on Tract Coronado Cays 15 and 16 located in the City of Coronado, County of San Diego. 5. Letter of Transmittal and Executive Summary, dated November 21, 1991, from Environmental Analysis and Valuation, Inc. to Charles S. Limandri, Esq. (Attorney for Sesi). 6. Associated Laboratories Lab Report, dated July 14, 1987, for H.V. Lawmaster concerning chemical analysis of sample soil submitted from old town(Coronado) dump. 7. Jury verdict against Signal Landmark in California Superior Court (County of San Diego) Case No. 624643, dated 16 March 1992. 8. Agreement Granting Right of Access and Settlement and Release in California Superior Court Case No. 624643, by and among Signal Landmark, Inc., the Bolsa Chica Company (formerly known as Henley Properties, Inc.) and the Henley Group (collectively referred to as "Signal") and Salim Sesi, et al., dated April 6, 1993. ` 9. (Proposed) Order re Reversal of Judgment in Superior Court Action, in the Court of Appeal of the State of California, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, Case No. D017331 (Superior Court Case No. 624243). 10. Stipulation for Reversal of Judgment of Superior Court Action, in the Court of i Appeal of the State of California, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, Case No. D017331 (Superior Court Case No. 624243). 11. Declaration of James J. Brosnahan, attorney for Signal, with attached narrative regarding settlement with Sesi, filed in federal court, dated 12 April 1993. 12. From Charles S. Limandri Es Attonie for Sesi to Jack Dantzler Letter F o q ( y ) regarding "Sesi et al v. Signal Landmark et a]. (United States District Court, Southern District of California, Case No. 91-1057-IEG(M)). 13. Declaration of Charles S. Limandri, pp. 12-13. [undated] 14. Deposition of Michael Paul Pullaro, April 1, 1991; portion of deposition of son of Michael Paul Pullaro, pp. 15-20 [no date]. 15. Declaration of Jack Dantzler, 18 January 1993. 16. State of California Superior Court Case No. 587093 David Benson v. Coronado landmark, Allied-Signal Company, the Signal Company, Signal Oil Company et al; 30 June 1987. 17. Memorandum of Points and Authorities, with Joinder in Arguments, City of Coronado. [no date] 18. Title Page, "Sampling Plan for Dantzler and Barnhart Properties, Otay Mesa, California," prepared by ENVIRON Corporation; prepared for: "Signal Landmark c/o The Koll Company; January 26, 1993. 19. Photograph of Signal Landmark Coronado Cays, development, on former City of Coronado Rancho Carillo landfill. From Henley Properties Annual Report for 1989. �. i 0 CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS SURROUNDING DUMPING BY SIGNAL LANDMARK OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ON PRIVATE PROPERTY ON OTAY MESA, SAN DIEGO COUNTY 1 1968 Signal Landmark, a subsidiary of Signal Companies, purchases the Rancho Carillo Municipal Landfill (owned and operated as a "burn dump" by the City of Coronado) for development as residential property. Sep. 1985 Signal Landmark, along with 34 other companies, are spun off into the Henley Group in consequence of a merger between Signal Companies and Allied Chemical Corporation. Jun. 1987 David Benson, an employee of an independent contractor for Signal Landmark, sues Signal Landmark for injuries caused by toxic exposure when he dug trenches on the landfill site in preparation for construction. Jul. 1987 Signal Landmark's contractor, Pullaro Construction, begins hauling and dumping 2,450 truck loads (about 40,000 cubic yards) of "burn dump ash" from the Coronado site containing hazardous levels of water-soluble lead and copper onto several privately held plots on Otay Mesa in San Diego County. Associated Laboratories prepares a chemical analysis of soil from the Coronado site for H.V. Lawmaster (Lab. No. F35298-1; Job No. 8495- G1) Aug. 1988 Salim Sesi, et al, receive a letter from an attorney at Seltzer, Caplan et al, then representing Signal landmark, informing them of the 1987 dumping on their property. Dec. 1988 Sesi, et al receive a letter from the California Regional Water Quality ( Control Board demanding that testing be conducted on their property to determine the extent, if any, of hazardous material at the property. Attorney (Charles S. Limandri) for Sesi, et al attempts to settle the matter with Signal Landmark, but negotiations fail after numerous meetings. Dec. 1989 Sesi, et al attorney Charles S. Limandri files a civil complaint against Signal, alleging nuisance, trespass, negligence, and strict liability (California State Superior Court Case No. 624243). Dec. 1989 Henley Group is split into two public companies, Henley Group and !� Henley Properties. Signal Landmark is maintained as a subsidiary of Henley Properties. Jun. 1990 Donald Koll is hired by Henley Properties to manage its real estate portfolio (then estimated at $500 million). Henley Properties also enters into construction management agreemems with Koll Construction. Aug. 1991 Sesi, et al attorney Charles S. Limandri files a Federal District Court Action against Signal landmark under CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9607, et seq. (Case No. 91-1057-IEG(M)). Federal court action is stayed pending the outcome of the state case. Nov. 1991 Environmental Analysis and Valuation, ]Inc. (EAV) transmits to Charles S. Limandri (attorney for Sesi, et al) a ;professional analysis of the fair market value of the Sesi property before: and after the dumping, what it would be had there been no dumping, and the costs of clean-up. Testing 1 had revealed 200,000 lbs. of lead in the "burn dump ash" dumped on the property by Signal Landmark. The clean-up liability is estimated at about $23 million. EAV notes that THE HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES CONSTITUTE A THREAT TO HUMAN HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT; THAT DESTRUCTION OF WETLANDS HAVE OCCURRED DURING THE PROCESS OF THE DISPOSAL OF HAZARDOUS �. SUBSTANCES SINCE jULY OF 1987; AND THAT ADDITIONAL UNCONTROLLED RELEASES OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES HAVE OCCURRED AND ARE CONTINUING TO OCCUR. AS A RESULT OF THE DISPOSAL OF SUCH SUBSTANCES ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY SINCE JULY OF 1987. Feb. 1992 Sesi, et al v. Signal Landmark, et al state court trial begins, Judge Judith McConnell, presiding. Mar. 1992 State court Jury finds against Signal Landmark in Sesi case for $2.5 million, which Limandri to be significantly insufficient to cover the cost of cleaning up the Sesi property. r Jul. 1992 Attorneys for Sesi and Signal Landmark attend a settlement conference g ordered by Federal Magistrate McCue. Jul. 1992 Henley Properties; h e ey Group is merged into Henley p , the company is renamed the Bolsa Chica Company. Signal Landmark remains as a subsidiary of the Bolsa Chica Company. Aug. 1992 Signal Landmark files an appeal of the state court judgment, alleging reversible errors in the trail. Mar. 1993 Donald Koll becomes chairman of the board of the Bolsa Chica Company. Koll executive Ray Wirta also joins the board. i Apr. 1993 Signal attorneys transmit to Charles S. Limandri a proposed settlement for both the federal court case and the state court case. In return for a release by Sesi, et al of Signal from liability for the dumping, 1. Signal will pay to Sesi, et at $1.25 million cash plus 6% per annum from April 1992 until payment 2. Signal will pay to a court-administered clean-up fund $1.25 million plus interest as above 3. Signal will retain access to the Sesi property, at �+ Signal's election, to engage in clean-up related ■ activities. Signal has no obligation to perform any clean-up, however. 4. Sesi and Signal will execute a stipulation for reversal of the judgment and a vacation of the verdict in the state court case by the state Court of Appeal. This is to include vacation and dismissal with prejudice. 5. Sesi will return to Signal all discovery materials produced in the state court action. 6. Sesi agrees to support a motion b Signal to seal the gY g record in the State action. 7. Sesi joins a motion by Signal in the federal court case to protect Signal from any claims for contribution that any other parties have made. Apr. 1993 Sesi agrees to the settlement proposal. Apr. 1993 Signal and Sesi attorneys file motions described above in federal court. Jun. 1993 Trial in federal case is set for May 3, 1994, with pre-trial set for April 18, 1994. (?) 1993 City of Coronado (a defendant/cross-cl"nant in the state case) files an opposition to the motion of Signal Landmark, Inc, the Henley Group, Inc., and the Bolsa Chica Co. (collectively, "Signal") for an order barring all cross-claims by non-settling defendants on grounds that the settlement "was not made in good faith under the requirements of California Code of Civil Procedure." Jul. 1993 Three of the seven members of the Bolsa Chica Company's board of directors resign. The Board appoints two new members, leaving the third position empty. Donald Koll now controls four of six board seats. Oct. 1993 Bolsa Chica Company board of directors, led by chairman of the board, Donald Koll, vote to purchase Koll Real Estate Group (privately held by Donald Koll) from Donald Koll, for $4.1 million. The Bolsa Chica Company is renamed Koll Real Estate Croup. Dec. 1993 Bolsa Chica Company board of directors, led by chairman of the board, Donald Koll, vote to pay Koll's privately held Koll Construction $4.25 million in return for no further financial participation by Koll Construction in Koll Real Estate Group's proposed developments, including the Bolsa Chica. Dec. 1993 County of Orange issues an Environmental Impact Report for Koll real Estate Group's plans to develop the Bolsa Chica (owned by Koll subsidiary Signal Landmark) with 4,882 housing units and a plan to restore the wetlands. Feb. 1994 Federal District Court Judge Rudi Brewster is scheduled to rule on a motion for summary judgment in Sesi's case against Signal. Summary of Lawsuit brought by individual private parties against Signal Landmark (including the Henley Group and Bolsa Chica Group) . Note: Although the copies of court records used as the basis for this summary include few dates, the chronology is basically correct. Note: The copies of court records used as the basis for this summary include many court briefs and motions by both plaintiffs and defendants. These are only useful for finding out what the parties were requesting or asserting before the court. Unfortunately, there are only one or two court responses in the records I was given. Therefore, I cannot be sure what the court' s answer to these briefs and motions were. Note: Just a word or two on Cross-Claims and Counter-Claims. A cross-claim is a claim (or suit) brought by one co-defendant against another co-defendant, or by one co-plaintiff against another co-plaintiff. A counter-claim is a claim brought by a defendant against the plaintiff who is suing him. It is not merely a answer or denial by the defendant, but asserts an indepenuent cause of action (which could be the basis for a separate 1Gasuit) . This is done to oppose or deduct from plaintiff' s case against the defendant. PARTIES: Plaintiffs: 1. "Sesi Group" , co-owners of a 34 acre plot of L undeveloped property on vnich hazardous waste was dumped. Co-owners include Sesi, Deddeh, Attisha, Ashmar, Roumayah, Sesi and Seiba. 2 . Barnhart, private party who owned a plot of property on which hazardous waste was dumped. Dantzler ,r, private party who owned a plot of property on which hazardous waste was dumped. Dantzler was also a transporter of the waste from the Signal Landmark dumpsite to his own property. He also hired defendant Pullaro Contracting to transport to his property. He is also named as a defendant by the plaintiffs above who say he either (a) knew the waste was hazardous and so posed a danger to his neighbors' (plaintiffs' ) land through seepage, or (b) knew that other transporters were dumping on the plaintiffs' land and did nothing, or perhaps even authorized such dumping. Defendants: * There are two groups of defendants, only one of which is of interest to us. Apparently there were two separate dumping instances on the plaintiffs' land. 1. Tripp, Scrap, Williams, Shortwood, WSIC, Pacific Steel, Martinez (es) & Ruiz dumped auto shredder waste on plaintiffs ' property beginning in 1968 and ending in 1976/77 (Tripp owned part of the land dumped on at the time) . Automobile shredder materials were not considered hazardous at the time. It appears there was only minor damage caused by this dumping. This summary will not focus on these defendants. 2 . Signal Landmark LH r2.,sy Group and Bolsa Chica Group) , Pullaro CbL tc haul waste from Signal 's site) , Dantzler (see above.', individual truckers and the City of Coronado. Beginning in July 1987 and extending at least through August of 1987 Signal Landmark materials were transported from the Coronado Cays development to the plaintiffs ' land. Pullaro and Dantzler could. be considered agents of Signal and so would face only limited liability. FACTUAL HISTORY: 1 Signal Landmark purchased for development the Rancho Carillio Municipal Landfill owned and operated by the City of Coronado in or about 1968 . Today, this land consists of three developments: Crown Isle, Rancho Carillo and Grand Cari.be Isle. In anticipation of development, Signal Landmark transported hazardous materials from the Coronado Cays development to t)laintiffs ' property on Cactus Road in Otay Mesa in approximately 2 , 450 truckloads constituting approximately 38, 500 to 40, 500 cubic yards of material. This transport and dumping began in July 1987 and extended at least through August of 1987. Analytical testing of these materials indicates that they contained more than 200, 000 pounds of lead plus considerable quantities of other heavy metals. According to a report prepared by Environmental Analysis and Valuation Inc. ; clean-up could cost between $6, 262, 000 and $64 , 116, 000. The most likely clean-up scenario, the company says, will cost $ 23 , 190, 000. An important issue in this case is whether Signal Landmark knew that the materials they contracted to be hauled away were hazardous. At the latest, Signal knew the materials were hazardous by June 1987 , when David Benson, an employee of an independent contractor sued Signal Landmark for injuries caused by toxic exposure when he dug utility trenches on the landfill site to prepare the site for residential building. It' s unclear from the records I have whether Benson won, though I would imagine he did. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Or, who suing whom, and for what? I. Apparently, plaintiff Barnhart sued all the above defendants. However, my analysis of the Barnhart case is incomplete because the court records I have are incomplete. In fact, the only case copy I have is below (and it doesn't make much sense to me) Barnhart v. Bolsa Chica Company Barnhart appears to have cross-c,..-cimed Bolsa Chica. The record copied here is very confusing. If Barnhart is a plaintiff (his land was dumped on) then how can he be cross- claiming Bolsa Chica, who is a defendant? That would simply be an original suit, or at best a counter-claim. Also, why is he suing Bolsa Chica separately? In other documents (like the settlement authored by Signal itself & like Signal ' s motion to bar contribution) Bolsa Chica is admittedly part of Signal Landmark (either as parent, subsidiary or successor in interest) . So why sue separately? Could it have something to do with number_ 7 in the General Allegatic:n.s section of the court record included in this study where Bolsa C'Zica "denies that The Henley Group and Henley Propert-.Ets Inc. , recently renamed The Bolsa Chica Company, are individually or collectively the parent or successor corporations of Signal Landmark Inc. After all this, is Bolsa Chica now (so late) trying to claim it is not involved in the suit? T'ais area definitely needs more research. II. Sesi Group sued all the above defendants (including Signal Landmark) together. A. May 1990: The Sesi Group first filed a case against the defendants in state court. Plaintiffs sued defendants under the following theories of liability: nuisance, trespass and negligence. Plaintiff's seek at least $20 million in damages. B. August 1991: They later filed a case against the same defendants in federal court. Plaintiffs sued defendants under the following theories of liability: CERCLA (Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980) , nuisance, trespass and negligence. C. The federal case was stayed (put. on hold) until the state case was resolved. D. March 1992 : The Jury in st-dit:e court found Signal 's actions caused injury to plaintiffs ' land. Signal was ordered to pay Sesi Group $ 2 .5 million. Plaintiffs claimed damages of $ 20 million. It seems very odd that the jury would award such a small amount to the numerous. Sesi plaintiffs. After paying attorney's fees, plaintiffs will not retain much money. The jury did not find that Signal acted with "despicable conduct, fraud or malice" and so did not force Signal to pay any pu7ritive-damages.- Althourgh I 'Tut-fe not seen the record-bf evidence presented at the trial, it: seems hard for me to believe that a jury would not find Signal 's hiding the truth about the toxicity of the waste to be fraud or despicable conduct. E. Signal appealed the outcome, saying "reversible error" was committed during the state case (something went wrong that under the law is bad enough to get the case overturned) . This was probably merely a move to put: pressure to settle on plaintiffs, who at the same time had the federal case starting up again (and it looks like it worked) . F. April 1993 : Parties submitted Settlement Agreement to the court for the court' s approval. Remember, this agreement only settles the Sesi plaintiff's claim against Signal ; it does not affect plaintifrs Dantzler and Barnhart's claims against Signal . The pertinent parts of the agreement are as follows: 1. Signal released of all liability. - 2 . Signal must pay $ 1. 25 million cash to plaintiffs. 3 . Signal must pay $ 1. 25 million to a clean-up trust fund to be created and administered through the courts. 4 . Parties agree to reversal of judgment and vacation of verdict in the state action (which was on appeal) which means it is like Signal was never found liable for anything. 5. Plaintiffs agree to support Signal in its motion (request) to the court to seal the record in the state case. 6. Parties will file motion to dismiss federal court case against Signal. 7. Plaintiffs agree to support Signal in its motion to the court asking that the court bar any claims by other defendants for contribution or indemnification. IT IS THIS MOTION THAT SPINS OFF INTO THE VERY IMPORTANT ISSUE IN THIS CASE AS TO WHETHER SIGNAL (WHO PAID SO VERY LITTLE GIVEN THE POTENTIAL FOR LIABILITY AND WHO WAS SO CLEARLY THE MAJOR PLAYER OF ALL THE DEFENDANTS) SHOULD BE MADE TO PAY PART OF ANY POTENTIAL JUDGMENT AGAINST THE OTHER DEFENDANTS WHO HAVE NOT YET SETTLED. THESE OTHER DEFENDANTS ARE REFERRED TO AS THE "NON-SETTLING DEFENDANTS" . (see below) G. Signal Landmark's motion requesting court to bar claims by non-settling defendants for contribution/indemnification When one defendant settles in a case, other defendants often try to go after that defendant for contribution. This happens when the amount the one defendant se�_tled for does not reflect their proportionate share of liability. As a result of this, the jury (who is not made aware of the settlement--for public policy reasons) will make the remaining defendants liable for all damage suffered by plaintiff. Because this is not fair, those defendants try to get more money from the settling defendant. The copies of court records we have reflect each step in this motion: 1) Signal and Sesi Group (because they agreed to join in on this motion in the settlement agreement) make joint motion to bar non-settling defendants from seeking contribution from Signal. 2) All of the non-settling defendants in the larger lawsuit file briefs with the court arguing why the court should deny , this motion (i.e. why it is fair for them to seek contL ..bution) . These briefs are very interesting for our purposes. They make some interesting allegations cf bad faith and foul play by Signal Landmark. While these allegation are merely presented and are not proved, they provide an interesting picture of what probably did happen. Because this is the last chance of these non-settling defendants to get Signal to pay their proportionate share of liability, before they get stuck holding the entire bill for plaintiff' s damages, these briefs read like a no-holds barred fight. 3) Signal and Sesi Group file briet answering the arguments of these non-settling defendants. 4) July 1993 : Court decides to side with Signal Landmark and bar all non-settling defendants from seeking contribution against Signal . I am not sure if anyth '_rg suspicious went on here, but something doesn't smell quit right. The court, in fairness to the non-se,=tli:ig defendants does two things. (a) Court follows the state statute on comparative fault. This means that the liability of the non- settling defendants will be reduced by the percentage of responsibility of Signal. However, it is up to the judge or jury to decide what Signal 's percentage of responsibility is (and if the jury is anything like the state court jury, Signal is in luck) . (b) Court also bars Signal from going after the non-settling defendants for contribution. The non- settling defendants were asking for this, but Signal was arguing against it. III. Signal v. Sesi Group Signal cross-claimed and sued the Sesi Group back. I can't imagine what Signal 's cause of action could possibly be. This case was surely voluntarily withdrawn as part of the settlement reached by the two parties. IV. Dantzler v. Signal/Henley/Bolsa Chica Dantzler cross-claimed and sued Signal, probably for not telling him the waste was hazardous. Signal filed a motion to dismiss this case, and then rescinded that motion with the court. This was done on 2/93 , which leads me to wonder if this case is still pending. I think Dantzler would have an excellent case against Signal who clearly under the law had a duty to tell him the waste was hazardous (so long as Signal knew it, w.-iich it appears they did because of the Benson case in 1987) . iCORPORATE HISTORY AND BACKGROUND Ili The writer begs the readers indulgence, for what follows is a tangled web of mergers and spin-offs, remergers, stock offerings, other financial maneuvers, along with corporate name changes. The trail s difficult at times to make out, because only the parent companies are public held; the various subsidiaries are privately and wholly owned by the parents and are not therefore subject to the same public reporting requirements as publicly held companies. However, this trail must be followed, even if sketchy at times, if the present proposals to develop the Bolsa Chica wetlands area by the Bolsa Chica Company are to be put in proper context. The Bolsa Chica Company is the name given to the entity formed from a July 1992 merger of Hampton, New Hampshire-based Henley Properties and the Henley Group. In the merger, Henley Properties was the surviving public entity, and changed its name to the Bolsa Chica Company [Wall Street Journal, July 17, 1992, B, 5:5]. Although the Henley offices were located in New Hampshire, and the renamed Bolsa Chica Company maintains its offices at 4343 Von Karman Avenue, Newport Beach, California, the company is incorporated in the state of Delaware. In turn, the two Henley Companies resulted from the 1985 merger of Signal Companies and Allied Corporation. In September 1985, stockholders approved the $5 billion merger of the Signal Companies with Allied Chemical Corporation, an expanding automotive company. The merger culminated a three year restructuring effort by Signal (an aerospace firm, then based in La Jolla, California) to move in a high-technology direction. Signal had earned $285 million on revenues of $6 billion in 1984 while Allied had earned $488 million on $10.7 billion. As part of the restructuring, 35 subsidiary businesses were to be spun off into a firm to be called the Henley Group. The announced aim of the spin-off was to "position Allied- Signal to compete better in the high-technology area" [Iron Age, January 17, 1986, V. 229, No. 2, pp. 33-391. However, in an article titled 'Business Kicks Out the Turkeys," Dunn's Business Month [September 1986, V. 1218, No. 3, pp. 30-34] noted the 'benefits of spinning off losing companies to shareholders." And Fortune credited the chairman of Allied-Signal, Edward Hennessy, Jr., with the "spinning off of 35 money-losing subsidiaries, packaged as the Henley Group" [December 7, 1987, V. 116, No. 13, pp. 139-146]. The spun-off companies included Signal Landmark, a real estate development concern, Fisher Scientific International, Inc., Wheelabrator Technology, Abex, ...... WHO ExACTLY WERE THESE COMPANIES? Corporate History and Background 2 Michael D. Dingman, who became chairman anc: chief executive of Henley Group, with Paul Montrone as vice chairman president, then brought the Company out with the largest public offering in U.S. history to that date, raising; :$1.2 billion [Institutional Investor, January 1987, V. 21, No. 1, pp. 73-106]. That money was to be used for making acquisitions, but was instead used mostly for stock buybacks, with acquisitions to be financed instead through debt. Dingman and his "crew of turnaround artists" managed to increase the operating revenues of many of those companies. Henley accomplishe[d] the swings in profitability by such tactics as turning segments into profit centers, making managers stockholders, cutting costs, slashing labor, and selling or closing weak units. However, some question[ed] Dingman's tactics. Wage cutting and layoffs have earned him labor's enmity. While cutting costs makes short-term profits look good, Dingman may [have] endanger[ed] future profits by cutting too thinly. Dingman acquired some notoriety for his efforts, with Fonune picking him as one of 1986's most fascinating business people for his efforts [January 5, 1987, V. 115, No. 1, pp. 62-66]. One year later, Henley had become well-knowi for popularizing the 'leveraged equity purchase plan --which provides management incentives and also is an effective form of financial communication." Cash Flow observed generally and approvingly of such maneuvers that Debt-financed restructuring can create incentives for shareholders to monitor their investment closely, since raising debt to retire equity concentrates the remaining shares in fewer hands. Moreover, with the cost of the value lost through mismanagement now made obvious, employees who have equity in the company and management have a greater incentive to perform [January 1988, V. 9, No. 1, pp. 36-43] In February of the same year, Industry Week picked the Henley Group as one of the 12 boldest business decisions of 1987. Thus, although some cautionary notes had been sounded, many financial observers looked optimistically at the Henley ploys. They would shortly be put straight. In early 1987 Dingman set his sights on taking over Sante Fe-Southern Pacific Corporation. He was primarily after its $4 billion worth of real estate holdings, and its oil and gas properties. Henley then owned 15.6% of Santa Fe stock. By October 1987 Business Week observed that much of Henley's future depended on the success of its ability to take over that company [October 5, 1987, N. 3019, pp. 90-94]. Sante Fe responded by allying itself with Olympia and York Developments, Limited, which owned 10.2% of its stock, and was also interested in Santa Fe's real estate holdings. It also sold $2.25 billion in assets, secured $3.8 billion in bank loans, and made a $4 billion outlay for a cash dividend of$25 and a $5 subordinated debenture for eac:1 of its 156.5 million shares. Debt to total capital rose from 26% to 87% [Business Week, February 15, 1988, No. 3038, pp. 28- ' i Corporate History and Background 3 291. It succeeded in staving off Henley's hostile takeover, but at considerable cost to the health of the corporation. [see Forbes May 16, 1988, V. 141, No. 11, pp. 63, 651 In summer of 1988, Henley sold its shares in Sante Fe to Itel Corporation for $1.2 billion in cash and company stock. Itel as then owned by Sam Zell and Robert Lurie [Business Week, June 26, 1989, No. 3112, pp. 88-89]. Zell would later comment that his biggest mistake was to buy Henley's 38.5% stake in Itel at prices ranging from $18 to $22 per share. Coupled with big interest and principal payments due, that deal sent the stock down to 7 5/8 in late 1990 [Business Week, April 6 1992, No. 3260, p. 60] By the end of 1988 both the financial community and Henley's shareholders had begun to tire of Dingman and Montrone. Henley had continued to buy back its stock, but its maneuvers... resulted in 9 lawsuits being filed against Montrone and Dingman and their companies. The main allegation of the suits [was] that key Henley executives enriched themselves at the expense of public shareholders. Particularly questionable [was] a stock repurchase plan that permitted] executives to purchase stock with only a 10% down payment and the ' remainder borrowed from the company. [Barron's, December 19, 1988, V. 68, No. 51. pp. 16-17, 57-58] The once lauded incentives had resulted in Henley executives lining their pockets at considerable cost to the company's shareholders. Henley engaged in other interesting tactics. It split off its waste-to-energy holdings as a public company, Wheelabrator Group, and then merged that entity with its 60%-owned affiliate, Wheelabrator Technologies. Stock control of the merged companies was given to Waste Management, the largest private garbage collector in the U.S., with management control retained by Henley. This maneuver enabled Wheelabrator to gain access to incinerating plants: Waste Management gave it the exclusive option to dump incinerator ash and construct waste-to-energy plants at 87 landfills in the U.S. and Canada [Forbes, November 14, 1988, V. 142, No. 11, pp. 98-104]. In late 1989, Dingman moved to separate Henley Group into two separate public corporations, retaining the Henley Group name for a new industrial company, and creating Henley Properties, Inc. as a real estate concern [New York Times, September 28, 1989, D, p. 4]. The two companies were then listed on the New York Stock Exchange [Wall Street Journal, January 8, 1990, C, p. 6, Col 2]. On December 31, 1989 (the "Distribution Date"), The Henley Group, Inc., a I Delaware Corporation ("Old Henley"), was divided into two public companies for the purpose of effecting the separation f its real estate business from its remaining businesses. Old Henley effected this separation by contributing to a newly formed Delaware Corporation substantially all of its assets and businesses, together with certain other liabilities, other than its real estate development operations, and then distributing (the "1989 Distribution) to its stockholders all of the Common Stock of the new corporation on i l Corporate History and Background 4 , the Distribution Date. In connection with the 1989 Distribution, Old Henley changed its name to Henley Properties, Inc. and the new corporation changed its name to the Henley Group, Inc. The real estate properties were essentially those that had come to it through Signal Landmark Holdings, Inc. In September 1989, Henley Properties Holdings Inc. ("Holdings"), a subsidiary of Henley Properties, adopted the Equity Purchase Program of Henley Properties Holdings, Inc. (the 'Program") under the Operating Unit Component of the Equity Purchase Program of Old Henley (the "Old Henley Program"). Under the Programs, Holdings was authorized to offer units ("Units"), representing hypothetical equity interests in Holdings equivalent to approximately 10% of the equity of Holdings, for purchase by its officers and key employees. The Compensation Committee of Henley Properties terminated the Program on March 25, 1992 and participants forfeited all rights thereunder. Not surprisingly,as of December 31, 1991, Holdings had nonrecourse loans in an aggregate amount (including principal and accrued interest) of $3,024,100, $2,721,690, and $1,890,063 outstanding to Messrs. Dingman, Montrone, and Meister (a Managing Director of Henley Group or its predecessor companies from prior to 1987, and a Managing Director of Henley Properties from december 1989), respectively. These loans were made in connection with the purchase of Units and secured by the Units so purchased [!]. The , loans bore simple interest at 10.3125% per annum, the applicable Company borrowing rate. As a result of the termination of the Program, these loans were extinguished and the officers forfeited $725,099 of personal funds which had been paid for the purchase of the Units. [1991 Annual Report, p. 12] Under the transition agreement, Henley Group agreed to make available to Henley Properties and its subsidiaries until December 31, 1994 certain management and other services as well as the use of space in Henley Group's corporate offices Hampton, New hampshire. Henley Properties paid Henley Group $2,250,000 of the $3,000,000 accrued with respect to such services and $300,000 of the $773,000 accrued for the use of such office space during 1991. [1991 Annual Report, p. 17] By April 1991, on the one hand, Dingman had managed to sell off a number of Henley's industrial companies at a profit. On the other hand, Henley's stock was moribund. However, a buyout offer (at $22/share) by Libra Invest and Trade, Limited, owned by Lebanese investor Touric Aboukhater, had begun to reNRve it, moving it from 16 to 24. Once again, the deal made some shareholders suspicious that it was a maneuver by Dingman to enrich himself at their expense. Although the bid was rejected, the dissidents still worr[ied] that Aboukhater, a longtime friend of Dingman's, [would] get the company at a bargain price. [Business Week, April 15, 1991, No. 3209, pp. 34-35] The offer revived Wall Street interest in the company, with investors betting that it was worth more than the $22 offer. r r Corporate History and Background 5 The takeover speculation has been fanned by some well-publicized objections to the bid as an attempt to acquire the company's assets at a bargain basement price - and as an attempt possibly orchestrated by Dingman himself. Suspicions have been aroused by the friendship between Dingman and Aboukhater, and especially by the pivotal role Aboukhater played in Dingman's 1988 leveraged buyout of Henley manufacturing. Dingman, meanwhile, is cautioning shareholders not to expect any stream of special dividends from the proceeds of selected asset sales. [Barron's, April 15, 1991, V. 71, No. 15, pp. 18-19, 75] [get Fortune, April 20, 1992, V. 125, No. 8, pp. 212-316, 'The Fortune 500: It was the Worst of Years] r How HAVE THE MIGHTY FALLEN? By 1992, not much was left of the original 35 companies spun off from the merger of Allied and Signal in 1985. The maneuverings of Dingman had taken their toll. Henley properties was losing money at a prodigious rate and showed little sign of improvement. Thus it was that Henley Group and Henley Properties, both still based in Hampton, New Hampshire, signed a merger agreement in February 1992. In the merger, Henley Properties was the surviving public entity, changing its name to Bolsa Chica Company. Preceding and prompting the merger was a near constant stream of heavy financial losses. In its Proxy Statement to its stockholders, Henley Properties noted that "If the merger is not consummated, and Henley Properties is not able to successfully restructure its debt, Henley Properties currently expects that it could exhaust the available cash balance as early as the beginning of the third quarter of 1992 unless it is able to complete the sales of additional assets prior to that time. [Joint Proxy Statement of The Henley Group, Inc. and Henley Properties, Inc. for Meetings of their Stockholders to Be Held on July 16, 1992, pp. 121- 122] In the last quarter of 1991, Henley Properties posted a loss of $74.2 million, including a pre-tax charge of about $65 million from a write-down of assets. That made the total loss for 1991 some $106.7 million [Wall Street Journal, March 20, 1992, C, 16:3]. The first quarter of 1992 saw another loss of $13.6 million [Wall Street Journal, May 18, 1992, C, 15:31. On paper this represented a reversal from 1990, a year in which Henley Properties posted net income of $64.65 million. However, it sustained losses of $2.23 million in the first quarter of 1991, $6.26 million in the third quarter and $6.89 million for the last quarter) [Wall Street Journal, May 3, 1990, C, 20:4; July 26, 1990, C, 13:6; November 16, 1990, A, 10:1]. Only by selling considerable assets during the second quarter of 1990 was Henley Properties able to show net income for that quarter of $80.04 million, and to make it into the black for the year overall [Wall Street Journal, April 1, 1991, C, 8:5]. That was the sale of the Henley interest in the two Wheelabrator trash-to-energy facilities for i l Corporate History and Background 6 a total of $104 million [1992 Annual Report, p. F-2]. Henley Properties had shown a net income of$6.37 million ($.30/share) for 1989 [Wall Street Journal, March 26, 1990, C, 18:3]. Interestingly, the independent auditor retained by Henley/Bolsa Chica, Kenneth Leventhal and Company, for 1991, found that although the financial statements of the Company "present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the Bolsa Chica Company (formerly Henley Properties Inc) as of December 31, 1991, and the results of its operations and cash flows for each of the two years in the period ended December 31, 1991 in conformity with generally accepted accounting procedures," The financial statements referred to above have been prepared assuming that the Company will continue as a going concern. The Company has suffered losses from operations and must obtain significant capital for financing its real estate development activities and scheduled repayments of debt obligations during 1992. The uncertainties associated with the Company's ability to obtain sufficient capital, restructure its debt agreements and return to profitable operations raise substantial doubt above the Company's ability to continue as a going concern. [1992 Annual Report, p. F-91 Obviously, Henley/Bolsa Chica was going to have to take some drastic measures in order to survive at all. Those measures involved further sales of assets, additional mortgaging of land holdings, and a merger. In the meantime, on October 13,1992 Henley dismissed Kenneth Leventhal and Company, and found itself a new independent auditor, Deloitte and Touche to make the audit for fiscal 1992 [Notice of Annual Meeting of Stockholders, to be held June 22, 1993, p. 15]. Following the 1989 Distribution (discussed above) Henley Properties was in a leveraged position. The consolidated indebtedness of Henley Properties and its subsidiaries at December 31, 1989 was approximately $264 million. Due to the significant investment of capital required for the development of its real estate assets, Henley Properties believed that it needed to maintain significant borrowing capacity and, in light of then current conditions in the credit markets, that it would be able to obtain such borrowing capacity. Accordingly, in the fourth quarter of 1989, Henley Properties commenced negotiations with its banks to obtain a bank line of credit in the amount of approximately $250 million to refinance a portion of its debt and to finance development of its real estate assets. The steady deterioration of the credit markets during 1990 impaired Henley Properties' ability to obtain that line of credit. In the first quarter of 1990, Henley Properties continued its negotiations with its banks but was unable to gain the $250 million line of credit. During this same period, the real estate market in Southern California continued to decline, hurting Henley Properties' efforts to sell "non-strategic"assets. In consequence, by June 1991, Henley Properties began trying to find (with Salomon Brothers) a third party to buy or make an investment in Henley Properties. Numerous Companies were contacted, including public and private real estate developers, home builders, land developers, and other real estate investors. Henley Properties held discussions with some parties, but were unable to "consummate a 1 .1 ' Corporate History and Background 7 transaction." [Joint Proxy Statement of The Henley Group, Inc. and Henley Properties, Inc. for Meetings of their Stockholders to Be Held on July 16, 1992, pp. 40-41] By November 1990, Libra (see discussion above) had acquired 4,914,800 shares of Henley Group (about 25% of the then outstanding common stock). Libra then proposed a merger "unsolicited" between Libra and Henley Group, as discussed above. Libra then backed away from its offer. The effect on Henley Group stock had been beneficial. Henley Group ultimately sold its interest in Cape Horn Methanol in July 1991, its Instrumentation Laboratory subsidiary in October 1991, and made a public offering of some of its common stock in Fisher Scientific International in December 1991. The remaining Fisher shares were sold in March 1992. In early 1992, Special Committees were appointed at Henley Group and Henley properties, each comprised of directors not affiliated with the other. The Henley Properties Special Committee included Donald Koll, Gerald Lewis, and Albert Rising. The Committees worked out the terms of a merger agreement between the Henley Group and Henley Properties. The Henley Properties Special Committee believed that the merger was probably the only way to avoid the insolvency of Henley Properties. The maneuver also involved a spinoff of its Pneumo Abex manufacturing unit and a distribution of $250 million to its shareholders [Wall Street Journal, January 22, 1992, A, 6:6], chief among those shareholders Dingman and his associates. The Bolsa Chica Company's annual report described the actions this way: On July 16, 1992, a subsidiary of the Company merged with and into The Henley Group, Inc. (the "Merger") and the Henley Group, Inc. ("Henley Group") became a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, resulting in a significant improvement in the Company's financial condition. The Company, through its Henley Group subsidiary, received in the Merger net assets having a book value as of July 16, 1992 of approximately $45.3 million, consisting of approximately $103.6 million of assets, including $58.3 of cash, and $58.3 million of liabilities. In connection with the Merger, Henley Properties was renamed the Bolsa Chica Company [p. 1]. Immediately prior to the merger, Henley Group distributed to its stockholders among other considerations, in respect of each share of its outstanding common stock; $6.00 aggregate principal amount of the Company's 12% Senior Subordinated Pay-in-Kind Debentures due March 15, 2002, and $1.50 aggregate principal amount of the Company's 12% Subordinated Pay-in-Kind Debentures due March 15, 2002. About $159.4 million aggregate principal amount of the Debentures were distributed in the Distribution and approximately $43.8 million aggregate principal amount of the Debentures were retained by the Company's Henley Group subsidiary in the Merger. In the Merger, Henley Group stockholders also received, in respect of each outstanding share of Henley Group Common Stock, two shares of the Company's Series A Convertible redeemable Preferred Stock and one share of the Company's Class A Common Stock [1992 Annual Report, p. F-3]. Corporate History and Background 8 , At the same time, Henley engaged in three other significant financial maneuvers. First, its wholly owned subsidiary, the Lake Superior Land Company, sold to certain pension funds of the State of Michigan $45 million of notes secured by all of the assets of that subsidiary (some 300,000 acres of timberlands and shorefront property on Lake ' Superior in upper peninsula Michigan and northeastern Wisconsin). Under the notes' terms, semi-annual interest payments at a fixed rate of 9% per annum are due May 1 and November 1. The notes come due on May 1, 2012. $21 million of the financing proceeds were used to make a principal repayment in accordance with a term loan agreement with Bank of America [1992 Annual Report, p. F-41. Second, that term loan agreement with Bank of America (concluded on July 16, 1992) converted a $65 million debt into a $52.7 million loan due on July 31, 1995, through a $12.3 million principal repayment at closing. Moreover, the Company generally is ' required to make additional principal prepayments in t'ne amount of 50% of net proceeds from asset sales or financing, subject to certain reductions. During the fourth quarter of 1992, the Company made prepayments from assets sales of $1.1 million. In January 1993, the Company made a $21 million prepayment from the $45 million in proceeds from the Michigan transaction referred to above, which reduced the debt to $30.6 million. Additionally, Bank of America requires that the Company make principal prepayments of $2.3 million in the second half of 1994 and $3.1 million in the first half of 1995. Amounts outstanding under the term loan agreement bear interest at prime plus 1%. The company may also be required to pay additional interest if the principal prepayments are not made on time. Moreover, the term loan agreement also restricts the payment of dividends, and limits incurrence of further debt, making investments, loans or advances, creation of liens on existing and future assets of the Company or its subsidiaries, stock repurchases, and project development in excess of certain planned levels. Finally, the loan is secured by stock pledge agreements of all significant subsidiaries except lake Superior Land Company, and mortgages on certain properties [Annual Report, pp. F-4-5]. Where did this debt come from? Henley Properties originally obtained a $75 million credit facility from Bank of America in 1989 (the "Credit Facility"), to be repaid in full on June 30, 1990, with interest at a rate equal to, at the election of Henley Properties, the Bank of America Reference Rate plus .375%, the Eurodollar Rate plus 1.5% or a. certificate of deposit rate plus 1.625%. Henley properties expected in 1990 to extend the maturity of the Credit Facility through December 31, 1990 at substantially the same terms as existed for the June maturity date. The Credit Facility was made under essentially the same restrictive covenants outlined above. [1989 Annual Report, p. 211 Third, the Company on July 16, 1992 entered into a term note agreement with the Bank of Boston, concerning its Wentworth, New Hampshire property, converting all of an existing $16.4 million term note with Bank of Boston into a $13.8 term note due on July 31, 1995. As with the Bank of America loan, the company made a principal prepayment of $2.6 million at closing. The agreement also requires additional principal prepayments from the net proceeds of the sale of Wertworth assets, additional $0.5 million prepayment in the second half of 1994 and $0.7 million in the first half of 1995, with any remaining r Corporate History and Background 9 P rY 8r balance due on July 31, 1995. As with bank of America, the loan was set at prime plus 1%. Where did this debt come from? A subsidiary of the old Henley Properties (the "Managing Partner") and a corporation owned by Messrs. Dingman and Montrone were partners in a joint venture, which was originally acquired by predecessors of the venture partners for the purpose of developing Wentworth By the Sea. Pursuant to the terms of the Wentworth joint venture, the Managing Partner's ownership interest in the venture increased from 50% to approximately 52% on July 31, 1990 as a result of capital contributions during the first seven months of 1990 totalling approximately $2.6 million. On July 31, 1990, as a condition to an extension of a $26 million term note (the "Wentworth Bank Note") issued by the joint venture, old Henley Properties guaranteed the Wentworth bank Note and was entitled to a payment from the joint venture of guarantee fees equal to 1% of the amount guaranteed. Such guarantee fees aggregated $183,333 in 1991. In the first half of 1991, the joint venture entered into an agreement with the bank to extend the Wentworth Bank Note until March 31, 1993. Because the joint venture was unable to make all required principal payments or the interest payments on the Wentworth Bank Note and fund its operations from its own funds, Henley Properties advanced approximately $8.0 million and $9.1 million in 1990 and 1991, respectively, including ' accrued interest thereon. In 1992 Henley Properties expected to continue to make advances to fund debt service requirements and operations of the joint venture for the foreseeable future. The joint venture agreed to repay Henley Properties all amounts aid by the latter under the guarantee or otherwise advanced to the joint venture (including the guarantee fees referred to above) on demand [!], but subordinated to the Wentworth Bank Note, together with interest on the unpaid amounts at an interest rate of 14% per annum, subject to annual adjustment. The balance outstanding under the Wentworth Bank NOte was $17.4 million on December 31, 1991. The balance owed Henley Properties by the joint venture in respect of amounts advanced under the guarantee or otherwise was $17.1 million on the same date. [1992 Annual Report, p. 191 On December 30, 1992, in connection with the settlement of the litigation brought by former Henley shareholders against the company in Delaware, Henley/Bolsa Chica received the 48% remaining interest (that held by Dingman and Montrone). In return, Dingman and Montrone were given a 10-year option to repurchase that 48% interest at an exercise price that would result in a 20% compounded annual return to the company on its total investment. [Notice of Annual Meeting of Stockholders, to be held June 22, 1993, p.13] Bank of America and Bank of Boston entered into an agreement concerning their i respective shares of the repayments made by Henley/Bolsa Chica under the terms of its credit agreements with each of them. [Joint Proxy Statement of The Henley Group, Inc. and Henley Properties, Inc. for Meetings of their Stockholders to Be Held on July 16, 1992, p. 121] Pretty tough terms. But for the near-term Henley/Bolsa Chica had bought itself some time. Corporate History and Background 10 The shareholders approved the merger, spin-offs, and distribution in July 1992. Henley had come full circle, but it also faced more lawsuits from its public shareholders. More on that momentarily. When all was said and done, the Company was forced to admit that it expected to report continued losses in the "foreseeable future,"and during "1993 and 1994 the Company will be primarily dependent on cash in hand, which aggregated approximately $55 million as of March 1, 1993, including the net proceeds retained by the Company after a $21 million repayment of senior bank debt" [from the issuance: of notes by the Lake Superior Land Company; to "fund project investments, interest expense, general and administrative costs, and to service its debt" [Annual Report, p. F-41. The Company averred that it did not expect to have to sell off any additional assets to meet its obligations in 1993 and 1994. It also noted the following: Henley Properties is highly leveraged. The consolidated indebtedness of Henley Properties and its subsidiaries was approximately $298 million as of March 31, 1992.... The Merger will provide approximately $45 million book value of net assets from Henley Group and will reduce the outstanding book value of the Henley Properties Debentures by <<pproximately $40 million. Nevertheless, Bolsa Chica Company will continue to be highly leveraged after the Merger. On a pro forma basis, at March 31, 1992, the consolidated ' indebtedness of Bolsa Chica Company and its subsidiaries was approximately $258 million, or approximately $107 million excluding the Henley Properties Debentures. Bolsa Chica Company's leverage may limit its flexibility and financial position in a number of respects, including the following: (i) the ability of Bolsa Chica Company and its subsidiaries to obtain additional financing n the future for project development, working capital or other purposes may be impaired; (ii) a substantial portion of the cash flow of the Bolsa Chica Company and its subsidiaries from operations and asset sales will be dedicated to the payment of interest expense: and principal repayment obligations on the Henley Properties Bank Debt; (i:i) Bolsa Chica Company may be more highly leveraged thar its competitors, which may place it at a competitive disadvantage; (iv) the Henley Properties Bank Debt will bear interest at variable rates, which will cause Bolsa Chica Company and its subsidiaries to be vulnerable to increases in interest rates; and (v) Bolsa Chica Company's leverage may make Bolsa Chica Company and its subsidiaries more vulnerable to further downturns in the real estate business or the economy generally. [Joint Proxy Statement of The Henley Group, Inc. and Henley Properties, Inc.for Meetings of their Stockholders to Be Held on July 16, 1992, p. 251 Evidently, not all of the stockholders enthusiasticall,� endorsed the merger and filed stockholder class action suits in Delaware Chancery Court, alleging wrongdoing by the Bolsa Chica Company, Henley Group, and certain of their directors, :elating to the Merger and Distribution. One group filed on behalf of public stockholders of the Bolsa Chica Corporate History and Background 11 ' Company, the other on behalf of former Henley Group stockholders. The Henley Group case was settled and approved by the Delaware Chancery Court on December 30, 1992. In a related action brought in the New York State Supreme Court, the plaintiffs alleged 1 mismanagement and breaches of fiduciary duty relating to the Wentworth property. At the time the 1992 Annual Report was prepared, agreement had not been reached in that case. Henley/Bolsa Chica asserted that it agreed to settle in these actions "solely to eliminate the expense of further litigation" [Annual Report, p. 8]. The Company's 1992 Annual Report describes the settlements as follows: Pursuant to the terms of the settlements, former Henley Group stockholders will receive payments from a $2.4 million settlement fund, reduced by court- awarded attorney's fees of $750,000. In addition, on December 31, 1992 Wentworth Holdings II ("WH II"), a corporation controlled by the Company's former Chairman and Vice Chairman [Dingman and Montrone], transferred its 48% interest in Wentworth to a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, which, through another wholly owned subsidiary [!], already owned a 52% interest in Wentworth. In exchange, WH II received a 10-year option to purchase a 48% interest in Wentworth at an exercise price that would result in a 20% compounded annual return to the Company on its total investment in Wentworth, if the option were exercised [Annual Report, p. 8]. Once again, Dingman had got his hand caught in the cookie jar. iBy early 1993, the world and Henley's board of directors had enough of Dingman. The Board elected to turn over management of the company to the Koll Company. Dingman and Paul Montrone resigned both as officers and directors of what had become the Bolsa Chica Company. The following individuals became officers of the renamed company, or remained in previously held positions [all information is from the 1992 Annual Report of the Bolsa Chica Company, p. 6]: 1. Donald M. Koll became chairman of the board, bringing with him Ray Wirta, Vice Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of Koll Management Services and President and Chief Operating Officer of Koll Company since prior to 1988, who became president, chief ' executive officer and director. 2. Raymond Pacini became executive vice president, chief financial officer, and treasurer, having been vice president, chief financial officer, and treasurer of Henley since 1992, managing director of Henley from 1990 to 1992, and director of financial reporting for Henley Group from prior to 1988 to 1989. At that time he also became Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Koll Managment Services. 3. Richard Ortwein, President of the Southern California Division of Koll Company, became executive vice president. Corporate History and Background 12 4. Lucetta Dunn, Senior Vice President of Koll since 1992, Vice President, August 1990-1991, Senior Vice President and General Counsel of Signal-Landmark (a wholly awned subsidiary of then Henley Properties), in 1990, and Vice President and Assistant General Counsel of Signal-Landmark from 1988-1990, became Senior Vice President of the Company. 5. Sandra G. Sciutto, who had been Group controller of Koll Management Services since 1990, project controller for Signal- Landmark during 1990, became Vice President and Controller. 6. Mark A. Underberg, Vice President, General Counsel, and Secretary of Henley since June 1992, Managing director of Henley from December 1989 to June 1992, Vice President, General Counsel, and , Secretary of Abex and Fisher Scientific (subsidiaries of Henley) since July 1992 and December 1991, a Managing Director of Henley Group since prior to 1988. On 15 March 1993, the Board of Directors for the Bolsa Chica Company (nee Henley) comprised [all information derived from 1992 .4nnual Report of the Bolsa Chica Company, p. 3.1: 1. Donald Koll, Chairman, term expiring 1996., new in March 1993. , 2. Ray Wirta, term expiring in 1994 3. Paul C. Hegness, term expiring 1996; a partner in the law firm of Good, Wildman, Hegness, and Walley since 1979. Previously employed by the Construction Division of Del Webb Corporation, the Home Building Division of Broadmoor Homes, and the Union Bank. New in March 1993. 4. Gerald J. Lewis, term expiring 1996. Counsel to the law firm of Latham and Watkins since May 1987, a director of the company since 1989. Formerly an Associate Justice of the California Court of Appeals, Fourth Appellate District from 1984 to retirement in May 1987; a judge in the Superior Court of California, san Diego County, from prior to 1983 to 1984. He was also at the time a director of Wheelabrator Technologies Inc and Fisher Scientific International Inc. Latham and Watkins provided legal services to Henley Properties. 5. Bertram R. Firestone, term expiring in 1995. Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of the Firestone; Corporation (real estate development) since prior to 1985 and a director of the Company since 1989. Corporate History and Background 13 6. Albert E. Rising, term expiring in 1994. A director of the company since March 1990; a consulting metallurgist and engineer since 1949. i 7. Marco F. Vitulli, term expiring in 1995. President of Vitulli Ventures, Ltd.(Real estate development,investment management,and consulting services)since 1981. Also Chairman of Elk River Enterprises (lumber) and a director of Pope Resources (land, timber, mineral and recreational properties). The membership of the Bolsa Chica Company's Board of Directors changed once again in summer 1993. Bertram Firestone, Gerald Lewis, and Albert Rising all resigned. One seat was left vacant, the remaining two were filled by Harold A. Ellis, Jr., a managing partner of Ellis Partners, Inc., a real estate management and consulting firm based in San ' Francisco, formerly chairman and chief executive of Grubb and Ellis Co., a diversified real estate services company; and J. Thomas Talbot, owner of Talbot Co., an investment and asset management company based in Newport Beach. Donald Koll noted that the "recent I changes in the company's board of directors complete a transition that began in March[1993]." [Orange County Register, Business Section. The transition was to complete control of the former Henley Group by Donald Koll, who now effectively controls four of the six seats on the Board of Directors. The total number of individuals employed by the Bolsa Chica Company as of March 1, 1993 is 45 [1992 Annual Report, p. 5]. ' [See San Francisco Chronicle January 15, 1990, C, 2:3; Los Angeles Times, February 4, 1990, D, 4:1; Los Angeles Times, June 12, 1990, D, 2:3] The Koll Company's Role How did the Koll Company come to be involved with Henley? Already one of the largest developers in Southern California, and based in Newport Beach, California, Koll was hired by Henley in June 1990 to manage its real estate portfolio (estimated at $500 million), including the development of the Bolsa Chica Wetlands Area [Los Angeles Times, June 12, 1990, D, 2:3]. Koll has had or currently has projects underway in San Francisco, Seattle, Phoenix, Orange County, the Inland Empire, and Los Angeles. Koll worked out very favorable arrangements in return for his participation. Under the terms of the Management Agreement, Henley Properties was obligated to: 1. pay a quarterly management fee equal to .125% of the average book value of such assets 2. reimburse Koll for certain personnel costs and other expenses 3. pay to Koll a specified portion of the net sale proceeds (as defined) from the sale of properties managed by Koll Corporate History and Background 14 , Additionally, Koll was entitled to a disposition fee of 1% of the net sale proceeds (as defined) upon the sale of any property, other than Bolsa Chica or. Wentworth, managed by Koll. Moreover, in connection with this transaction, Donald Koll, Chief Executive Officer of Kola, became President and a Managing Director of Henley Properties. He received no salary in connection with these positions. However, Henley Properties paid or accrued fees of$2.5 million to Koll in consideration of management services rendered and $1.6 million for certain reimbursable personnel costs and! other expenses incurred during 1991. Effective August 1990 and February 1991, Healey Properties also entered into construction management agreements (the "Construction Agreements") with Koll Construction, a subsidiary of Koll, with respect to the Eagle Crest [San Diego] and the Rancho Murrieta projects, respectively. Pursuant to the Construction Agreements, Koll Construction provides general construction supervisory and management services as well as direct supervision of all subcontractors. Koll Construction is reimbursed for its direct costs and compensated pursuant to a formula which provides a fee of 2.5% and 4.0%, respectively, of the total construction costs of the projects. Henley Properties paid or , accrued fees aggregating approximately $540,000 to Koll Construction in consideration of such services and related cost reimbursements during 1991. Donald M. Koll also personally came to own by 1991 some 96,701 shares of Class A Common Stock of Henley Properties. [Henley Properties, 1991 Annual Report, pp. 16, 18-19] Effective April 19, 1993, the Compensation Committee of the Bolsa Chica , Company's Board of Directors approved salary levels of $150,000 for Donald M. Koll in his capacity as Chairman of the Board, $100,000 for Ray Wirta in his capacities as President and Chief Executive Officer, and $100,000 for :Raymond J. Pacini in his capacities as Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, and Treasurer. Pacini's salary represents a 50% reduction from his previous level for 1993, which is commensurate with the Bolsa Chica Company's agreement that 50% of Pacini's available time could be allocated to his duties as Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Koll Management Services, Inc., a subsidiary of Koll Company. Koll, Wirta and Pacini also received hefty stock option grants. [Notice of Annual Aleeting of Stockholders, To be held June 22, 1993, p. 14] Earlier, in 1989, Koll arranged with Union Pacific Co. to buy the bulk of the assets of its Union Pacific Realty subsidiary, for about $532 million. Consummated in early 1990, the deal gained Koll property in 19 states, including property in the Denver area [Los Angeles Times, January 3, 1990, D, 14:2; New York TirnE:s, January 3, 1990, D, 4:1; Wall Street Journal, January 3, 1990, A, 2:6; Denver Post, January 3, 1990, D, 2:3]. In Fall 1989, Koll sold 24 of its industrial buildings located throughout Southern California, to Fujita Corporation, U.S.A., a Japanese developer, for $138 mil'.ion [Los Angeles Times, November 29, 1989, D, 3:1]. In Spring 1989, Koll purchased $135 million of the real estate assets of Wells Fargo Mortgage and Equity Trust. Wells Fargo then paid off its shareholders and liquidated the trust [San Francisco Chronicle, April 5, 1989, C, 5:1]. These maneuvers fit neatly with the larger corporate strategy of Koll Company, as outlined in the National Real Estate Investor. Corporate History and Background 15 Acquiring an underperforming property and bringing it up to speed with successful projects in a competitive commercial real estate market is often seen as a risky endeavor. However, with land availability diminishing and prices escalating in many areas, acquisition and subsequent renovation has become a cost-effective measure beneficial to cities, developers, and tenants. Through asset management and development expertise, nonperforming properties can be transformed into income producers with growing occupancy. When evaluating the acquisition of an underperforming property, one factor to consider is the extent of the potential renovation, minor revitalization, or full-scale renovation. Another important consideration concerns the project's ability to complement a developer's ongoing development and management activities [July 1989, V. 31, No. 8, p. 100] As the fortunes of Henley continued to plummet (its losses for 1992 totalled $38.4 million [1992 Annual Report of the Bolsa Chica Company, p. ii.]), it became increasingly clear to the company's directors that Dingman and Montrone had become serious liabilities, and that as the company had little left in the way of operating enterprises, its assets now primarily reduced to real estate holdings, it might be a prudent move to bring Koll all the way on board to run the company, as it had been managing those real estate assets under contract for over two years. Especially given the fact that the Bolsa Chica wetlands property was Henley's principal asset and best hope for future profits, Koll offered a 1 relatively strong local reputation, important contacts, and knowledge of local politics and administrative procedures. It is not improbable that Koll's access to financing played a key role here as well. ' Bolsa Chica Company stock common shares currently trades (20 August) on NASDAQ for 5/32 per share, having reached a high of only 11/32 in the preceding 52 weeks and hit a low of 1/16. Preferred shares traded for 3/32, having reached only 11/32 in the preceding 52 weeks and a low of 3/32. [Los Angeles Times, 22 August 1993, D-71 i OTAY MLSA R)�,. • w ;Lim i _ ter.► i • d �^ Ll l� u 1. � • ^ �•�=av� c� -—gym Barnhart Property r`. 'r '•` � H� i Dantzler Property Scsi Pro 2dkwta sk �s 0.11t Z�K GA-�Y,�p►�l 2.71 A� 'PARK O R . . ." . T UNJAM .t s AIRWAY RD. SOURCE: SAN DIEGO COUNTY ASSESSORS MAP. BOOK 64,6. P 10 S 19 ENV 1 R a N PARCEL MAP r I g ur e c��r rr�r r•r�r frrr� ,� ENV IR N PROJECT »OA-2302A BARNHART PROPERTY DANTZLER PROP ERT Former Pond Area = jL . SESI PROPERTY ` * a SOURCE: County of San Diego, Dept. of Public Works, Orthophotographic Quadrangle, Shea No. 142-1767; photograph dated May 7, 1981. r- _ mow V SrrE AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH 9 ENVIRON PROJECT x04-2302A .,t �� " .r•,'S � tr ,R.' 1 � �. !rr!'( �qp.� �+ ,''� �.. "1' Yi�i V - .- \\'`,'.Ilr h � '��.!�/;}7[• y' /i. �;.__ .•1+ti i' � �•r`�4sr�'r ✓� � tY✓�'•' Y.L ..�. .� �,r i"yLf.�Y•., d � r��y It 1 t.d t I, + r'.. _ :t t !n. '� \i �.,'\ S•�':+. r •��'i' 1,`• �t 1:� i; t + t. �'!!T'.j y.p};, `: i� �y,w .wr�+„ ` \•1• � •�� M"� � , f r4 r - �� it � t; -I�, `i ';t'V_; 1 �//s r '� +t - �i�A r yl'i .J per/ '� �.•' 1,�'1 ��� + ^•' ,.� .,r, �' , �_ s, ii �� y� � .p ka'f ,� d1°t 1�-aT 9�': '�t ,.� 1 v .;., i �. .�•., !•�r! • 1! rl �r�s .rlr (\`� .� _�y� i. � l_ „r. �� '�)�NYr.a}� .+h.{� 1 t ..� v�.s atl. �L 't e`+G' .�' �. `r.,la r M, ..`�%" ,�r '� `to ! 1 J�Yi.;v yyr' ..�y y4° ���,+ '.� ,l ,'! ��N'v� +��' •f� t ! '`� "• l �` \ .-�; �,jthi".� �' w . s�t� a `' r,. '� t iyi«;,. >t!• , r C.A� I^�••.b � :.t? (`\ t t �' , '�r%. ' 1:=•.�•-•.. � }1 y-� '•+���f.�Y,h� .4 ..G. �t..s tir•,� -ai.Yr`t: 11•• � f. � i.jl. 1 .�:.�. �a :�+T + t r '�'ny'ti'frrwT`t r :'�. .:- , '�';i. •{1 t ��A`� `�. �\��' y,f�.w. s' �Ir � �y�',.i k � -<� t 1.� +.` ;�,�. � '� ,`x° \A. ty �yf ` ! y .@> �i�-�,i_ y!\tiR., °°,a, ( Y N may,•i,s. t .1�'W;a"r:4 't. :• r , t` ..I. y �.�M�-1Y ?:3, r f( r + .S � � � , .+�3`J\`,�Ov�JQ�S"'�\'.� ,�����'�"A' , f.Y.:• i v g AN 'k till \1 � �: R ,,�,. � r � t '�,{,>: � i��} C ",�: �' ,F ti,}' 1LfC. �r e,i"` ' r���� '.. +'t .•� .�.�.' 1 .:-�?ti' �h.� kr -� {� � � 'i`• , 4a�..Y.;1 S ���; ���. �: f- � �� „ y,.; - •141.?i ' � F$Ao '� 1. "Em 11 t el, ;J e 6� r :q� f � I ',� ��y] �����;E � ;�"� '' ti i1•f' ' :{, +,, of �Ir. i•..� �y� 1' �•PZ �4,ti�S�'� �l'h',rj a,�;br,*�`5.,f:. „w•, .���\���yZ�;\?1, '� s C>s r r r • -"2�hNs� s .* �i+< +�tr ' v.LL - �`� ��`+i�,�tl ,\tV���t`'�' hY.. �'' •s ti \` \ fin $, ` .`£,, ;,.IL, rt;t�4 st I} � �j °_ `�' Kw. � !}:x'� ;aka• �\Z.t'� `�`\.r.��\:.),: . r�+�� r•!S. 1 11��, S .I llt l `I fk , e��' }R; \�) ,�\Q\`��\`\.i '\, \\P. ►T;h Q S }%°�`rM'*>Ik�,ti• �.I �. t`, �•+A hi a.53t 1t°t,4���'''.^'`\t�i'\�`\p�\Vi•- :,;A�tN „•:•.!: W -:�., ,:��.�'..•. �i y.• ,� r , J air ' >'< ��.S�n`\�``` ��.� \"\�`': -?�,\`;'�, y�. .�� .�:'t�, ;'F�_ y� pY. t f{=} r t.i'1i'� � �'Cz•12..I'.r••' � ` 1. � �:.�'Acjy�JaH`\`•��y��\��v�'�jfia44\�(�y``\�, M .. ��YQ'��Q�A�� �•'�„ r�•am�.. :1r��) 1 % �ry Y Cry r e . I _ y�t10\4; ''' $ tr r'�t.-""'_ ..�...!{rJ k: t�` ��v4a„i��',�, t`\t.\\a\\w•,! £ �•:�4�J,\h',`�Q\�• ni kp p. S . •ra 4 �1 \ b{c :1 sr,y qH1` r C, t r�,C`Q;�\PQ\\,y.d.•F v _e -:r ''i4�+�"4. *, J,��.�y\ ". �t�'F} ��`'F,yg�,M�12'•,•« �� •���y`����`�,.�� ,i WAI sv } 9 1{ iK� C r /�0\� �\\Q\•\ \ .ww.Mw. A; \ . t°a ,vz Q�q� c \�W '�j°4 {{ , `'t1• 1 �. �rerw^F� .N' ; < ✓,�'s '}� Or, rko At CXIII8IT II to the Construction Agreement dated June 25. 1987 between CORONADO LANDMARK, INC. and PIILLARO CONTRACTING CO. for the SITE GRADING on Tract CORONADO CAPS 15 6 16 located in the City of Coronado, County of San Diego. NOTE: ' Contractor agrees to the strict compliance with Article lit, paragraph I and will purchase and have on hand the full stock of materials to assure the timely performance of his work and to avoid any possibility of delay caused by material shortage or increase in material prices to Owner. Normal service and pick-up work will be completed within five (5) working days unless Contractor is prevented from doing so by conditions beyond his control. Work not done in five (5) days constitutes right of Owner to have work done by others at Contractor's expense. It will be Contractor's responsibility to see that his field personnel have the proper plans and plot plan prior to starting work. Contractor has been advised and understands and agrees that the timely performance of Contractor's work hereunder when required by Owner and in close coordination with other sub-trades is critical to the uncertain economic and marketing conditions prevailing during the term of this Agreement and because other work and obligations are dependent upon the timely performance of Contractor hereunder. Accordingly, Contractor agrees that time is of the essence in the performance of Contractor's work hereuride r. ' Contractor expressly agrees to maintain a production schedule hereunder. Owner agrees to give Contractor at least five (5) days written ' notice prior to the first working day hereunder. Contractor agrees to hold Owner and the other sub-trades harmless from all damages caused to Owner and other sub-trades by any delay or failure of Contractor to timely perform work hereunder. Oecause actual damages to Owner are extremely difficult or impossible to ascertain, Owner and Contractor mutually agree that as liquidated damages to Owner for failure of Contractor to timely perform the work hereunder on the agreed production schedule, that Contractor shall pay to Owner the amount of S -0- for each full working day occurring after the day on which the work on the building should have been completed under the provisions hereof until the work on any such unit is completed, inspected and accepted. Contractor waive• all riyht to plead lack of materials or labor or delay of any type as an excuse ' for the failure of Contractor to perform Contractor's work hereunder. Wherever applicable, the Statute of Limitations will take precedence over Article I , paragraph S. ' The premises are to be left in a clean, workmanlike manner, with all rubbish, debris, etc. , resulting from this work, completely removed as directed by the Owner. In the event this cleanup is nut done as directed, the Owner shall have the right to do the cleanup or cause it to be done, with all costs resulting therefrom to be charged to the Contractor. Cost of all safety requirements of the State of California, Department of Industrial Relations, and U.S. Labor Department Occu- pational llealth and Safety Rules shall be included in this Agreement. All work to be done in accordance with applicable laws, building ordinances, statutes, rules and regulations and to complete satisfaction of Owner and/or his Agents. Page 1 of 2 If, so a result of flood, fire, earthquake, act of Cod, war, strikes, picketing, boycott, lockouts, low, government regulations of any other cause beyond Owner's control, Owner determines to postpone prosecution of Contractor's work, Contractor shell upon receipt of written notice from Owner, immediately discontinue further work until such time as Owner advises Contractor to resume work, which Contractor shall promptly do upon receipt of written notice from Owner. In the event Owner is unable to proceed with this project, it is agreed that this Agreement con be cancelled by ' Owner without recourse. Contractor hereby releases and discharges Owner from any liability for damages or expenses which may be caused or sustained by Contractor by reason of such ee:santion of work. Owner shall be under no obligation to protect C,antractor'e work, materials, tools, equipment and facilities. Contraetor shall ' beer all risk of loan and damages thereto, by whatever cause inflicted, until the job is accepted by Owner. fsiluce to maintain schedule and/or quality shall be sufficient cause for cancellations of the unfinished portion of this Agreement and permit Owner to seek material and services oleewhers. Any cost in excess of the Original Agreement In so doing shell be charged back to this Contrector. In addition to any other remedies it might have, the Owner shall , have the right to terminate this Agreement immediately upon being informed by the appropriate person of the defau;.t or delinquency by Contractor or his Subcontractors performing wort: hereunder (including ' nny person who may have been a principal financially associated with the Contractor or his Subcontractors, who Is delinquent in fringe benefit payments) in asking payments to uny health and welfere, pension, vacation or apprenticeship funds or upon being informed that Contractor or his Subcontractors performing work hereunder is a "listed delinquent Contractor" with regard to payments to such funds, and such delinquencies Contractor- may be obliged to pay may be paid on behelf of the Contractor, or may be deducted from any belancs due hereunder. Execution of this Agreement is evidence that the Contractor has made himself familiar with all conditions affecting the work to be done, including all local governing applicable codes, ordinances, requirements, etc., as a basis for this work. Any work Incidental and/or appurtenant to the ites(s) of payment, shall be absorbed and included as a part of the (unit) price(@) set forth and/or established for the particular item(n). Payment is to be made for actual work installed, completed, and accepted. based on the payment schedule. Agreed prices to remain In effect through coripletlon of job ' or to the completion of any phase of construction started during this period. PLEASE INITIALr i 1R - • 1I0I Contractile Iwed Dog,ace aochso"a.@ mdwmeMe 0•---tgownt lop Awe glees @d holes awes thwsof Of Vile.@ 11111e.wolttr.-..Sew sr f.K.-Voms.-wn1.Met at Sees tw-d fo 1400 W dote-od pomsl Ion.eft weovnv of the Dmfle*,_ce fete gcewM w NMM1 w the - MM MN M M foo eelMn N-0 a- Is,.Mote 14e .ff s consequence.@wool etl.of foot eel of feen CMtrKfce-mn Melees.some.-Is and e.m•s►eds Sal env and.II Igoe.cool doet"o w"Os use swa&o.w.f 1..o-ew .eec4dme toss MOgN a&eg.mov I Moos.M account N w w-d".the use N gfm If.nd te-wltse.-@teeth M @.tr OM N awom/towhee.lel CMtrK.m+ce a flee moor OaogM--M•sOwM fmwdon II Ion..wr@Iee.n f•d•ees - w te-OMd.of CcetwKtce.w ti eewwnemw ofCMets-0.wee-0 tow of a mw.Klow ow OwKrlm,elf to er.KMtrq theft Iwo ga n a wgme-c at wee Cg.nKt fly CMwKooe.tonmews'of Ion NN woeoeq r for caned.throe$Pf O-nw.w of eta N one..m.ceFaMMta O.nntf Ifn*,aM W Sew Pon fseseeel. Icl Icea-ro.mMf--N elect soee Dte.-f.wa•mteefo Reef awe er.gM-ms Itawfsir of logo ev.00eon e$Iwo vie toe-m-a&ne Or CM-Ktce.Sell 89em11. sew.Mtf.at-o•ove M-s-"*a*.IKfmsa'f be login-soft M Ins rood so a mmor w/fv Pen Iwwoen atowlear gr ton wleemmoeneMa or eft the-got tale*,.rwo•so- Iwf Cone-M.M—m om r..enwwNmlf few sear ace ed rem.,....-m I..... . gdamol--nw.v @ ma n N oo a me w ml-ow-waMM.ww I-Von M..e.meto CC Wd-V ro fine MOnda-d.as 09184w.men let eon Iwaeee and sYPgd.eatedwe n.elt.a goo fwM/wm wee Ian of the g omomems of we$ @.-ON.oes- ♦w TIC LE 11,Ile cefv.do.a&-of N the trnf.Ia&mIW Ono#Vd PowmMwlce afd/er Nfeweslece be Cw-.K1e1 N each.even we"an N ewe ceev emel MO cMd.Iwns N hn poll f0 N OMce•meed Weder.wf CMpmerf ma.ron stew IowMVt o.,home.an so gender OPeg..a.t10/am%.IYM and all the.eN Nits cMawegws waaodemt end ouboNwwf is ton'Mmeteen M 0.--slew of into N11M N a—"to eon cemfws Ito me elf.0.f-@,epees of I To der Mte Sete Ccettr Kta.Me soft of 1S6051699.00e gewa&sle,as, - .W.W.•This is an approximate figure only. Mork hereunder to be accomplished on a time and material basis at hourly rates set forth in your rate sheet dated Juno 16, 1987, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof. Trucks utilized in hauling materials will be priced ' at 157.00/hr. for bottom dumps and f61.00/hr. for end dump*, 0. A Me Billings substantiated by daily work reports to be in Owner's hands on or before 26th of each month in which case payment will be made in full for approved invoices on or before loth of following month less ten (101.) percent retention. The retention will be paid in full thirty-five (35) days following completion of work and acceptance by Owner. Once one"'Pos ale tail g-lt dolwsrI ewdryas. The fwxf hem- dole-eon goon be.fwwMld Vnfel ton a@Owo1eM of 30 does 0m#f"Mltco Of CO-001.0w_ W1tM @let mMart ere goefdlf er O+mde wm CM-Ktce VwAot the hwee".Co-Lotter shed fNhg MOwCo-M th.efe,mote an«.ace swNl ddl.tdme unro omem./g sfomoleo.v~-fd'i mmom.ed thwrp of MtM and as,cweoterNt go Peff.eN.on-We 00-0 es Conf•ac w•and are.—q ewer all""Of.owg and 1-064wme CMM"or enameled wr COwwKror w we Oo os efnfce M dewtip theme waft sold dote ware boom dome o.www Iwaw while me ' ..Owl le.fetomm CgmVKroe to lVrhwfh tom sV~N oecw OOOht.rmm.won enp-M doe rowl fee#sow oleo tow mcowled d.wl.owe to mcowdo.f a OM of 1841 a"o--c st-On g come$ele sIPIw-gf/of so waMn'vs OeONwr due for fools-oM M M KCOW"Of oeo&ole cMm.Kig at CMIrOCIW O.eM•bnMm.esseeft Ilea fOn1 so dneu•e1 o.ew fmms Me CM-Kea.on eve/On-Of ch"o,ce comes@-0Nte Iamly W MwKce sod Or to Cmd a -we of Cewtr Klee O MHw-a M W l S"tvhofv. I mo MKea OOon a.nor Moo to wee rf. D-lew fomomse.'Demo,owe nefte is neglleeo contractile. so a cond.nsn wocodeot to the dnsswtemtafw of flewYs due Meng os.ww to Com rectee,to smuwg men engIMIN Moll.oloONI Met-CMwKIw I molw of ew,04/n.Ieowws. .ndrce we.cMNKte.s. 121 Pow s t"em Iwf dens @non n fall,dw, a hem Immumdon-afwM om.v. ' but I"oho net eroole sell DeleganO^M ode goo of Cow""go lode-anw ioe eq CM-Kto tm.MrvfgW 12a)hewn-mwlof vmtbco of ft miemtnw.gold d0.oa►such mow. OsfepSmsf for leoealnw dwPC"w Mid Cleared lose Mmsemow mwge$SQSM91 the HteoS*Mae-na ooeeN'mote CMI•Ktan wwew-de. 121 w CM-Kr/ toed IN Ito wed.truer son Allow vertoemwl a c.eeommo.do,small breech sew condetfOn of Iwo t- Curee Sul. d CM M W bel.ect so to" f g.-ar.ml«logo hie a~0ec oded go met foot e-w gees Pedm7v tlmdo.@.tr N Ih d.gwolMo N Ih hcl N CMpegs nlwwty lo fawe.weeew. w a CMImKtW small maoo a eMM K No-pnma.nt ice 0.0/**@he of cmd.te/s.ce.f.ace-of ow gove-Hed a.-CMwKIce.a-f CMIrKIe,fwa&l remtef. -.Offcl ce fell to sVoOie ar ane0lm 0 see so sedlee.m0 men Or emcee M n a M etwos A e CO eded to ewe$ ooa.trocter Shod f@ p•e Oov-oto-w Soo,1 to- I@Flom aM Il1.afV//.**elect r fad to canmlr-"Now amfwVcnMt of olfmw.Inse s.d en Ifmo/N ace N eon Mfls.Own*,fear ePwweVe tomoudece 10 ! tone a.M,elyM r row-'Ov and as on addelgfN npw son mme.dv to an ether confeeled mOgn D-nef be leme a.for Ion CMVact.and a&lof oommmd COw.mIg101 t-Mry•fOW(Sill f.wf-ee.ewM.ofeoo,lem-ftsle too.Moss N ComwKter ImmuomM and fu-oh Mf-toff by wkeo*fw-liked Cwmal-OV defM a.wd.".1 mom wen oee.L Ceww@slr @hed.mill too eon-lod ro eKewf aftr Iwrlww sew•-o m.Ifd let 1M MM IMt Ion cost 1MIo�I/Me cMlewe-ma Ion eecea smed agsod Sete moss/ag/ento ft"t @edge.Com.K1e.Med. leesw Oomente of o-..gt dot Ion do"oronee te1l.e Deets•P.Chase, -OV .OMnm.fa au leehlf N Camara"r wwow .m w,and moe'otpew 91.811 bootlegged Man Maw to"omdon ar hOM-Ir--wsomrm-MnwMw.woe Com.-actOc the.0.4 mn mptn.me"000 Ond rgmedMa of 0a We She$,toe tdhi.Osd*atot- 81amo end me aos Of them shed be agctuome of @fw Pont..w fsglusela of Inr of me•epos or m mm0daga seem"is O.Mw for toma- an fICLE"r Ill The co.nwed>.ooltop-se$ w ofMm me wesent glttges c / -8.9.4N Ion as 0. n mmotgoMw.Igo ton 0- 0.ro e-sed"M cMmact. m1 the cO .Oemw state@ eee thel he w wfttom diet@ N masol o ww l~to P/M we P c~61w Ne wa rm hus M tCMOV/f a m cdr w dtel-en efwh emer Z.#led" 121 TM CMMKt she"conew N stale Apowmwol-The GM*,od CoMheegfs N the Cent.Kl, the Defe.teps sad Sdecdmt @Igwo of Choomr.sod Iwo me womeles.@fNtefecoweh odd/ggessl-ontl N We CAS,Medl Of Cow" TM word Comt ct-n wall iMgyameul Ion•pgMwM eMw N CMflrtfed Kt 131 il► A 121 hot owlet lanmwo @eatdmd.-Ion CSM.eeI we N else eefoncs TtewP n of Ion @ogler@ of ed cs.eq.H ad cewdeleewf M Ilea Pan of th C a-wgg 141 Th/a.gm Sue rod Commack.the convulse,shoo eMMl1'the~81,ma~81 Swan me4ld'me ftmewtor Ion M&@C tf lowl.nelyde ofa new".ms MVlef Ion mHCwmm. ISO The commas Moe Seel ga mO0eh/0-r Mete env N Ion emom..memrs or comcenons M Ion can of Ce-uacfo,low medefeed a wooed of Ofhem--.e aneclod unless m-f..tens,M M OR,Items a--*,show wares,awl eveeoesal.tOm.snMw.a Piton-elf.N Ion g0-wKt o-Mr twice@ M fmM ohm MCKw lh*,wf,D-MI of"we$11a@"MIW be doo wo Id ogee cwwfwM to ace 1mf.m*,-omo4 mee.fet eleOw 4."Dom_-Mlwe.-a-s,co-t.-on"of.M Demo a env whge cove.%Om or toMf.M.or is hod we""o1lelaltuanl hod a-d tswwlwe oo"W-@Mee emwer oase.eoleeO of the some or sow 44ow co.deanef go cMOm-som M the ohs N CMwecow awwgr ton Contract 141 The CMelKt,maw won be asemIT a low Cg-wKiM+-few the eeemew ce-oenf N 0m"t "Ce-w Kee.be a co•sa-woegwm a c-.awaa m fM me.tecet ifawsof enrr of coo weetdt M a cwoo mmn.a them"m/h e.Patnm.g N,env faofl OSKMs e.-we N as cocoa&elect omen go ec emool M n,glewwr olom*wod for Ion ten-@ hwoe$ ITI Me se.sltm hoe slew wWWWWp-waa/ewgr to mode ewr p•gamdwl lommmalelmee w@wMlr.of to Maltese mf CMLKI Is,env eon mHeN s•-tho Veen DwnM sf-OOa s pme"Wegoon~ apes-am gloves,-r MM I neon be m w-teng we artmmewls.o/alfw 0.1s.rgorsfMla&Mv ce -so enlges-he/woer.ace owes*as"fr11a home ea&-made w CI-rKror I01 A a---t be-oft 004VAd K d sa maa@ fomdg OewdoMd.Seem teww a OM toe same.r mrso con goes". ARTICLE nP I I I The Coo~of easewed to�..,�tows.Eats to$Woof dectatod M be M rymet ale.hgtfs►w.gmad tM%"MOO Pe$ ono end the some ApeetweslL (2)The Cg-wan.-IduMwa fond AgnewbooK @wee be gasgegMo be Dltw-tor-wMw load Cew'gw/atcdnweetr- 131 The Cg-wan.w-cbdrma calls mpeMtant.M-M1-nmPs Is Ina M-Nr open"to he- aeatween.aloe Mr'ron,wtc@see.a end sit - N CMwectr awe wetadad Pa and as""ofO--w. �mTKLE v. 111 Su►OM-eKOW won fM-nw owNwte of ea-agMwsma 4069r Pad WMnaSn-,Cowmencotton tnewenee o. me e0 saw gong,"ffg.Cfou wn - l.fs ltto fe Coronado Landsark. Inc.. $01 Grand Carlbe Cswy, Coronado. CA12118 121 mow MpnS1We show otswerwodg"mw f ha.o Mad,See.and V.donlewd the NIwN N we$he1NMo.CM-Kt.Dgew."Is end E.6-11014 Woo WITNESS.1011014111110411.tlm awWn horero Mee heramfweve,N foods,tooled@ end wets K N mom doss son vow fwsf hoMmsbe"-mwton. w CORONADO L NARK, INC. 0259580 n VIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS & VIL.0 INC. t550 Old Henderson Road. Suitelp ' Columbus. Ohio 432:10 800/9644854 ' LETTER OF TRANSMfTTAL AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . November Zt, 1991 + i• ; Mr. Charles LiMandri. Esq. ' 2120 San Diego Avenue, Suite 100 San Diego. Caldomia 92110 Reference: SESI, ET AL VERSUS SIGNAL LANDMARK ET AL ' PARCELS 646-10049. -59. -70 AND SURROUNDINGS Dear Mr. LiMandri: This letter summarizes our opinions as more fully set I= in the following supporting documents: VOLUME I - ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS AND OPINION ' VOLUME II -VALUE OPINION VOLUME III-SUPPORTING DATA BACKGROUND AND SCOPE OF WORK The attached volumes present the opinions of the professional members of the EAV Valuation Team regarding the property described above and the subject of litigation styled as Sesi, at a/ versus Signal ' L.andmarit at a/, Case No.624243 filed in the Superior Court of the State of Caldomia in and for the County of San Diego. EAV has been asked to examine all of the available data and form opinions with respect to the I following issues: 1) The fair market value of the property known as tax assessors parcel numbers 646.10"9. .59. ' and -70 in Otay Mesa. Chula Vista, San Diego County, Caidornia as of the following dates and conditions: a) As of the date of purchase by Sesi, of a/on or about January 1. 19W as if the property had no environmental impairments other than tfw)se naturally occurring and a partially Bled canyon. The canyon fill materials are to be assumed to be made up of dean native soils. b) As of the date of notification of dumping acthity to Ses4 or a/by Signal Landmarles attor- neys about August 1, 1988 under two conditions as follows: i) As d the property had no environmental impairments other than those naturally occurring and a partially filed canyon as it existed in January of 1987. The canyon fit materials are assumed to be made up of clean native soils. , u) As the property is now known to exist wnfi environmental anpalmtents. These value opinions are expressed in Volume II of this report and are subject to the information , contained and the opinions expressed in Volume I and the data contained In Volume III of this report i EAV-COWMeuS A PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATION ANALYZING ANO VALUING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS WSM. Er AL VERSUS SIGNAL LANom&AL ' Mr. Charies Ul Aandri, Esq. 2 November 21. 1991 2) An analysis of the history of the property from approximately 1960 to the present time. and the available analytical data with respect to the following issues: a) Identification of any reasonably suspect environmental impairments introduced onto the subject property by parties known or unknown. b) Review of analytical reports prepared by others to quantify the approximate extent of environmental impairments. ' c) If any suspect environmental impairments are identified, evaluate the likely kind, quantity, and economic consequences of such impairments. d) Develop estimates as to the cost and methodology for responding to any environmental impairments under the goverung laws, rues and regulations 3) Based on the historical and documentary records available, attempt to Identify potentially responsible parties who may have introduced environmental impairments onto the property between approximately 1960 and the present ' This letter and the attached volumes and subordinate reports and information supplied by others and included by reference is submitted in fulfillment of the foregoing Scope of Work SUMMARY VALUE OPINIONS In accordance with the Scope of Work, our value opinions for the property are summarized as follows and are subject to the formal value opinion contained in Volume If of ttmis report and all limiting conditions and defwAions contained in this report Reasonableness of Purchase Price on January 1. 1980: Discussions with area market experts indicate that the price paid at the time was reasonable given that approximately 7 acres of the total 32.S7 acres of the subject property was undevelopable canyonland. The purchase price was S559,498.50. or $0.39 per square foot We find no indication of any unusual circumstances surrounding the purchase price. Note that this is not a foffrW value opinion, but an analysis of the reasonableness of the purchase price in the vicinity at the time. Value Opinion of the Subject Property as Unimpaired: August 1. 1988: our It is o opinion that the fair market value of the property-unimpaired by environmental problems on August 1. 1988-would have been$1.850.000 or$1.30 per square foot.This fair market value opinion is for the property as 9 was believed to exist at the time, with a canyon constituting approximately 7 acres of the total 32.57 acres that was partially filled with what appeared to be native sods. Further.this value opinion ' assumes that a formally approved development plan-or map-did not exist for the property at the time. A development plan would be required prior to the subject property's achievement of is highest and best use as the site for conunercial and Industrial facilities, Value Opinion of the Subject ProoeMt as Impaired: August 1. 1988: It is our opinion that this property-unpaired by the presence of hazardous substances as identified ' in Volume I of this report-is unmarketable for is highest and best use, or for any other use, and therefore has no fair market value.The purchase of this property in its present condition would impose a large liability on any purchaser tar in excess of the unimpaired value of the property, a liability that may range from $6.262.000 to as high as $64.116.000 with a most likely estimated Ilability of S23,190.000. This estimate of liability does not include an estimate of several major liability increasing factors including, but not limited to: (a) The posting of a closure financial responsibility bond for the disposal cad: (b) The costs associated with defense against litigation from neighboring property owners if the subject property becomes the focal point , EAV-Coturwaus I A CMr%CCCCYMAI .'y.IZA&,"AVW`A6 AA,AI N'P%k—. Aftw%%#as# N-- CS—WW—�-- $Ll. ET AL VERSUS SIGNAL LAl DID AL Mr. Charles UMandri, Esq. 3 November 21. 1991 of a hazardous waste disposal site 'border zone' declaration; and. (c) The casts already incurred or to be incurred in the analysis. investigatim and litigation associated with the discovery of environmental impairments on the subject property. We have further assumed that It would not be possible to develop the subject property as a commercial hazardous waste landflill. therefore precluding an altemative highest and best use. Further. based on the opinions of EAV's Valuation Team. it is unlikely that the property will ever be marketable as the most likely cleanup scenario would result ui the permanent presence of a disposal cell ' containing hazardous wastes on the property. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPAIRMENTS AND HEALTH/ENVIRONMENTAL RISK ASSESSMENT SUMMARY It is the opinion of the EAV Valuation Team members-as set forth specifically In Volume I of this ' report—that the subject property has been the site of the dssposal of a number of hazardous substances since July of 1987. Further, it is our opinion that the hazardous, substances constitute a threat to human health and the environment; that destruction of wetlands have oxurred during the process of the disposal ' of hazardous substances since July of 1987; and that additional uncontrolled releases of hazardous substances have occurred and are continuing to occur as a result of the disposal of such substances on the subject property since July of 1967. In addition,our health risk assessment indicates that ftUw=es must be taken immediately to protect the public from the hazardous substances dLsposed of on the surface of the property.It is our understanding that such protective measures are currently being undertaken by the property owners In cooperation with , the local health authorities It is further our recommendation that action be immediately taken to contrd or prevent the release of additional hazardous substances from the site and to properly deal with all of the contaminated materials , on the site. Historical Analysis of Hazardous Substance/Waste 01sp=1 ' As more fully described and documented in Volumes I and III of this report. the disposal of non- native materials on the subject property took place during two time periods Intermediate to these two non- native disposal activities a period of grading and covering with native sods octxtrred which, based on the available documentary information.obscured the first non-native material disposal activities from observation by ordinary means, We have grouped the materials involved in the first non-native disposal and the subsequent grading and covering activities under the tide of Tripp/Martinez Materials. and the materials involved in the second non-native disposal activity under the We of Signal Landmark Materials. Tripp/Martinaz Materials Prior to approximately 1968, there is no evidence of fine disposal of non-native materials in Spring ' Canyon. Beginning in 1968, Mr. Tripp. operating as Tripp Salvage. began the disposal of automobile shredder materials on parcel 646-100-49 owned by Mr. Tripp. By 1973. aerial photographic evidence indicates that Mr.Tripp's disposal operations had extended beyond the boundaries of 646-100-49 to include adjoining properties owned by Mr. Martinez and others. Mr.Tripp's disposal operations ceased In late t976 or early 1977 and 646.100-49 was sold to Mr. Martinez by Mr.Tripp. From 1977 to mid- or late-1979 Mr. Martinez and/or Mr. Tripp utilized local native soils from the ' sidewalls of Spring Canyon to provide additional cover for the.shredder materials on at least two occasions. one in 1977 or 1978 and an additional major covering and grading activity in 1979. probably prior to September of that year. According to aerial photographs. the shredder materials were probably not visible to ordinary inspection methods after the first major covering activities of 1977/1978 and were further rendered invisible by the second covering activity in 1979. EAV-COWMeuS •PQf1CFCR1�1N�1 npr:�Nf7�T��V,1 •QAI v&$,nun C%^A. IZACI, AI SdOA�c ' SES/, ET AL VERSUS SIGNAL LANDO AL ' Mr. Charles LiMandrL Esq. 4 November 21. 1991 Automobile shredder materials were not considered to be hazardous at the time of disposal by Mr. Tripp. Mr.Tripp was engaged in the business of scrap metal salvage and according to his deposition in this matter, was fully aware of the economic benefit to him of the recovery of as much lead, copper, and other ' metals from the shredder materials as possible. Further. according to Mr. Tripp's deposition the primary source of heavy metals that might be expected in the shredder materials—automobile batteries as a source of lead—were not included in the shredder materials he received from his supplier because the supplier was ' in the habit of extracting the batteries for direct salvage prior to shredding. Evidence that the Tripp/Martinez Materials did not contain significant quantities of hazardous substances is further provided by two facts. First the local agencies conducted a search for the source of ' hazardous substance contamination of the Tia Juana watershed specifically including an investigation of the Tripp/Martinez site as a possible source and concluded that the Tripp/Martinez Material was not a source. This fact is documented in a County of San Diego Inter-Departmental Correspondence to the DLwict ' Attorney from the Department of Land Use&Environmental Regulation on November 13, 1975(a copy may be found in Volume 111). Second. based on our analysis of topographic maps. by 1979 the filled portion of the ,canyon contained approximately 30.000 to 40.000 cubic yards of shredder materials.and approximately 90,000 to 80,000 cubic yards of native soils. a ratio of shredder materials to native sods greatly in excess of the normal disposal ratio utilized in standard solid waste landfiits. From the time of purchase by Sesi, at a/in January of 1980 unt8 the disposal of materials by Signal ' landmark in the summer of 1987, there is no evidence of any organized or volume disposal activity on the site. There is evidence that Seri, at a/ took reasonable measures to secure their property against casual trespass and dumping during this time period through the erection and maintenance of a fence across the ' Cactus Road entrance to the property. the only direct entry point. Signal Landmark Materials Beginning in July of 1987 and extending at least through August Of 1987,Signal Landmark Materials were transported from the Coronado Cays development to the subject property in approximately 2.450 truckloads constituting approximately 38.500 to 40,500 cubic yards of material.These materials came from the site of the former Rancho Carillio Municipal Landfill owned and operated by the City of Coronado and purchased for development into Coronado Cays by Signal Landmark in the late 1960s or 1970s. The hazardous substance content of the residue from the burning of municipal trash was well documented in the scientific and erlviron mental literature prior to 1985. In addition, Mr.Tripp in his deposition in this matter ' stated that he was personally involved in the transport of materials to the Rancho Cariuio Municipal Landfill from such sources as the San Diego Naval Shipyard and the burning of materials at that site to specifically recover 'puddles of lead'and other metals after burning. Analytical testing of the materials on the subject property indicates that the Signal Landmark Materials contained more than 200.000 pounds of lead plus a considerable quantity of other heavy metals. The Signal Landmark materials were deposited in three areas on or immediately adjacent to the subject property. These were the fining of a pond immediately North of the subject property (the North Pond), a major deposit at the original downgradient end of the Tripp/Martinez Materials, and a spreading of the materials over the area from Cactus Road to the North Pond to the downgradient end of the filled area at depths ranging from a few inches to approximately 39 feet Physical evidence of the deposition of the _ Signal Landmark materials over the general area as well as in the two major disposal locations is readily visible in the form of partially melted glass and ceramic shards characteristic of the Signal Landmark Material. During the Signal landmark dumping operation the general f9l area was subject to at least 88.000 compression/relaxation cycles resulting from the tires of the transport vehicles as they transited the site with inbound compression loadings of approximately 4,600 pounds per square foot, and outbound (empty vehicle)compression loadings of approximately 1.600 pounds per square foot.This compression/relaxation E►v-cowMeus...._.... _...........�_.. ..._..__ � OO/�CCCCM��1.• FOR•u•�_�•/+.• •.u•vw.•r u.�•• SES1. ET AL VERSUS SIGNAL LAND 06 .4L , Mr. Charles LiMandri, Esq. 5 November 21. 1991 ' activity would have driven the Signal Landmark materials into the underlying Tripp/Martinez Materials in the , same manner as fine gravel will be driven into the underlying dirt In a road. This activity would also have further reduced the already fine bum dump materials into sl2l smaller particles that would then be easily transported into the Tripp/Martinez Materials by one or more of three available mechanisms: (1) Particles driven in by mechanical action: (2)Particles transported along with water percolating into the Tripp/Martinez materials through the Signal Landmark Materials from the surface; and. (3) The transport of colloidal heavy metals and particles by percolation and groundwater movement. Aerial photographic evidence exists that erosion of the Signal Landmark Materials into Spring Canyon was already extensive by January of 1988 and aerial photographic and topographic evidence exists that this erosion is continuing unabated to this date. The visible extent of eroded materials into the Spring , Canyon streambed on aerial photographs indicates that the Signal Landmark Materials extend at least 1.400 feet downstream and constitute an eroded volume of approximately 14,900 cubic yards (39 percent of the original 38,450 cubic yards deposited) as of August 6. 1991. Of this 14.900 cubic yards, only about 3.400 ' cubic yards remain within the confines of the subject property. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the foregoing information and the analyticd data contained in reports by others and referenced in Volume I of this report, it is our opinion that the Signal Landmark Materials contain significant quantities of hazardous substances and may also constitute hazardous wastes Further, we are of the opinion that the Signal Landmark Materials have become commingled with the underlying Tripp/Martinez ' Materials such that the Signal Landmark. Tripp/Martinez, and considerable quantities of surrounding and downgradient native soils are now contaminated and should be treated as a whole for purposes of cleanup. In addition. we are of the opinion that the alluvial groundwater has been contaminated with heavy metals in the form of suspended particles and must also be cleaned up. ' We have examined a series of alternative cleanup methodologies involving the groundwater, the restoration of wetlands, and the cleanup of contaminated materials in the fill area proper. The cleanup of the fill area involved the examination of alternatives ranging in cost from$6.262.000 to$64.116.000. It is our considered opinion that the regulatory authorities are most likely to approve the following scenano as being the one which will provide maximum human health and eanvironmental protection given the available technology and economic considerations Specifically, the materials that have been eroded downstream in Spring Canyon will have to be removed at a rate of 1 cubic yard of Signal Landmark Mateials eroded downgradient plus 4 cubic yards ' of adjacent native soils After the removal of the downgrad'a:nt materials, the wetlands wwdl have to be restored.The removed materials.plus all of the Signal Landmark.Tripp/Martinez.and adjacent contaminated soils, will be placed in a disposal cell constructed on the subject property to the engineering specifications ' required by the applicable regulatiom Prior to the placem.bnt of the materials into the cell, they will be solidified with an agent specifically designed for the purpose,turning the entire mass of materials into a solid block that will be minimally accessible to erosion or groundlorater/surface water leaching mechanisms. In addition, a pump and treat operation on the groundwater would begin to remove any particles of heavy metals having entered the alluvial groundwater aquiter, an oixration that may require 20 or more years to complete depending on the extent of the contamination. It is our opinion that this most likely cleanup scenario will cost approximately SM.190.000 including , restoration of wetlands.groundwater treatment.site security measures currently being taken to prevent harm to the public,and additional testing,investigation,and environmental analysis costs likely to be required prior to the implementation of the scenario. This estimate does nix include funds already expended to date by , the property owners. the costs of any financial responsibility bonds required to complete site closure, the loss in value to the property, or any financial impacts resulting from the declaration of a hazardous waste disposal site 'border zone'. ' E -Cot.urweus O OOr WCCC1t- J&1 r1Onalwravw-�f amw.V1•ft1PB uv„ew. Cu 0O 1..C•�•. •••n•••�.• • . ET AL VERSUS SlC3N/1L L,"D AL ' Mr. Charles LiMandd. Esq. 6 November 21. 1991 With respect to the purchase of the property by Ses/, at al in 1980. we cannot rind any contemporaneous evidence: (1) That the current owners acted in a less than prudent and responsible fashion for that era in investigating the condition of the property prior to purchase: (2) That the current owners would have been likely to see any evidence of the wensive disposal of waste materials on the property, and, (3) That the current owners paid a less than reasonable price for the property under the assumption that an area of undevelopable canyon existed on the subject property. ' With respect to the actions of Sesl,at a/after purchase of the property,documentary evidence exists that they took reasonable precautions under the circumstances to prevent damage to or trespass on their property after purchase, and that in fact no signdtcant trespass or damage occurred until the deposition of Signal Landmark Materials in the summer of 1987. Further. according to the records available to us. Sesi, at a/was not aware of the dumping of materials on their property by Signal Landmark until appro)omately August of ISM UMMNG NOTE TO SIGNATURES OF THE EAV VALUATION TEAM Each of the following professionals Is responsible only for the Wormatlon and opinions provided in the section of this report to which his/her signature applies as Identified below. In formulating an opinion, the professional may have reified upon conclusions and opinions contained in other sections of the report. By doing so, the professional is rot stating that he/she Is responsible for or Is competent to evaluate such other opinions and conclusions unless specifically stated otherwise. Each professional is therefore responsible for orgy his/her own opinion and EAV is responsible for the whole.AN opinions are specifically limited by the condition terms, and definitiom set forth and Identified In Volumes I and II of this report. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS b VALUATION. INC. az&-za-9, , z� Albert R. Wilson, President VOLUME 1. SECTIONS A. 8, C. 0, F. H. 1 (Economic). 0. and VOLUME III Albert R. Wilson, BSSE. MBA, REPA ' VOLUME I. SECTIO S E, G. I (Health Risk Assessrnent), N, P William I DrP S Raterman, CIH. ' VOLUME L SE F, H. I (Economic). O Fred G. Krikau. PE VOLUME 11. VALUE OPINION ' I-) jr ... . _ Beverley S. 1hillips, MAI EAV-COLUMSUS A PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATION ANALYZING AND VALUING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPArTC y /LAk ASSOCIATED LABORATORIES B06 1Vor:h Batavia - Oranq*, Caliloraia 92668 . 7241771.6900 ' C. - H. V. Lawmaster (116a) =.? ti0 F3529a-1 7940 South Main Street , Stanton, CA 906a0 ==?Cni=D 7/14/87 „ttn: Don Harrington l , Soil ?=C=:V=O 7/01/87 :Z:EN7:-:C..7:C`I Job 8495-G1, from old city du,,rp As Submitted Sample #1 , LIMITS From Cut Lots 815 & 816 CAM INORGANICS TTLC STLC TTLC STLC (mg/kg) (mq/1) (n9/kg) (r Q/1 j Antimony 500 15 22 . 3 0 . 36 Arsenic 500 5 . 0 54 . 4 0 . 053 Barium 10 , 000 100 209 1 . 36 Beryl 1ium 75 0. 75 0 . 37 Cad:liun 100 1. 0 11 . 3 0 . 3a Ch cmiun, Hex. 500 5 ND< 0 . 01 ---- Chromium, Total 2 , 500 560 52 . 8 ---- Ccbalt a , 000 80 22 . 2 ---- CcFcer 2 , 500 25 716 18 . 0 Fluoride 18 , 000 180 2 . 4 ---- Lead 1, 000 5. 0 746 8 . 1 :•'.ercury 20 0. 2 0 . 54 0 . 12 :•'.olybdenun 3 , 500 350 :9 . 8 ---- :Jickel 2, 000 20 145 1 . 25 Selenium 100 1 .0 ND< 0 . 1 ---- Silver 500 5 10 . 2 ND<0 . 005 Thallium 700 7 . 0 ND< 0. 1 , Vanadium 2, 400 24 33 . 8 0. 20 Zinc 5 , 000 250 1, 400 24 . 6 Pesticides EPA Method 8080 ' A11 other compounds were None Detected. See attached list. ' pou n Can ' t. On Page 2 =s`••G&CC�__:"'� Client: H. V. Lawmaster Lab No. : F35298-1 Date: July 14 , 1987 ' Sample #1 Purgeable Organics EPA 8240 : Frcm Cut Lots 815 b 816 ' Methylene chloride 65 fig/kg Acetone 370 Nq/kg 4-Methyl-2-pentanone 22 Hq/kg ' Tetrachloroethylene 7 Nq/kg All other compounds were *Done Detected. See attached list. ' Base/Neutrals EPA 8270: All compounds were None Detected. See attached list. i t ASSOCIA2ED/L'ABORATORIES Robert A. Webber RAW/q 1 ' NOTE: Unless notified in writin9, samples les will be discarded P by appropriate disposal protocol 30 days from date reported. 1 1 � 2 ' chvt el tic c.n.ry error ' 4 s MAR 16 1992 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ' 10 11 MR. & MRS. SALIM D. SESI, ) Case No. 624243 MR. & MRS. WADDIE DEDDEH, ) 12 MR. & MRS. KYRIAKOS ATTISHA, j (ASSIGNED TO JUDGE JUDITH MR. & MRS. ASMAR D. ASMAR, ) McCONNELL)._ ' 13 MR. & MRS. NAJIB SESI, ) MR. & MRS. SAMI ROUMAYAH, ) 14 MRS. IBA SEIBA, ) SPECIAL VERDICT ' ) 15 Plaintiffs, ) 16 vs. ) Trial Date: 2/10/92 j Time: 9:00 a.m. 17 SIGNAL LANDMARK aka ) Dept. 24 CORONADO LANDMARK, and DOES ) 18 1 through 50, ) Hon. Judith McConnell ) 19 Defendants. ) 20 SIGNAL LANDMARK aka CORONADO ) LANDMARK, ) 21 ) Cross-Complainant, ) 22 ) VS. ) 23 ) MR. & MRS. SAL.IM D. SESI, ) 24 MR. & MRS. WADDIE DEDDEH, j MR. & MRS. KYRIAKOS ATTISHA, ) 25 MR. & MRS. ASMAR D. ASMAR, ) MR. & MRS. NAJIB SESI, ) 26 MR. & MRS. SAKI ROUMAYAH, ) MRS. IBA SEIBA, ) 27 ) Cross-Defendants. ) 28 ) f I We, the jury, in the above-entitled action, find the 2 following special verdict on the questions submitted to us: ' 3 Ouestion No. 1: Were the acts of defendant Signal 4 Landmark, in causing soils to be deposited onto plaintiffs' ' 5 property, a legal cause of injury to plaintiffs? 6 Answer "Yes" or "No." I ' 7 Yes No S If you answer Question No. 1 "No," sign and return this 9 verdict. If you answer Question No. 1 "Yes, " then answer ' 10 Question No. 2. 11 Question No. 2: What, if any, do you find to be the ' 12 total amount of plaintiffs' damages attributable to the injury 13 caused by defendant Signal Landmark's soils. 14 Answer: $ 2.Soo_off;• 15 Answer the next question. ' 16 Question No. 3: Do you find, by clear and convincing ' 17 evidence, that the defendant Signal Landmark acted with 1S oppression, fraud, malice, or despicable conduct so as to warrant ' 19 the imposition of punitive damages? 20 Answer "Yes" or "NO." 21 Yes No 22 1 23 Dated: 7770,�� , 1992. ' 2425 . FOREPERSON OF THE JURY ' 26 27 28 RECORDING REQUESTED BY ' AND WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: Charles S. LiMandri , Esq. 2120 San Diego Avenue, Suite 100 San Diego, CA 92110-2997 Mail Tax Statements To: (Not applicable) ' (Space Above for Recorders Use) 1 AGREEMENT GRANTING RIGHT OF ACCESS AND SETTLEMENT AND RELEASE ' This Agreement Granting Right of Access and Settlement and Release ("Agreement" ) is by and among SIGNAL LANDMARK, INC. , THE BOLSA CHICA COMPANY ( formerly known as Henley Properties, Inc. ) and THE HENLEY GROUP (hereinafter collectively referred to as "Signal") and MR. & I MRS. SALIM D. SESI, MR. & MRS. WADIE DEIDDEH, MR. & ' MRS KYRIAKOS ATTISHA, MR. & MRS ASMAR D. ASMAR, MR. & MRS. SAMI ROUMAYAH, MR. & MRS. NAJIB SESI , and MRS. IBA SEIBA (hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Plaintiffs") . Signal and Plaintiffs are hereinafter ' collectively referred to as the "Parties. " RECITALS WHEREAS, Plaintiffs are the partners and co-owners ' in possession and control of that certain real property located .at Cactus Road, in the City of San Diego, County of ' 1 ' ' San Diego, State of California, more particularly described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by 1 this reference (the "Property") ; WHEREAS, on or about May 17 , 1990, Plaintiffs commenced a civil action against Signal in San Diego County ' Superior Court entitled Mr. & Mrs. Salim D. Sesi, et al . v. Signal Landmark, Case No. 624243 (the "State Action" ) , alleging, inter alia, trespass, nuisance, and that Signal caused injury to the Property by causing the deposit there of certain materials (the "Materials' ) ; ' WHEREAS, Plaintiffs claimed in the State Action that Signal should be held liable for damages which included all of Plaintiffs' past, present, and future expenditures incurred as a result of the presence of the Materials , including without limitation costs for site assessment, waste removal, and soil and groundwater remediation at the Property ("Response Costs") ; ' WHEREAS, Signal contended that it was not liable for such Response Costs and opposed Plaintiffs' claims in ' the State Action; WHEREAS, based on the evidence, the arguments of ' counsel , and the instructions of the Court, the jury in the State Action returned a verdict against Signal on March 16 , 1992 , finding the total amount of damages attributable to ' Signal alone for its role in allegedly causing injury to the 2 Property to be $2,500,000; , WHEREAS, Signal contends that reversible errors were committed in the trial of the State Action, and filed a ' notice of appeal of the judgment in the State Action on August 13, 1992; WHEREAS, on or about August 5, 3.991 , Plaintiffs commenced a civil action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California,, entitled Mr. & , Mrs. Salim D. Sesi, et al. v. Signal Landmark, et al . , Case No. 91-1057-IEG(M) (the "Federal Action") , against Signal ' and others, alleging, inter alia, that Signal caused injury to the Property, such injury arising from the same actions ' as those alleged in the State Action; WHEREAS, Plaintiffs contend that: Signal is liable further for damages and/or Response Costs attributable to injury to the Property caused by Signal;: WHEREAS, Signal has filed counterclaims in the ' Federal Action, alleging that Plaintiffs are liable for the same damages and/or Response Costs; ' WHEREAS, Signal has been served by various co- , defendants with cross-claims in the Federal Action, alleging, inter alia, that Signal is liable to those co- ' defendants under both federal and state law for contribution and full or partial equitable indemnity for Response Costs ' which they have incurred or may incur; ' 3 ' I • I WHEREAS, Signal anticipates that other parties will file cross-claims against Signal in the Federal Action for contribution and full or partial equitable indemnity under ' both federal and state law as well; WHEREAS, the Parties deny that they are liable to any party for damages and/or Response Costs attributable to injury to the Property; WHEREAS, the Parties desire to settle in good faith the State Action and the Federal Action (collectively "the ' Actions") without any admission of liability and without further litigation, thereby barring any present or anticipated claims against Signal for contribution or full ' or partial equitable indemnity under either state or federal law; ' WHEREAS, Plaintiffs desire to grant to Signal a right of access on and over the Property for the purpose and ' subject to the conditions set forth below; ' AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties, without admitting liability in any form or manner, hereby agree as follows : 1 . Release a. The Plaintiffs hereby release, discharge and forever acquit Signal and each of its past and present predecessors, successors, affiliates, assigns, agents , I i i 4 attorneys, directors, officers, shareholders, employees and ' representatives ("Released Parties") from each and every claim, demand, debt, action, cause of action, liability, and ' obligation of any kind or nature whatsoever, in law or in equity, under federal or state law, which Plaintiffs now ' have, or hereafter may have, whether known or unknown, by ' reason of or in any fashion relating to the potential liability of the Released Parties alone for the alleged ' deposit of any wastes or other materials by Signal or its agents, employees, contractors or subcontractors on the ' Property, or relating to any wastes or other materials, including the Materials, ever owned or possessed by Signal t or its agents, employees, contractors or subcontractors that ' may now or hereafter come to be located at the Property, including any actions for damages and/or Response Costs, ' including, without limitation, remediation of soil or groundwater at the Property, loss of use of the Property, , loss of value to the Property, natural resource damages , personal injury, and any claims for costs, including attorneys' fees ("Released Matters") . Released Matters do not include any property in the vicinity of the Property to which the Materials may have migrated cr to which they may migrate in the future. Released Matters do include any liability arising from waste or other materials, including ' the Materials, moved or transported from the Property to 5 , other locations by means other than migration or other ' natural causes and not moved or transported by Signal . b. The Parties hereto acknowledge and agree that ' this is a full and final release applying to all known, unknown, anticipated, and unanticipated claims , injuries , or ' damages arising from or in any way relating either directly or indirectly to Released Matters. It is further understood by the Parties that the facts with respect to which this Agreement is entered into may hereafter be discovered to be other than the facts now known or believed to be true. In ' entering into this Agreement the Parties hereby assume the risk of any mistake of fact and hereby expressly and intentionally waive all rights and benefits which they may have under the provisions of section 1542 of the California ' Civil Code or other similar law restricting the release of ' claims. Section 1542 of the Civil Code provides: A GENERAL RELEASE DOES NOT EXTEND TO CLAIMS WHICH THE CREDITOR DOES NOT KNOW ' OR SUSPECT TO EXIST IN HIS FAVOR AT THE TIME OF EXECUTING THE RELEASE WHICH IF KNOWN BY HIM MUST HAVE MATERIALLY ' AFFECTED HIS SETTLEMENT WITH THE DEBTOR. C. The Parties expressly acknowledge that this i Agreement extends only to the Released Parties and relates only to their proportionate share of potential liability as a result of the deposit of the Materials . The potential liability of other parties, contractors or subcontractors , for their actions or omissions with regard to the deposit of 6 the Materials is neither discharged nor released as a result ' of this Agreement. 2. Payment in Cash ' In consideration of the release set forth in Paragraph 1 , and all other provisions of this Agreement, ' Signal shall pay to Plaintiffs a total of One Million Two Hundred and Fifty Thousand Dollars ($1, 250,000) , plus ' interest in the amount of 6% per annum on that amount from ' April 10, 1992 until the date of payment, within ten ( 10) business days following satisfaction of each and every Condition Precedent established by this Agreement and notification of such satisfaction by Plaintiffs to Signal . ' Each party shall bear its own attorneys' fees, costs and expenses related to the Actions. 3 . Payment to Court-Administered Clean-Up Trust Fund , a. In consideration of the release set forth in Paragraph 1 , and all other provisions of this Agreement, ' within ten ( 10) business days following satisfaction of each and every Condition Precedent established by this Agreement ' and notification of such satisfaction by Plaintiffs to ' Signal, Signal shall pay an additional One Million Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ( $1 , 250,000) , plus interest in the amount of 6% per annum on that amount from April 10, 1992 until the date of payment, to a cleanup trust fund (the ' "Trust" ) to be created and administered by the Court in the 7 ' Federal Action (the "Federal Court" ) expressly for the purpose of bringing the Property (and any property in the rvicinity of the Property to which the Materials may have ' migrated or to which they may migrate in the future) (collectively, the "Trust Area") into full compliance with all applicable environmental laws. The creation of the Trust in a manner consistent with the provisions of this ' Agreement is a Condition Precedent to the effectiveness of this Agreement and to Signal's obligations thereunder. rb. The Parties agree that disbursements from the Trust may only be made with the approval of the Federal Court upon the Court's determination, with the assistance of an Environmental Expert, that the expenditures in question are necessary and cost-effective to bring the Trust Area ' into full compliance with all applicable environmental laws to the satisfaction of all responsible regulatory agencies. rThe Parties further agree that they will cooperate in attempting to reach consensus on a nominee for the role of Environmental Expert and to nominate that person or firm to the Federal Court. In the event that the Parties cannot reach consensus, each shall make a nomination of its choice. ' The Parties understand and agree that the Federal Court may also receive nominations from other parties in the Federal rAction and will select an Environmental Expert of its ' choice, and that the person or firm selected may not be one 8 i of the Parties' nominees. ' C. After remediation of the Trust Area is complete, including any soil and groundwater remediation in ' the Trust Area, if necessary, and has been fully approved by ' the Regional Water Quality Control Board and any other local , state, or federal agency with jurisdiction and the ' Federal Court, any remaining funds in the Trust that have been contributed by Signal may be disbursed to the ' Plaintiffs. 4 . Access to the Property ' Upon the provision of reasonable notice by Signal , ' Plaintiffs agree to allow Signal access to the Property, at Signal 's election, in order to conduct sampling, to control ' soil erosion, to carry out pilot projects, to store soil that may be excavated from the Trust Area on the Property ' and to conduct any activities that Signal may elect in its sole discretion, to conduct pursuant to Paragraph 5; , provided, however, that such activities ( i) must be completed within a reasonable period of time, consistent with regulatory review requirements, if any, and the time ' reasonably necessary to complete the relevant tasks , and (ii ) must not interfere with response activities supervised ' by the Federal Court. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Signal shall have no obligation to perform any such activities at ' the Property. In the event that Signal chooses to exercise , 9 I 1 its right under this paragraph, Signal agrees to indemnify ' plaintiffs fully for any liability that might be incurred by them due to Signal 's exercise of that right. 5 . Right to Remove the Materials Plaintiffs agree that Signal shall have the right, but not the obligation, to excavate and remove the Materials from the Property at any time at Signal 's sole expense; ' provided, however, that such activities must not interfere with response activities supervised by the Federal Court. In the event that Signal chooses to exercise its right under this Paragraph 5, ( i) Signal agrees to indemnify Plaintiffs fully for any liability that might be incurred by them due to the excavation, transportation, or disposal of the Materials at another location and ( ii) Plaintiffs agree to support Signal's removal activities and to cooperate fully in their implementation, including, without limitation, supporting permit applications , variance applications and any other necessary regulatory approvals. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Signal shall have no obligation to perform i any such activities at the Property. 6. Resolution of the State Action a. Within ten ( 10) business days following the execution of this Agreement, the Parties shall execute a stipulation for reversal of the judgment and vacation of the verdict in the State Action by the Court of Appeal in the 10 form attached as Exhibit B (the "Stipulation" ) . within ten ( 10) business days following satisfaction of each and every Condition Precedent established by this Agreement and notification of such satisfaction by Plaintiffs to Signal , Signal shall file the Stipulation and move that the Court of Appeal enter an Order in the form attached as Exhibit C and dismiss Signal's appeal of the judgment. in the State Action consistent with it. If the Court of Appeal requests, orders or permits the filing of a brief or briefs addressing the propriety of the Stipulation and Order, Plaintiffs shall join with Signal in the preparation and filing of such a brief or briefs in a form acceptable to Signal . Reversal of ' the judgment, vacation of the verdict Find dismissal of the State Action by plaintiffs with prejudice, shall be Conditions Precedent to the effectiveness of this Agreement and to Signal's obligations thereunder, except that Signal at its sole discretion may waive the requirement for reversal of the judgment and vacation of the verdict. In that event, entry of a satisfaction of judgment shall be a Condition Precedent. ' b. Within ten ( 10) business days following the execution of this Agreement, the Parties shall jointly submit a motion to the Court of Appeal advising it of the pendency of this settlement and requesting an extension of ' the schedule for briefing the merits of the appeal to 11 iaccommodate the schedule for concluding the settlement set forth herein. C. Plaintiffs shall return to Signal all discovery materials produced by Signal in the State Action, including, without limitation, all photocopies, images , representations and reproductions of discovery material produced by Signal , but excluding materials to be specified and agreed upon by the Parties as a Condition Precedent to this Agreement. d. Plaintiffs agree to support a motion by Signal to seal the record in the State Action, excluding the materials to be specified and agreed upon by the Parties as 1 referenced in paragraph 6(c) . 7 . Motion to Bar Contribution and Indemnity By entering into this Agreement, the Parties intend to protect Signal from any and all past, present, and future claims for contribution and full or partial equitable indemnity under both federal and state law relating to Released Matters ("Contribution Claims" ) . within fifteen ( 15) business days of the execution of this Agreement, the Parties shall file a motion in the Federal Action seeking an order barring all Contribution Claims that any other party I has made or may make in any court against Signal for Released Matters (the "Motion") and dismissing the Federal Action with prejudice as to Signal . The Motion will request 12 an Order from the Court, which shall be conditioned upon a ' subsequent reversal of the judgment and vacation of the verdict in the State Action by the Court of Appeal in accordance with Paragraph 7 , (i) summarily dismissing all Contribution Claims pending against Signal, ( ii ) barring all future Contribution Claims against Signal (the "Bar Order") ' and (iii) dismissing with prejudice all claims against Signal. Plaintiffs agree to join in full support of the Motion and to take any future actions, including joining in any future motions by Signal in pending or future actions, that may be necessary to dismiss Contribution Claims or to effectuate the terms of this Agreement, including the Bar Order. Entry of the Bar Order by the Court, in a form satisfactory to Signal , shall be a Condition Precedent to the effectiveness of this Agreement and to Signal's obligations thereunder. If the Bar Order is issued and the Court of Appeal reverses the judgment and vacates the verdict in the State Action, Signal shall dismiss without prejudice its cross-claims for contribution against other defendants in the Federal Action to the: extent they relate to Released Matters and shall not thereafter seek contribution from others for Released platters , unless a government agency or other party not bound by the Bar Order seeks relief from Signal for Released Matters beyond the payments required by Paragraphs 2 and of this Agreement, 13 except that in no event shall Signal seek any such contribution from Plaintiffs. 8 . Consent to Settlement Plaintiffs agree to obtain consent to this Agreement, as well as a release of any subrogation claims ' against Signal , from their insurance carriers. Plaintiffs further agree to obtain consent to this Agreement, as well as a release of any claims against Signal , from certain creditors of Mr. and Mrs. Wadie Deddeh who served Signal with a Notice of Lien on the proceeds of the State Action Judgment on March 30, 1992. These consents and releases , and notification by Plaintiffs that they have been obtained, shall be Conditions Precedent to the effectiveness of this Agreement and to Signal's obligation thereunder. 9 . Property Interests and Future Conveyances a. The undersigned Plaintiffs represent and warrant that they hold the entire interest in the Property, unencumbered by any other interest, possessory or non- possessory, that no other persons or entities have or to the best of Plaintiffs' knowledge claim any interest in the Property and that no contract or other agreement exists for the conveyance, transfer or creation of any interest in the Property. b. Within five ( 5 ) business days following the execution of this Agreement, Plaintiffs will record this 14 Agreement .in the official records of the! Office of the County Recorder for San Diego County against the Property. Plaintiffs shall pay recordation fees. Recordation shall be a Condition Precedent to the effectiveness of this Agreement and to Signal's obligations thereunder, which shall be deemed satisfied when Plaintiffs submit to Signal a conformed copy of this Agreement as recorded; provided, however, that Signal at its sole discretion may waive the requirement for recordation of this Agreement. C. Plaintiffs agree that the covenants set forth herein run with the land and that they will require any purchaser of any interest in the property to agree to be bound by the terms of this Agreement, and shall require that any buyer of any interest in the Property or secured creditor proposing to take a security interest in the Property expressly assume Plaintiffs' obligations under this Agreement and release Signal for the matters defined herein as Released Matters before acquiring and, such interest. d. Plaintiffs agree to give :signal twenty (20) days prior notice before any conveyance or transfer of any interest in the Property. 10. Construction of Agreement This Agreement shall be construed as a whole in accordance with its fair meaning and in accordance with the laws of the State of California. This Agreement has been 15 • negotiated at arm's length; accordingly, any rule of law ( including section 1654 of the California Civil Code) or legal decision that would require interpretation of any ambiguities in the Agreement against the Party that has drafted it is not applicable and is waived. The headings used herein are for reference only and shall not affect the construction of this Agreement. 11. Sole Agreement This Agreement represents the sole and entire agreement between the Parties concerning the resolution of the Actions and supersedes all prior agreements, negotiations and discussions between the Parties hereto or their counsel with respect to the subject matters covered hereby. 12. Amendment to Agreement Any amendment to this Agreement must be in writing signed by duly authorized representatives of the Parties hereto and stating the intent of the Parties to amend the Agreement. 13 . Enforcement of Agreement Venue over any action concerning this Agreement shall be in the Federal Court, or if the Federal Court declines to exercise jurisdiction, then in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Diego. If any party to this Agreement brings an action 16 to enforce its rights hereunder, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover its costs and expenses , including I court costs and attorneys' fees incurred in connection with such action. 14 . Binding Effect a . Each undersigned representative of the Parties certifies that he or she is fully authorized to enter into the terms and conditions of this Agreement on behalf of the party on whose behalf he or she is signing it, and that he or she is fully authorized to execute this document and legally bind that party to' the provisions of this Agreement. b. The Parties acknowledge that they have been represented by experienced and knowledgeable legal counsel and that they have freely consented to the terms and conditions of this Agreement without any coercion, undue influence, or economic pressure. The Parties specifically acknowledge that, in entering into this Agreement, they have not been influenced by any representations or statements made by another Party or by any person cr persons, including attorneys, consultants, and experts, representing another Party. C. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, and if so executed, shall have the same force and effect it would have if the Parties executed a single original of this Agreement. 17 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed as of the date first written above. SIGNAL LANDMARK, INC. , a California Corporation sy: � ,'', Ray and J. Pacini VICE PRESIDENT Its: CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT NO l Ilf>_�OPTIONAL SECTION State of��-I���r� CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER County of O P PVS&E Though maaae dose not mxwe t o Notary to fill m the data below. doing so may prove invaluable b ponKXW nlyrng on the 0=urnent. On6�L'�1y'13' before me, ❑INDIVIDUAL DATE NAME.TITLE OF OFFXXR-EG..-JANE DOE.VOTARY PUBLIC CORPORATE OFFICER(S) personally appeared Raymond J. Pacini NAME(s)of SIGNERS) personally known to me-OR-� proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence PARTNER(S) LIMITED to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are GENERAL subscribed to the within instrument and ac- ❑ATTORNEY-IN-FACT knowledged to me that he/she/they executed TRUSTEE(S) the same in his/her/their authorized 0 GUARDIAN/CONSERVATOR c.G.tilw= capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their OTHER: COWAtr972064 signature(s)on the instrument the person(s), i Ecpry or the entity upon behalf of which the �. My C0mrn Egwes SEP 7,tq% person(s)acted,executed the instrument. SIGNER IS REPRESENTING: WITNES my hand and official seal. "AW OF K +ts,o E (LEs> 0 S*14ATURE OF No OPTIONAL SEC ION THIS CERTIFICATE MUST BE ATTACHED To TITLE 4nonglPF:OF DOCUMENT J'eit:meK* j U y2Ccl.Z2��� THE DOCUMENT DESCRIBED AT RIGHT: NUMBER OF PAGE9�� DATE OF DOCUMENT �— Though the data requested there is not neglrred by law. it could prevent fraudulent nanaaw,em of ass farm SIGNER(S)OTHER THAN NAMED ABOVE 019W NATIONAL NOTARY ASSOCIATION-8236 Rennet Ave..P-0 Bo:7164•Canoga Park.CA 91309-718 18 THE BOLSA C:H:ICA COMPANY, I a Delaware Corporation B C Y: Ra�4ond J. Pacini 0091;FINAIM&OA�ER Its: _ STATE OF 1 •ALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT NO.519 S State of -1��"-���" OPTIONAL SECTION d,I CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER County of �li/��fC" Though fthft Wes not"qiw`ttro Notary 10 fill in the data below,doing so may prove invaluaW to persons rNyo on the doeutrlL On 0'+&0_1qqj before me, -- INDIVIDUAL DATE NAYS.TITLE OF OFFICER•E.G..'44NE DOE.NOTARY VUBL'C ORPORATE OFFICERS) personally appeared Raymond j- PadaiS► ersonally known to me-OR-[]proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence PARTNER(S) U TED- '�m lT to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are GENERAL subscribed to the within instrument and ac- ❑ATTORNEY-IN-FACT knowledged to me that he/she/they executed ❑TRUSTEE(S) he same in his/her/their autliorized 0 GUARDIAN/CONSERVATOR C G LUNSFORo Ic apacity(ies), and that by his/her/their OTHER: COMM t 972864 isignature(s)on the instrument the pemon(S), z .•o Notary PuOhe—Caiforrtia �Dr the entity upon behalf of which the z ORANGE COUNTY My Comm Exam SEP 7.1996 r8or1(S)acted, executed the instrument. SIGNER IS REPRESENTING: WITNE S hand and official seal. NAME OF PERSON(S)OR EN ITYpES7 SONATYIE Ok14OTARY OPTIONAL SECTION THIS CERTIFICATE MUST BE ATTACHED TO TITLE OR TYPE OF DOCUMENT—�IQ4 c�w THE DOCUMENT DESCRIBED AT RIGHT: t1 NUMBER OF PAGES �— DATE OF DOCUMENT ( Though the data reguebed here is not reQtww by law. — f a ooud prevent fraudulent reanamment of mu form. SIGNER(S)OTHER THAN NAMED ABOVE_d isssassas O1Y92 NATIONAL NOTARY ASSOCIATION•&M Rammet Ave..P.O-Box 7184•Canoga Park.CA 91309-71 19 THE HENLEY GROUP, a Delaware Corporation By: Ray;lc d J. Pacini PRESIDENT Its: C ALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT No s, OPTIONAL SECTION State of CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER County of� linThough e data doesto not remdoing s the Notary to fill m the oata below,doing so may prove ! , �, t InvakilI M b Peru!"Iely-1 on the dOpsrMrtt On ���(�� before me, �C1 ' C(,4ti.brZ�Y1'i� INDIVIDUAL DATE MAAAE.TITLE OF OFFICER-E.G..'JANE OOE.NOTARY PUBLIC- ORPORATE OFFICER(S) personally appeared Raymond J. Pacini NAIrE(s)OF sIGNEf(s) VI 'PRESIDENT rersonally known to me-OR-❑ proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence ❑PARTNER(S) 0 LIMITED to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are GENERAL ` subscribed to the within instrument and ac- ❑ATTORNEY-IN-FACT knowledged to me that he/sheAhey executed TRUSTEE(S) the same in his/her/their authorized GUARDIAN/CONSERVATOR apacity(ies), and that by his/her/their OTHER: C G.LUNSFORD ignature(s) on the instrument the person(s), comm.*972eat Fr the entity upon behalf of which the i c`s Notary Public—COMO Z ORANGE COUUNTYNTY rlb rson(s)acted, executed the instrument. � "�� My Comm Fuo-tes sEP 7.19% SIGNER IS REPRESENTING: ITNESS my hand and official seal. NAME OF PERSON(s)OR ENTT YPES) -rite peo SIG IA NOTARY OPT1OkAL SECTIONS .� I THIS CERTIFICATE MUST BE ATTACHED TO TITLE OR TYPE OF DOCUMENT 4 1111 CA4112L THE DOCUMENT DESCRIBED AT RIGHT: ' NUMBER OF PAGE DATE OF DOCUMENT Though the data requested hers is not required by law. It could prevent fraudulent reattachment of this form. SIGNER(S)OTHER THAN NAMED ABOVE C,, ) 01992 NATIONAL NOTARY ASSOCIATION-8236 Renurlst Ave..P.O.Bo:7184-Canoga Park,CA 91309-716 20 I IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 2 FOURTH APPELLATE DIS:CRICT 3 DIVISION ONE . 4 5 MR. AND MRS. SALIM D. SESI, ) CASE NO. D017331 MR. AND MRS. WADIE DEDDEH, ) 6 MR. AND MRS. KYRIAKOS ATTISHA, ) MR. AND MRS. ASMAR D. ASMAR, ) 7 MR. AND MRS. NAJIB SESI, ) MR. AND MRS. SAMI ROUMAYAH„ ) 8 MRS. IBA SEIBA, ) 9 Plaintiffs and Respondents, ) 10 V. ) 11 SIGNAL LANDMARK, INC. , ) 12 Defendant and Appellant. ) 13 ) ,� 14 15 ( PROPOSED) ORDER RE REVERSAL OF JUDGMENT IN SUPERIOR COURT ACTION 16 17 Appeal from the Judgment of the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego 18 Superior Court Case No. 624243 19 Honorable Judith McConnell 20 JAMES J. BROSNAHAN, Cal . Bar No. 03455 BARRY S. SANDALS, Cal . Bar No. 79185 21 DONNA G. MATIAS , Cal . Bar No. 154268 MORRISON b FOERSTER 22 345 California Street San Francisco, CA 9.4104 23 Telephone: (415) 677-7000 Counsel for Defendant/Appellant 24 25 CHARLES S. LIMANDRI , Cal . Bar No. 110841 LAW OFFICE OF CHARLES S. LIMANDRI 26 2120 San Diego Avenue, Suite 100 San Diego, CA 9211D 27 Telephone: (619) 49-7-0091 Counsel for Plaintiffs/Respondents 28 1 EXHIBIT C • 1 IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties 2 hereto through their designated counsel that the judgment in 3 the action entitled Sesi , et al . v. Signal Landmark, Inc. , 4 San Diego Superior Court Case No. 624243 , shall be reversed 5 and the verdict vacated. Each side will bear its own costs . 6 This stipulation is entered into in order to 7 facilitate settlement between the parties. 8 Dated: SIGNAL LANDMARK, INC. 9 10 By 11 James J. Brosnahan MORRISON & FOERSTER 12 Attorneys for Defendant and Appellant SIGNAL LANDMARK, INC. 13 14 Dated: MR. AND MRS. SALIM D. SESI , MR. AND MRS. WADIE DEDDEH, 15 MR. AND MRS. KYRIAKOS ATTISHA, MR. AND MRS. ASMAR D. ASMAR, 16 MR. AND MRS. NAJIB SESI , MR. AND MRS . SAMI ROUMAYAH, 17 MRS. IBA SEIBA 18 19 By Charles S . LiMandri 20 LAW OFFICES OF CHARLES S. LIMANDRI Attorney for Plaintiffs and 21 Respondents SALIM D. SESI , et al . 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 W83908 Qzr60) s I IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 2 FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 3 DIVISION ONE 4 5 MR. AND MRS. SALIM D. SESI, ) CASE NO. D017331 MR. AND MRS. WADIE DEDDEH, ) 6 MR. AND MRS. KYRIAKOS ATTISHA, j MR. AND MRS. ASMAR D. ASMAR, ) 7 MR. AND MRS. NAJIB SESI, ) MR. AND MRS. SAMI ROUMAYAH„ ) 8 MRS. IBA SEIBA, ) 9 Plaintiffs and Respondents, ) 10 V. ) 11 SIGNAL LANDMARK, INC. , ) 12 Defendant and Appellant. j 13 ) 14 15 STIPULATION FOR REVERSAL OF JUDGMENT OF SUPERIOR COURT ACTION 16 17 Appeal from the Judgment of the Superior Court 18 of California, County of San Diego 19 Superior Court Case No. E124243 Honorable Judith McConnell 20 JAMES J. BROSNAHAN, Cal . Bar No. 03455 21 BARRY S. SANDALS, Cal . Bar No. 79185 DONNA G. MATIAS, Carl . Bar No. 154268 22 MORRISON & FOERSTER 345 California Street 23 San Francisco, CA 134104 Telephone: ( 415) 6-77-7000 24 Counsel for Defendant/Appellant 25 CHARLES S . LIMANDRI , Cal . Bar No. 110841 LAW OFFICE OF CHARLES S . LIMANDRI 26 2120 San Diego Avenue, Suite 100 San Diego, CA 92110 27 Telephone: (619) 497-0091 Counsel for Plaintiffs/Respondents 28 1 EXHIBIT B The parties hereto having filed a stipulation fo I P 9 A r 2 reversal of the judgment and vacation of the verdict of the 3 Superior Court and having done so pursuant to and for the 4 purpose of facilitating a settlement between them, and 5 absent a finding of any extraordinary circumstances to 6 warrant an exception to the general presumption in favor of 1 a stipulated reversal , it is therefore ordered that the 8 judgment in the action entitled Sesi , et al . v. Signal 9 Landmark, Inc. , San Diego Superior Court Case No. 624243 , is 10 hereby reversed and the verdict vacated. (Neary v. Regents 11 of Univ. of California (1992) 3 Cal.4th 273 ) . Each side 12 will bear its own costs. 13 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 16 DATED: 11 18 19 20 Justice of the California Court of 21 Appeal 22 23 Justice of the California Court of Appeal 24 25 26 Justice of the California Court of 27 Appeal 28 2 v83V22 1 DECLARATION OF JAMES J. BROSNAHAN 2 I , JAMES J. BROSNAHAN, declare as follows: `\ I l � 3 1 . I am a member of the State Bar of California 4 and a partner in the law firm of Morrison & Foerster, 5 attorneys of record for Signal Landmark, Inc. , The Henley 6 Group, Inc. , and The Bolsa Chica Company (collectively, 7 "Signal") in the above-captioned case. Unless otherwise 8 stated, I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth 9 below and, if called as a witness, I could competently 10 testify thereto. ' 11 2. I was the attorney for Signal with primary 12 responsibility for negotiation of the settlement between 13 Signal and the Plaintiffs in this action . The settlement 14 negotiations were protracted and involved. Magistrate Judge 15 Harry R. McCue actively supervised the negotiation process. 16 The negotiations began in July of 1992 , finally culminating 17 in the execution of the Agreement Granting Right of Access 18 and Settlement and Release (the "Settlement Agreement" ) in 19 April of 1993 . During that period the parties engaged in 20 formal negotiating sessions on approximately 10 occasions, 21 about half of which were supervised by Magistrate McCue. 22 3 . A copy of the executed :settlement Agreement, 23 signed and approved by Magistrate McCue, is attached to this 24 declaration as Exhibit A. 25 4 . During the negotiating :sessions , the parties 26 were aware of and considered, among other things, the 27 expressed desire on both sides to avoid the possibility of 28 further litigation, the extent of the Plaintiffs' claimed 2 I losses , the Plaintiffs' ability to prove their claims 2 against Signal , the merits of the Plaintiffs ' claims against 3 Signal and the merits of Signal 's defenses to those claims, 4 the costs and expenses incurred by both sides to date in 5 preparing to litigate the Plaintiffs' claims against Signal 6 and the costs and expenses both sides would incur if the 7 claims were not settled. During the course of settlement 8 proceedings with Magistrate McCue, independent consultants 9 estimated total costs of onsite remediation at between $2. 4 10 and $4 .8 million. 11 5. All of the settlement negotiations were 12 conducted at arm's length and were adversarial in nature. 13 There was no collusion between the parties, and no 14 agreements or promises have been made other than those set 15 forth in the Agreement. 16 6 . Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, 17 Signal has agreed to pay Plaintiffs a total of $2. 5 million 18 plus interest at six percent per annum from April 10 , 1992 , 19 consisting of $1. 25 million in cash and $1 . 25 million to a 20 clean-up trust fund to be created and administered by the 21 Court for the purpose of bringing Plaintiffs' property into 22 compliance with all applicable environmental laws. 23 7 . Attached as Exhibit B to this declaration is a 24 true and correct copy of the Special Verdict returned on 25 February 10, 1992 in Sesi , et al . v. Signal Landmark, Inc. , 26 San Diego Superior Court No. 624243 , which verdict is now on 27 appeal . When asked to apportion the amount of Plaintiffs' 28 3 1 injury attributable to Signal Landmark, Inc. , the jury 2 returned a special verdict of $2.5 millicn. 3 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws 4 of the State of California that the foregoing is true and. 5 correct. 6 EXECUTED THIS day of April, 1993 , at San 7 Francisco, California. 8 9 IO n_ ' 11 JAMES J. OSNAHAN 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 , 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 a Y78266.AR1 1 I I . INTRODUCTION 2 Plaintiffs are partners and co-owners of real 3 property at Cactus Road, San Diego, San Diego County, 4 California (the "Plaintiffs") . Settling Defendants are 5 Signal Landmark, Inc. ("Signal Landmark" ) and its affiliates 6 The Henley Group, Inc. and The Bolsa Chica Company, formerly 7 known as Henley Properties, Inc. (hereafter collectively I 8 referred to as "the Signal defendants" ) . The Plaintiffs 9 have pursued their claims against the Signal defendants in i10 two separate lawsuits, both based on the same activity, the 11 alleged disposal of certain material onto their property. 12 In the first action (the 'State Action" ) , Plaintiffs sought 13 compensatory damages , including costs incurred and future 14 costs of investigation, clean-up and remediation of the 15 property. After a trial, the jury returned a special 16 verdict finding Signal Landmark responsible for a portion of 17 those costs. Signal Landmark has appealed that verdict. 18 The Plaintiffs have also filed this action (the I, 19 Federal Action" ) , under the Comprehensive Environmental 20 Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 ("CERCLA") , 21 42 U.S.C. 5 9601 et seq. , and amendments thereto under the 22 Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 23 ( "SARA") , as well as under California common law. As in the 24 State Action, Plaintiffs in the Federal Action seek costs 25 incurred and future costs of investigation, clean-up and 26 remediation of the property, as well as equitable indemnity 27 and declaratory relief. 28 -1- N 1 Plaintiffs and the Signal defendants have now 2 agreed upon a settlement of Plaintiffs' claims against the 3 Signal defendants. By this motion, the signal defendants 4 and the Plaintiffs jointly seek an order barring any and all 5 claims against the Signal defendants for contribution and/or 6 indemnity, whether under federal or state law, and 7 dismissing with prejudice all claims against the Signal 8 defendants in the Federal Action. As sect forth below, the 9 Signal defendants are entitled to a bar order under federal 10 common law governing CERCLA contribution claims. Because 11 the federal courts have adopted a comparative fault approach 12 to CERCLA contribution claims, a bar order will not 13 prejudice the rights of non-settling defendants. Because 14 the settlement was made in good faith according to the 15 requirements of California Code of CivJJ Procedure (11CCP11 ) 16 sections 877 and 877 .6 , a bar order is also appropriate 17 under California law. 18 II. SUMMARY OF THE LAWSUIT 19 A. Procedural History i 20 On or about August 2 , 1991 , Plaintiffs filed an 21 action in the Superior Court for the County of San Diego 22 against Signal Landmark and Does 1-50 ( the "State Action" ) . 23 No other defendants were named. In the State Action, 24 Plaintiffs asserted causes of action for, among other 25 things, nuisance, trespass, and contribution and response 26 costs under the Hazardous Substances Account Act, California 27 Health & Safety Code section 25365(e) ("HSAA" ) , all based on 28 -2- I the alleged disposal of hazardous material onto the 2 Plaintiffs' property. The case was tried to a jury. The 3 evidence demonstrated the Signal defendants were not solely 4 responsible for the presence of alleged hazardous material 5 on the Plaintiffs' property. Plaintiffs sought compensatory 6 damages that included costs of investigating the extent of 7 the contamination and clean-up and remediation costs 8 necessary to bring the property into compliance with state 9 and federal environmental requirements. When asked to 10 apportion the amount of Plaintiffs ' injury attributable to 11 Signal Landmark, the jury returned a special verdict in the 12 amount of $2.5 million. I 13 On August 13 , 1992, Signal Landmark filed a notice 14 of appeal of the verdict in the State Action. Due to 15 ongoing settlement negotiations, the parties have stipulated 16 to extend the time by which Signal Landmark must file its ' 17 opening brief on appeal . 18 On August 2, 1991 , Plaintiffs filed this action in 19 the United States District Court for the Southern District 20 of California, naming as defendants Signal Landmark, the 21 Henley Group and the Bolsa Chica Company, as well as several 22 23 24 25 1 The Special Verdict question and response were as follows: "[Question] : What, if any, do you find to be the 26 total amount of plaintiffs' damages attributable to the injury caused by defendant Signal Landmark's soils? 27 Answer: $2,500,000.00. " A copy of the Special Verdict is attached as Exhibit B to the Declaration of James J. 28 Brosnahan, which is filed herewith. -3- I 1 other defendants not named in the State Action. 2 In this 2 Federal Action, Plaintiffs allege causes of action under ' 3 CERCLA, seeking as damages' the costs associated with 4 investigating the extent of contamination and all necessary 5 clean-up and remediation of their property. Plaintiffs also 6 raise pendent state claims, including claims for equitable 7 indemnity and declaratory relief . The Federal Action was 8 stayed while the State Action was pending; it was resumed 9 following the verdict in the State Action. 10 On September 1 , 1992, the Federal Action was 11 transferred to this Court from Judge Gordon Thompson, Jr. 12 All of the defendants in the Federal Action have filed 13 cross-claims against the Signal defendants for equitable 14 indemnity and/or contribution under both federal and state 15 law. The Signal defendants have answered all cross-claims 16 and have brought cross-claims for equitable indemnity and 17 contribution. On February 12, 1993 , Plaintiffs moved the , 18 Court for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint, which 19 raises additional state common law claims against non- 20 settling defendants. Plaintiffs have stipulated that, in 21 light of settlement negotiations, the :signal defendants' , 22 responses to the Second Amended Complaint will be tolled. 23 24 2 On June 8 , 1992, Plaintiffs filed their First Amended 25 Complaint for Damages in the Federal Action. The only addition in the First Amended Complaint was of a party 26 inadvertently omitted in the original complaint. Consequently, the parties stipulated that it was unnecessary 27 for defendants to answer the First Amended Complaint and that their original answers would be deemed to be responsive 28 to the First Amended Complaint. -4- 1 B. Discovery as of Date of Settlement 2 Discovery in the Federal Action has been limited to 3 the propounding of special' interrogatories3 on defendant 4 Construction Carriers and to a deposition subpoena on the 5 custodian of records of the California Public Utilities 6 Commission for the production of records . On January 28 , 1 1993 , the Honorable Harry R. McCue, Magistrate Judge of the 8 District Court, presiding over settlement discussions , 9 issued an order: (1) staying all discovery between 10 Plaintiffs and the Signal defendants; ( 2) staying all 11 depositions; ( 3 ) permitting limited interrogatories and 12 requests for admissions except as to the Signal defendants , 13 and prohibiting all discovery by Plaintiffs that would be 14 duplicative of discovery previously conducted in the State 15 Action; and (4 ) permitting limited requests for production 16 on all parties except the Signal defendants and the ' 17 Plaintiffs. 18 III. THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT 19 The settlement in this case has resulted from a 20 series of intensive negotiations, with Magistrate McCue 21 actively supervising the negotiation process. As set forth 22 in the Declaration of James J. Brosnahan ( "Brosnahan 23 Decl .") , which is filed herewith, the parties began 24 settlement discussions in July of 1992, finally culminating 25 in a settlement agreement in April of 1993 . During that 26 27 3 These special interrogatories were propounded by intervenor Prudential Insurance Co. , one of Plaintiffs, 28 insurance carriers. -5- I period of time, the parties engaged in formal negotiating 2 sessions on approximately 10 occasions. Approximately half , 3 of those sessions were supervised by Magistrate McCue. 4 Brosnahan Decl . at 1 2. 5 With the guidance of Magistrate McCue , the parties 6 have considered at length, among other things , the merits of 7 Plaintiffs' claims and the Signal defendants' defenses 8 thereto, costs incurred and future costs; of litigation, and 9 the desire of both parties to reach a settlement. Id. at 10 1 4 . After vigorous negotiations, the Plaintiffs and the 11 Signal defendants finally reached agreement. The Agreement 12 Granting Right of Access and Settlement and Release ( "the 13 Settlement Agreement") has now been exe.::uted by the parties 14 and approved by Magistrate McCue. A copy of the Settlement - 15 Agreement is attached as Exhibit A to the Brosnahan 16 Declaration. 17 Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the ' 18 Signal defendants have agreed to pay to Plaintiffs a total 19 of $2. 5 million plus interest at six percent per annum from 20 April 10, 1992, consisting of $1. 25 mi:Llion in cash and 21 $1 . 25 million to a clean-up trust fund to be created and 22 administered by the Court for the purpose of bringing 23 Plaintiffs' property into compliance with all applicable 24 environmental laws. Bros. Decl. at 1 6. 4 In exchange for 25 26 4 In the settlement proceedings before Magistrate McCue, 27 independent consultants estimated the total cost of onsite remediaticn at between $2.4 and $4 .8 million. Brosnahan 28 Decl. at 1 4. 1 I these payments by the Signal defendants , Plaintiffs will 2 provide a general release of any claim they have or may have 3 against the Signal defendants for the alleged deposit of 4 materials onto their property. As set forth more fully in 5 the Settlement Agreement, completion of the settlement is ' 6 conditioned on this Court's entry of an order barring all 7 contribution and indemnity claims by any other party against 8 the Signal defendants and dismissing with prejudice all 9 claims against the Signal defendants in this Federal Action. 10 No agreements or promises have been made other than those 11 set forth in the Agreement. 12 IV. UNDER CERCLA LAW, A SETTLING DEFENDANT IS ENTITLED TO AN ORDER BARRING CONTRIBUTION 13 CLAIMS BY NON-SETTLING DEFENDANTS 14 Where a cause of action arises under federal law, 15 the "scope and limitations of the right of contribution are 16 invariably treated as questions of federal law. " Donovan v. 17 Robbins , 752 F. 2d 1170, 1179 ( 7th Cir. 1985 ) . See also 18 Edward Hines Lumber Co. v. Vulcan Materials Co. , No. 85-C- 19 1142, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11961, at *4 n. 2 (N.D. Ill . 20 1987) , aff'd, 861 F. 2d 155 (7th Cir. 1988) . A number of 21 courts have recently added to the growing federal common law 1 22 governing contribution rights under CERCLA, particularly as 23 those rights apply to settlements between private parties. 24 See, e.g. , Allied Corp. v. Acme Solvent Reclaiming, Inc. , 25 771 F. Supp. 219, 223 (N.D. Ill . 1990) ("[A] uniform federal 26 rule regarding contribution should be adopted so that 27 consistent principles of contribution and allocation of 28 1 -7- I damages develop in CERCLA actions. ,' ) . See. also Comerica 2 Bank-Detroit v. Allen Industries, Inc. , 769 F. Supp. 1408 , 3 ( E. D. Mich. 1991 ) ; Lyncott• Corp. v. Chem . Waste Mgmt. , Inc. , 4 690 F. Supp. 1409 (E.D. Pa. 1988 ) . 5 These courts have held that settlement agreements 6 between private parties in CERCLA actions are subject to the 7 principles of the Uniform Comparative Fault Act ("UCFA" ) , ' 8 "'for the reason that the principles of that model act are 9 the most consistent with, and do the most to implement, the 10 Congressional intent which is the foundation for CERCLA. "' ' 11 Comerica, 769 F. Supp. at 1414 , quoting United States v. 12 Conservation Chemical Co. , 628 F. Supp. 391 , 402 13 (W.D. Mo. 1985) . The UCFA encourages settlement by ensuring 14 settling defendants protection from contribution claims by 15 non-settling defendants. As the court in Allied Corp. 16 recognized: 17 [I]t is hard to imagine that any 18 defendant in a CERCLA action would be willing to settle if, after the 19 settlement, it would remain open to contribution claims from other 20 defendants. The measure of finality which a cross-claim bar provides will 21 make settlements more desirable. 22 Id. at 222. At the same time, the comparative fault rule 23 protects the interests of non-settling defendants because 24 they never pay more than their proportionate share of 25 liability as determined at trial . 5 United States v. Western 26 27 5 The Ninth Circuit has also adopted the comparative fault rule as it applies to settlements under federal securities 28 laws. See Franklin v. Kaypro Corp. , •384 F. 2d 1222 (9th FOOTNOTE 5 CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE -8- I Processing Co. , 756 F. Supp. 1424 , 1430-31 (W.D. Wash. 2 1990) ; Hines Lumber, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS at *5 . 3 Here, because the• comparative fault rule governs 4 settlement of the CERCLA claims, non-settling defendants 5 face no greater liability or increased risk as a result of 6 the Settlement Agreement between Plaintiffs and the Signal 7 defendants. Thus, based on the applicable law and the terms 8 of the settlement, the Signal defendants are entitled to an 9 order barring all contribution and indemnity claims against 10 them by the non-settling defendants. Allied Corp. , 771 11 F. Supp. at 223 . 12 V. THE SETTLEMENT IS IN GOOD FAITH UNDER CCP SS 877 AND 877 . 6 13 14 As noted above, Plaintiffs have also asserted 1 15 pendent state claims in this action. See In re Nucorp 16 Energy Securities Litigation, 661 F. Supp. 1403 (S. D. Cal . 17 1987 ) (applying CCP sections 877 and 877 .6 to make good 18 faith determination with regard to pendent state claims) . 19 Under California statutory law as well as federal common 20 law, the settling parties are entitled to an order barring 21 all contribution and indemnity claims by non-settling 22 defendants. 23 ' 24 25 FOOTNOTE 5 CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE Cir. 1989) , cent. denied, 498 U.S. 890 ( 1990) . In applying 26 the comparative fault rule to contribution rights in a CERCLA action, the district court for the Western District 27 of Washington considered Kaypro. See United States v. Western Processing Co. , 756 F. Supp. 1424 , 1428 (W.D. Wash. 28 1990) . 1 Sections 877 and 877 .6 of the CCP authorize a bar 2 order if the settlement is in good faith. See Tech-Gilt, 3 Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Assoc. , 38 Cal. 3d 488 , 213 Cal . 4 Rptr. 256 ( 1985) . The touchstone of a c:ourt' s good faith 5 inquiry under S 877.6 is "whether the settlement is 6 reasonable vis-a-vis the nonsettling defendants. " Horton v. 7 Superior Court, 194 Cal . App. 3d 727 , 7:33 , 238 i 8 Cal . Rptr. 467 ( 1987 ) . A settlement is in good faith when 9 the settlement amount is not "grossly disproportionate" to 10 the settlor's actual liability. City of Grand Terrace v. 11 Superior Court, 192 Cal. App. 3d 1251, 1262, 238 12 Cal . Rptr. 119 , 125 (1987) . 13 Here, the settlement is clearly reasonable vis-a- 14 vis the non-settling defendants. In the State Action, 15 Plaintiffs sought to prove Signal Land-mark's responsibility 16 for all of the costs Plaintiffs incurred and expected to 17 incur in investigation, clean-up and remediation of their 18 property. After a full trial , the jury held Signal Landmark 19 liable for $2. 5 million. That verdict: is on appeal . Under 20 the settlement now reached, the Signal defendants will pay 21 Plaintiffs $2.5 million, the full amount of its liability as 22 determined by the state court jury. 6 'There can be no 23 suggestion, therefore, that the settlement amount is 24 "grossly disproportionate" to the actual liability of the 25 Signal defendants. 26 27 6 As noted above, the total cost of onsite remediation is 28 now estimated at less than $5 million.. -10- wr a -- 1 The Settlement Agreement, which has been expressly 2 approved by Magistrate McCue, who presided over the 3 extensive settlement negotiations , is clearly in good faith 4 under CCP sections 877 and 877. 6 . The Signal defendants 5 are, therefore, entitled under California law as well as 6 federal law to an order barring all claims for contribution 7 or indemnity arising out of Plaintiffs' claims. 8 VI. CONCLUSION ' 9 Based upon the foregoing, the Signal defendants and 10 Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court enter an 11 Order providing that all claims against the Signal 12 defendants for contribution or indemnity by non-settling 13 defendants are barred and dismissing all claims against the 14 Signal defendants with prejudice. 15 Dated: April L2, 1993 16 Respectfully submitted, 17 JAMES J. BROSNAHAN BARRY S. SANDALS 18 DONNA G. MATIAS MORRI & FOERSTER 19 20 B ames J. B nahan 21 torneys for Defendant SIGNAL LANDMARK, INC. 22 HE HENLEY GROUP, INC. AND THE BOLSA CHICA CO. ' 23 24 CHARLES S . LIMANDRI LAW OFFICES .OF C1*ARLES S., ' 25 LIMA N 1 ( •�/ 26 / By 27 Charles S. LiMandri Attorney for Plaintiffs 28 -11- W79223 Law Offices of � R r (., F 1 V E D CHARLES S. LiMANDRI �,�� 2 g a 2120 SAN DIEGO AVENUE.SUITE 100 992 3"DIEGO,CALIFORNIA 92110-2997 GCAF/J 8 90KOL CHARLES S.LOMANDRI• TELEPHONE R.TIMOTHY IRELAND (619)497-0091 TELEFAX (619)497-0386 'ALSO ADMITTED TO THE , 013TRICT OF COLU"$dA BAR ` August 21, 1992 Mr. Jack Dantzler >r' 737 Holly Avenue Imperial Beach, California 91932-3420 ' Re: semi et al v. 81ana1 Landmark et aLL Dear Mr. Dantzler: I am writing in response to your letter of August 18 , 1992. I hope you will allow me an opportunity to explain the circumstances which required me to serve the Federal CERCLA Complaint on the truckers in this case. This was done, pursuant to the Court Order of Magistrate Judge Harry R. McCue, who instructed us to do so on July 31, 1992. I was reluctant to serve you with the Complaint, even though you were one of the truckers involved in this matter. This was because, and as you indicated in your letter, I did tell you when I interviewed you before the State court trial, that my clients were seeking to recover all of their damages to clean up their property from Signal Landmark. I also told you, however, that you had been named along with multiple other parties in a separate federal action we had filed so as to protect any applicable statute of limitations. I further told you that if we were successful in recovering the full damages from Signal Landmark in the State court action, that we anticipated the federal action would be dismissed. Unfortunately, Signal Landmark succeeded in convincing the State court jury that it alone should not be responsible for all the contaminated waste placed on my client's: property. For that reason, and because my clients' are only going to receive a partial recovery from Signal Landmark, they had no choice but to seek to recover their additional damages from other potentially responsible parties in the federal action. Notwithstanding the above, we still did not wish to serve you with the federal Complaint and did not do so until we were specifically instructed to serve the truckers by the Court. The Mr. Jack Dantzler Re: sesi v. Signal Landmark, st al. August 21, 1992 Page 2 reason the Court ordered us to bring the truckers into the action was so that we could get access to the liability insurance coverage which they were required to carry. Unfortunately, my clients' own insurance carriers are denying coverage. Without additional available insurance coverage from other potentially responsible parties, such as the truckers, it will be very hard to clean-up the environmental problems at the site. ' As we discussed, we believe it is also in your interests, since you own the adjacent property, ro get any contaminated materials cleaned off the property. Otherwise, it is unlikely you will ever be able to sell your own property and, sooner or later, the regulatory agencies will undoubtedly look to you to help fund a very expensive clean-up. It is our hope that through the participation of the truckers in this litigation, that enough insurance coverage will be made available to clean-up all of the environmental problems at the site. In order to do the job properly, we believe that any contaminated materials on your property will also have to be cleaned up to prevent them from recontaminating the groundwater and soil on my client's property. The bottom line is that although being involved in litigation is ' rarely pleasant, it is something you need to do to solve the environmental problems you share in common with my clients. With regard to your statement of $1,920.00, I am forwarding it on to my clients with a copy of your letter. It is true that I told you that if you lost time from work as a result of your coming to trial to testify, that I would ask my clients to compensate you for that time since that would only be fair. I anticipated receiving that information from you, however, several months ago. As things stand, we had to submit our bill of costs to t-e court in April 1992. At this point, it is too late for my clients to seek to recover from Signal Landmark any additional costs they have to pay, such as for witness fees. Therefore, I am not sure how my clients will feel about having to pay any costs at this late date, since they cannot get reimbursed from the defendant. Moreover, Signal Landmark has appealed the Judgment, and my clients will remain in a very difficult ' financial situation until that Judgment is paid. Therefore, I do not anticipate that they will be able to do anything about this bill for some time. In closing, Mr. Dantzler, I would like to reiterate that my clients and I very much appreciated your truthful testimony at the trial of this case. From what I know of you, you are a decent and honest person and I regret it if you feel differently about me. Nonetheless, I very much hope that things will • • • Mr. Jack Dantzler , Re: 8621 v, igMal Landmark, et a . August 21, 1992 Page 3 eventually work out for the mutual benefit of both you and my M clients. It really is in all the property owners' interests to get the contamination cleaned-up with any available insurance. Sincerely, /,OFF ES O / S LiMANDRI ' harles S. I+iMandri i CSL:mjg i i 1 1 1 1 1 1 I, Charles S. Limandri, declare as follows: 2 1. I am an attorney licensed to practice law before all 3 courts in the State of California. I make this declaration from 4 my own personal knowledge. I was the attorney of record for 5 plaintiffs MR. AND MRS. SALIM D. SESI; MR. AND MRS. WADIE 6 DEDDEH; MR. AND MRS. KYRIAKOS ATTISHA; MR. AND MRS. ASMAR D. 7 ASMAR; MR. AND MRS. SAMI ROUMAYAH; MR. AND MRS. NAJIB SESI; and 8 MRS. IBA SEIBA, in San Diego Superior Court case No. 624243, ' 9 entitled Sesi v. Signal Landmark. I am also co-counsel for 10 plaintiffs in the instant action. 11 2. This action and the underlying state court action x ii 12 arose out of the unauthorized dumping of hazardous materials on 13 my client's property. I am informed and believe that in < < ; 14 approximately July 1987, defendant Dantzler and others dumped iFc�s 15 over 2,000 truck loads of hazardous materials from the Coronado ,•l W y W W O Z 16 Cays property on my clients' property. ' Z 17 3. In or about August 1988, my clients received a letter 18 from an attorney at Seltzer, Caplan, Wilkins & McMahon who, at 19 that time, represented defendant Signal Landmark, informing them 20 of the 1987 dumping of the Coronado Cays landfill on their 21 property. 22 4 . On December 23, 1988, my clients received a letter ' 23 from the Regional Water Quality Control Board demanding that 24 testing be conducted on the property to determine the extent, if 25 any, of hazardous material at the property. 26 5. My clients attempted to settle this matter with Signal 27 without resorting to litigation. However, negotiations failed 28 after numerous meetings. In December 1989, I filed a civil 12 1 complaint against Signal Landmark on behatlf of my clients 2 alleging nuisance, trespass, negligence and strict liability. 3 (San Diego Superior Court Case No. 62424:1) Dantzler and the 4 other transporters were not named as defendants in the state 5 court action. Therefore, discovery conducted in the state court 6 action focused on Signal's liability, and not on the potential 7 liability of the transporter defendants. 8 6. In August 1991, I filed the instant federal court 9 action against Signal, Dantzler and others under CERCLA, 42 10 U.S.C. 9607, et seq. The federal court action was stayed z 11 pending the outcome of the state court action. ' Y Z68 § 12 7. On March 17, 1992, the jury in the state court action W UJ - 4 13 rendered a verdict in favor of my clients and against Signal in ' Jzit 14 the amount of $2.5 million. This amount., which has not yet been 15 paid, is believed to be significantly insufficient to cover the ,Z viFt7o LU W W Q J ; < 16 costs of cleaning up the Sesi property. Signal has filed an 17 appeal of the state court judgment. 18 8. on or about July 31, 1992, I attended a settlement 19 conference with Magistrate McCue. At that settlement 20 conference, Magistrate McCue ordered my clients to serve the 21 federal complaint on all the transporters involved in dumping 22 the Coronado Cays landfill at the Cactus Road site. Also at 23 that settlement conference, Magistrate McCue requested that all 24 discovery in the federal court action be stayed pending an 25 attempt to settle the case. 26 9. My clients' first amended complaint at paragraph 27 27 alleges that in or about June or July 1987, defendants Dantzler, , 28 Pullaro and Construction Carriers were acting as transporters of 13 .. 1 • I. 2 INTRODUCTION ' 3 The present action was filed with this court after the 4 plaintiffs failed to obtain satisfaction in the state court. In ' 5 their earlier state court action, the plaintiffs obtained a 6 judgment against defendants Signal Landmark for the damages 7 caused by the discharge of allegedly hazardous materials on the ' 8 plaintiffs' property. This action was stayed during the state 9 court trial. Upon completion of the state trial, the plaintiffs I 10 proceeded with this federal action. 11 The plaintiffs were then ordered by Magistrate Judge 1 12 Harry R. McCue to join all the transporters of the allegedly 13 hazardous materials, including Mr. Dantzler, notwithstanding the 14 fact that the majority of transporters were not potentially ' 15 responsible parties as defined by CERCLA, in this action. 16 Dantzler now moves this court for summary judgment in his favor. ' 17 II. 18 STATEMENT OF FACTS i19 In July of 1987, Mr. Dantzler contracted with Pullaro 20 Contracting Company ("Pullaro") to haul dirt from the Coronado 21 Cays property, owned by Signal Landmark, to four landfill sites 22 in Otay Mesa. Declaration of Jack Dantzler p. 4 , 12. 23 Mr. Dantzler performed under this agreement from July 9, 1987 to 24 July 24, 1987. Dantzler Declaration at p. 4 , 13 . As is the 25 industry practice, Michael Pullaro, the representative of 26 Pullaro, the general contractor over the job, selected the sites 27 where the dirt hauled by Mr. Dantzler would be dumped. Dantzler 28 Declaration at p. 4, IS. ; August 1, 1991 Deposition of Michael Wo,•McKmais 101 W."Ofmd w. T.I.W Flow S..Oug%CA 92101 SC80342AAM (619)236•I44I 1 Paul Pullais taken in connection with 1. a state court trial at 2 p. 15, 11. 18-23. True and correct copies of the relevant pages ' 3 of the deposition are attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and 4 incorporated herein by this reference. Pullaro was the general 5 contractor as evidenced by the Construction Agreement dated , 6 June 25, 1987 by and between Coronado Landmark, Inc. and Pullaro 7 which is attached hereto and incorporated as Exhibit "B" . 8 Mr. Dantzler had no hand in selecting the Sesi property as a 9 dump site. Ia. I 10 Mr. Dantzler gave Michael Pullaro permission to dump 11 on the Dantzler property. Mr. Dantzler further informed Michael 12 Pullaro that he could not dump on the Sesi property. Dantzler 13 Declaration at p. 5, 17. The Dantzler landfill filled quickly, 14 and Michael Pullaro began to level dirt off onto the Sesi 15 property. Dantzler Declaration at p. 5, 18. Mr. Dantzler 16 immediately informed Michael Pullaro that the dirt was being 17 leveled off onto his neighbors property and that they did not 18 have permission to dump there. jd. Michael Pullaro dismissed 19 the warning by telling Mr. Dantzler that the owners could use 20 the fill on their property anyway. ,[gj. 21 Michael Pullaro then approached Mr. Dantzler in or 22 about March 1988, almost one year after the hauling was 23 completed, to sign an authorization to dump on the Sesi 24 property. Dantzler Declaration at F1. 5, 110. Mr. Dantzler 25 signed an authorization for the dumping which occurred on his 26 own property located at 900 Cactus Road. However, Mr. Dantzler 27 refused to sign any authorization relating to any property other 28 than his own. o.r..s►laces: I 101 WM 4s6.V7. T�1N F6w Sr D6m CA92101 SCBM2A.Y51 1619)2'ILIMI I, • i i 1 *or about June 30, 1987 th laintiffs filed an 2 action in the state court. This action was stayed pending the 3 outcome of the state action. Judgment in the state action was I 4 entered against Signal Landmark. August 21, 1992 letter from 5 Charles S. LiMandri, Plaintiffs' counsel, to Jack Dantzler is 6 attached hereto as Exhibit "C" and incorporated herein by this i 7 reference. Because the award was not large enough to cover the p 1 8 cost of the clean up, the plaintiffs now pursue the federal 9 action. Id. 10 In or about August 1992, Mr. Dantzler was served with it the complaint in this action. The complaint was reluctantly 12 filed by the plaintiffs' attorneys pursuant to an order by 13 Magistrate Judge Harry R. McCue issued on July 31, 1992. 14 LiMandri letter attached hereto as Exhibit "C" . I 15 III. 16 LEGAL DISCUSSION 17 A. Legal standard for Summary Judgment. 18 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 (b) provides that a ' I 19 defendant "may, at any time, move with or without supporting ' 20 affidavits for a summary judgment in the party's favor as to all 21 or any part" of a claim. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 (b) . The judgment ' 22 sought by the moving party "shall be rendered forthwith if the 23 pleadings, depositions, and answers to interrogatories, and 24 admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show 25 that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that 26 the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. " 27 Rule 56(c) . 28 ask"a hia(Ouy 101 WON stair.,, Tvaft Flow SW Dios,CA mioi SCY03�.2A.Y51 —3— � pan zxi«i 1 dispola or treatment. If the tri porter does not 2 select the delivery site, the transporter's connection 3 with the material is the most attenuated among ' 4 potentially responsible parties. If the transporter 5 does select the delivery site, the: transporter' s role 6 becomes a less passive one. As orie who actively 7 selected a disposal site, the transporter may more 8 equitably be subject to liability . . . . When the 9 transporter finally does become involved with 10 hazardous material, there will be two alternatives: , 11 either the transporter is directed where to take the 12 material, or the choice is left to the transporter. , 13 In the latter case, the more active role generates 14 potential liability. ' 15 Id. at 1420. (Accord Kaiser Aluminum r. Catellus Development, 16 976 F.2d 1338, 1343. ) (The Kaiser court denied a motion to 17 dismiss on the finding that the transporter chose to deposit ' 18 hazardous materials on the same proper,cy from which they were 19 excavated. ) See also United States v. Hardaae, 761 F. Supp. , 20 1501, 1511 (W.D. Okl. 1990) (Transporters are liable under 21 CERCLA only if they selected the particular site for disposal of ' 22 hazardous substances. ) , 23 Dantzler did not select, authorize or condone the 24 disposal of any materials on the Sesi ;property. The site 25 selection was left entirely within the province of the general 26 contractor, Pullaro contracting company. Michael Pullaro 27 admitted this in his deposition testimony taken for the state 28 trial. a.l..a M+c.e.: 101 woo a.W. ' T. Ah Fbm* SMDi.MCA1•t101 �•�� �8� (611)D6.1441 i 1 Q ise you given any instructir by anybody with 2 regard to how you should go about selecting 3 places to deposit material? ' 4 A No. 5 Q Was that left entirely up to you, do you know? 6 A Yes. 7 April 1, 1991 Deposition of Michael Paul Pullaro at p. 15, ' 8 11. 18-23. A true and correct copy of these pages is attached 9 hereto as Exhibit "A". Pullaro attempts to argue that 10 permission to dump on the Sesi property was given by Dantzler. ' 11 Q Okay. Did you need to get -- well, strike that. 12 Did you actually get written permission from ' 13 anybody at any of the sites you've mentioned? 14 A Permission? ' 15 Q To dump. 16 A From Dantzler . . . 17 Q This is a document that was previously produced, 18 Mr. Pullaro, and I' ll ask you if that looks like the 19 document that you got from Mr. Dantzler to -- 20 regarding permission to dump? 21 A Yes. ' 22 Q On the Cactus Road. 23 A This is it. ' 24 Q Was this something that you had typed up, because its 25 on Pullaro Contracting Company's stationery [sic. ] or 26 someone else typed up, do you know? 27 A It was typed up in the office, yes. 28 Q But not by you? 11a"At►rdc..: 'at We"aftowty, T"M n— s..D46%CA 92101 SCa0342A.651 -9- ' (61W 2&1441 1 A 2 Q Why was there written permission given for the Cactus 3 Road site, but not the other sites? What made this 4 particular site unique? 5 A I have no idea. 6 Q Did you understand this particular permission slip to 7 apply to just property owned by Jack Dantzler that was 8 dumped on Cactus Road or all the property where 9 material was placed on Cactus Road. I 10 A I had no idea that the properties were split up. 11 Q I see. 12 A It was assumed he was dumping on his property. 13 Pullaro Deposition at pp. 28-29, 11. 10-22 attached hereto as 14 Exhibit "D" and incorporated herein by this reference. The 15 spurious nature of this argument is seen immediately upon 16 examination of the permission slip attached hereto as 17 Exhibit "E" and incorporated herein by this reference. The , 18 typed "permission slip" is dated July 14, 1987 on top, but 19 Mr. Dantzler's signature is dated March 16, 1988. The second , 20 date is curiously close to the time Pullaro first became aware 21 of the presence of allegedly hazardous material on the property. ' 22 The truth of the matter is that Dantzler gave Pullaro , 23 oral permission to dump only on Dantzler's property. Dantzler 24 Declaration at p. 4, 17. When Dantzler saw that Pullaro was , 25 leveling the fill which was dumped on Dantzler's property on to 26 the Sesi property, Dantzler told Pullaro that that property did ' 27 not belong to Dantzler and the Coronado fill could not be 28 dumped. Id at p. 5, 18. II.U.r a wdc... 101 Wom o6.my. ' 6r Diagm CAn101 SCSOU2A.U51 —10— (619)2�61M1 V • 1 ochael Pullaro then returne to Dantzler some eight ' 2 months later and asked him to sign an authorization retro- 3 actively giving permission to dump on the Dantzler and Sesi 4 properties. Dantzler once again pointed out that he did not own 5 the Sesi property and could not give permission prospectively or 6 retroactively to dump on the property. Dantzler Declaration at ' 7 p. 5, 110. He only agreed to sign and did sign the ' 8 authorization regarding his own property at 900 Cactus Road. 9 Because Dantzler did not select the Sesi property as a 10 location to dispose of the allegedly hazardous material, he is 11 not a potentially responsible party as defined by CERCLA 12 42 U.S.C. 9607 (a) (4) . Dantzler is therefore entitled to 13 judgment in his favor as a matter of law. 14 C. The Second Cause Of Action For Equitable Indemnity is Detective Because No Valid Claim Has Been Pleaded. ' 15 16 The equitable indemnity claim seeks relief for the ' 17 clean up and investigation expenses which will allegedly be 18 incurred by the plaintiffs. The Sesis must allege a "wrong" to 19 entitle them to equitable indemnity from Dantzler. ORerating 20 Engineers Pension Trust v. Cecil Backhoe, 795 F.2d 1501, 1507-08 21 (9th Cir. 1986) ; Nevada Power ComDanv v. Monsanto, 955 F.2d ' 22 1304, 1309 (9th Cir. 1992) (Liability of both parties for a 23 joint wrong is essential to a claim for equitable indemnity) ; In 24 Re New Enaland Fish Co. , 749 F.2d 1277, 1282 (9th Cir. 1984) (A 25 party seeking equitable indemnity must show their right to 26 assert a cause of action against the defendant) . 27 The Sesis allege that they are liable for clean up costs 28 pursuant to CERCLA, however they have failed to show a claim 101 w."0MM".r, T..W Flaw Sm Dial^CA 92101 SCY0342A.WSI -11- (6191 23&1 V I 1 against Daaler. Because the CERCLA !rim is defective, no 2 actionable wrong is alleged. Dantzler must prevail on the cause 3 of action for equitable indemnity as a matter of law. 4 D. The Third Cause Of Action For Declaratory Relief Is Detective Because This Court Lacks Jurisdiction To 5 Hear It. 6 A party seeking declaratory relief must show an actual 7 controversy regarding a matter within -the federal court subject ' 8 matter jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. 2201. The plaintiffs allege 9 federal question jurisdiction based on the CERCLA issues in the , 10 complaint. However, for the reasons discussed above, ' 11 Mr. Dantzler is not subject to liability pursuant to CERCLA. 12 Mr. Dantzler is entitled to judgment in his favor as a 13 matter of law because no independent ground for jurisdiction is 14 alleged to support this claim for declaratory relief. r 15 VI. 16 CONCLUSION , 17 For the foregoing reasons, the motion for summary ' 18 judgment, or in the alternative, for summary adjudication of 19 facts and claims, must be granted. 20 Dated: January 19, 1993 BAKER 19 McKENZIE 21 *on-ald 22 By Grath 23 Attorneys for Counter-Claimant and 24 Cross-Claimant JACK D. DANTZLER ' 25 26 ' 27 28 ' WW t MtK.oi 101 WON 10 T..W Flow SM bm%CA 92101 SCi0342A.YSt -12- 1A14)3FSIM1 ' • 15 1 to find places to take material, so I went out in m pickup, Y P p, ' 2 looking for places to dump material. 3 Q Was there anyone in particular that asked you to do 4 that? 5 A Kelly Schroeder and my father, Paul Pullaro. 6 Q okay. Kelly Schroeder worked for Signal Landmark, 7 I take it? g A Yes. 9 Q Do you know what his job title was out there on the 10 project site? ' it A Superintendent, I . . . 12 Q And your father, Paul Pullaro, he was, what, the 13 president of Pullaro Contracting Company? 14 A Yes. 15 Q Were those your two people that were superior to 16 you on the job site? 17 A Yes. 18 Q Were you given any instructions by anybody with 19 regard to how you should go about selecting places to deposit 20 the material? ' 21 A No. 22 Q Was that left entirely up to you, do you know? 23 A Yes. 24 Q Did Mr. Schroeder, say anything to you about any 25 steps you should take with regard to making sure you had 26 permission before the material was deposited? 27 A No, I don't believe so. No. 28 Q Do you know if he ever mentioned to you that Signal ': •• . 16 1 Landmark wanted some type of written permission from anybody 2 whose property was to receive the material? , 3 A No. 4 Q Do you recall what sites were selected to deposit ' 5 material from the Coronado Cays? 6 Can you list those sites for us, where the 7 material -- different places the material was taken? , 8 A Well, it was just the -- the one I found was the 9 Nelson-Sloan landfill or fill and the Cactus Road landfill ' 10 and the Gun Club. 11 Q Okay. Let's take these one at a time. I think , 12 first you mentioned Nelson-Sloan. 13 A Yeah. 1.4 Q N-e-1-s-o-n-dash-S-l-o-a-n-e? , 15 A Mm-hm. 16 Q That's a "yes"? ' 17 A Yes, I 'm sorry. 18 Q That's fine, thank you. Where specifically is the 19 Nelson-Sloan landfill? i 20 A Well -- excuse me, it wasn't a landfill. It was 21 just a part of their pit that we dumped some of the material 22 into. 23 Q Where is that located, sir? 24 A I really can't remember. I think it was -- to my 25 best recollection, it was off of Willour Road. 26 Q Is that in Otay Mesa? 7 A Yes. 28 Q Do you recall the other closest cross street? ' • 17 1 A No. ' 2 Q Do you recall anybody associated with that 3 Nelson-Sloan site that you may have spoken to with regard to 4 depositing material there? 5 A No. i6 Q Do you know who owns that particular site? 7 A Nelson-Sloan themselves. 8 Q Is Nelson-Sloan an individual or is that a company? 9 A It's a company. 10 Q Do you recall having any conversations with anybody 11 from Nelson-Sloan about using that site? 12 A At this time, I can't remember his name. ' 13 Q But you did speak to someone, you think? 14 A (Witness nodding head. ) 15 Q That's a "yes", sir? ' 16 A Yes. 17 Q Do you know if there was anybody else involved in 18 -- besides you in selecting sites to deposit material taken 19 from the Coronado Cays? ' 20 A No. 21 Q That was solely your job? 22 A Yes. At that time. 23 Q Do you know if material had been deposited at any 24 other site prior to your involvement in the project? 25 A No. 26 Q You just don't know one way or the other whether it 27 was? It may have been done or are you sure that no ' 28 material -- I don't know the answer. • • 18 A I don't -- I don't know where they , 1 Y took the 2 material. ' 3 Q Okay. Do you know if -- as you sit here now, can 4 you tell me that no material was removed prior to your ' 5 involvement or you just don't know either. way? 6 A I just don't know. I don't know what they did. 7 Q Okay. But as far as you know, when you arrived, 8 you were the only person involved at that time in selecting 9 sites? 10 A Yes, when I came to work for them, yeah. 11 Q And you don't know if any of the stockpiled 12 material had been removed prior to your involvement? 13 A No. 14 Q Okay, that's fair. , 15 And you 've never seen any written documentation 16 regarding the depositing -- regarding whether there was 17 written permission to deposit material at the Nelson-Sloan 18 site? 19 A NO. , 20 Q Do you have any idea how much material was 21 deposited at that Nelson-Sloan site? , 22 A No, not right offhand. 23 Q Do you have any idea as to how much material total 24 was taken from the Coronado' Cays and taken to other sites 25 while you worked on the project? , 26 A Just the Cactus Road and the Gun Club, the Border , 27 Patrol Gun Club. 28 Q Any way for you to give an estimate as to what the ' • 19 ' 1 total volume in cubic yards would be of the amount of ' 2 material that was taken from Coronado Cays to those other 3 places? ' 4 A To Cactus Road? 5 Q Well, we' ll start Cactus Road, if you can give an ' 6 estimate of the volume. 7 A It was about 15, 000 yards. 8 Q You think about 15, 000 cubic yards? 9 A Yeah. 10 Q on what are you basing the estimate, sir, that ' 11 about 15, 000 cubic yards went from Coronado Cays to Cactus 12 Road? 13 A Because the amount of time we were there, the 14 truckloads.15 Q Talking about the Cactus Road site, can you -- and 16 I know this is hard because it's been a couple of years now, 17 but can you estimate the number of truckloads that there 18 were? 19 A As of right now, how many truckloads? 20 MR. WHEELER: This is for Cactus Road? ' 21 MR. LiMANDRI: Cactus Road, just staying with that. 22 THE WITNESS: Around 400. ' 23 BY MR. LiMANDRI: 24 Q You think about 400 truckloads -- ' 25 A Yes. 26 Q -- were taken from the Coronado Cays to the Cactus 27 Road site? 28 A Mm-hm. • 20 1 Q That's a "yes", sir? 2 A Yes. ' 3 Q Do you know -- do you have any documentation 4 reflecting the volume? ' 5 A No. Everything is with Pullaro. 6 Q With Pullaro Contracting Company? ' 7 A (Witness nodding head. ) 8 Q All right. Seems to me there was testimony that 9 documents were given by Pullaro Contracting Company to Signal ' 10 Landmark. Do you know if you were involved in the transfer 11 of any of that material? ' 12 A No, I wasn't involved in that. 13 Q I take it any documentation you have associated ' 14 with the Signal Landmark project would have been left at ' 15 Pullaro Contracting? 16 A Yes. ' 17 Q You don't have any documentation with you here 18 today in response to the subpoena we served? 19 A No. ' 20 Q Is that right? 21 A No. , 22 Q Before I forget, because I forgot to ask Paul 23 Pullaro, but I recall there being mention made at one time of ' 24 a memo in November of 187 being sent from someone at Pullaro 25 Contracting to Signal Landmark. Do you have any knowledge of 26 what that memo was? , 27 A No. 28 Q All right. I take it you don't recall generating ' 1 ROBERT E. AkIHART, an ) ' individual; MAXINE BARNHART, ) 2 an individual; CHARLES HUBER, j an individual, ) :� 3 ) � Counter-Claimants and) 4 Cross-Claimants ) j 5 v. ) 6 SIGNAL LANDMARK aka CORONADO ) ' LANDMAK; THE CITY OF CORONADO; j 7 PULLARO CONTRACTING COMPANY; ) CONSTURCTION CARRIERS, INC. ; ) 8 JACK DANTZLER; HENLEY ) PROPERTIES, INC. ; THE HENLEY j 9 GROUP, INC. ; SCRAPP DISPOSAL ) aka PACIFIC STEEL, INC. ; JOSE ) ' 10 MARTINEZ; MARIA GUADALUPE ) MARTINEZ; DAVID S. RUIZ, LUZSA j 11 RUIZ; and FRED TRIPP, ) ' 12 Counter-Defendants ) and Cross-Defendants.) 13 ) 14 15 I, JACK D. DANTZLER, declare as follows: 16 1. I am the owner of Dantzler Trucking and have personal ' 17 knowlege of each matter stated herein. 18 2. In July of 1987 I contracted with Pullaro Contracting 19 Company to haul dirt from the Coronado Cays property, owned by 20 Signal Landmark, to my property in Otay Mesa. Nike Pullaro was ' 21 my contact at Pullaro Contracting Company. I did not sign any ' 22 contract or authorization at that time. 23 3. I hauled dirt from July 9, 1987 to July 24, 1987. 24 4. During that period I would arrive at the Coronado Cays 25 property at approximately 7:00 a.m. to receive a load of ' 26 material. I would wait in line and then the truck would be 27 loaded and I would drive it off to one of the identified sites. 28 101 W"am"+, Tm nr~ sr DW9%G=01 —4- 2lL1M1 1 5. C&rally it is the general ractor's job to call 2 haulers like me to the job site and to find a place to dump. In ' 3 this case Pullaro Contracting was the general contractor. 4 6. Mike Pullaro initiated dumping on the Sesi Property ' 5 without my permission or authorization.. ' 6 7. When Mike Pullaro first contacted me I told him that 7 he could dump on my property, but he could not dump on the Sesi 8 property. I also told him about the Martinez property and he 9 got permission from them. ' 10 S. I never authorized anyone or gave anyone permission to 11 dump on the Sesi property. 12 9. After several days of hauling, my property was just ' 13 about filled up and my daughter told zie that Mike Pullaro was 14 leveling off the dirt onto the Sesi property. I immediately ' 15 went out and told Mike Pullaro that this property did not belong 16 to me, and we could not dump there. ' 17 10. Mike Pullaro told me to dump there because they could 18 use the dirt. ' 19 11. Some ten months after dumping occurred on the Sesi ' 20 property Mike Pullaro asked me to sign a release giving 21 permission to dump on the Sesi property. I refused to sign the , 22 release for the Sesi property. I signed a release giving 23 permission to dump only on my property. A true and correct copy ' 24 of the release is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and 25 incorporated herein by this referenoa. 26 27 28 7".% A.. .. ' � ny,�a�slw tCs03iia.Hst —5— df111 aL1Y1 1 12. Lane told me that the mat is were hazardous when ' 2 I hauled them. I had no reason to believe that the materials 3 were hazardous at the time I hauled them. 4 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is ' 5 true and correct. 6 Executed this �� day of January, 1993 in San Diego ' 7 California. 4� 4'�e ick D. Dantzler 9 10 11 ' 12 13 14 15 1 16 17 is 19 20 ' 21 22 23 24 25 ' 26 27 ' 28 I rjai WE*.NO"W. i..w raw —6— �u+► 1 1 HARRINGTON. ROXX. DURROW AC CANTER 1 • PYT"2 M W uee1.uSIX411 MW980MA < &AIV ova&nfw@ i 2 "1 GVIc C ff= DAIVt W9". Our= 430 •A/fTA AMA. CAWPO"IA 92701 3 '(7141 e73-4996 �S 4 C= , 5 Attorneys for Plaintiffs, DAVID R. BENSON ' and NANCY L. BENSON 7 ao r 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO 10 , 11 DAVID R. BENSON and NANCY L. ) CASE NO. 58 709-3% 1 BENSON, ) 12 ) COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL Plaintiffs, ) INJURIES 1 13 ) V. ) 14 ) 2 1587CC3 108.0 CORONADO LANDMARK, INC. , dba CORO- ) 709 1608 7101 i 97 108 15 NADO CAY COMPANY; ALLIED-SIGNAL ) .1 COMPANY; THE SIGNAL COMPANY; SIG- ) 16 NAL OIL COMPANY; PULLERO CONTRACT- ) ING CO. ; and DOES 1 through 100, ) 17 inclusive, ) 18 Defendants. ) 19 20 Plaintiffs, David R. Benson and Nancy L. Benson, for causes 1 21 of action against Defendants, and each of them, allege: 1 22 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 23 1. The true names or capacities of the Defendants, Does 24 1 through 100, inclusive, whether individual, corporate, associate, 25 or otherwise, are unknown to Plaintiffs at this time, and Plain- ' 26 tiffs, therefore, sue Defendants by such fictitious names and 27 will ask leave of court to amend this Complaint to show their 1 28 true names or capacities when the same have been ascertained. ' 1 Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that 2 each of the DOE Defendants is, in some manner, responsible for 3 the events and happenings herein set forth and proximately caused 4 injuries and damages to the Plaintiffs as herein alleged. 5 2. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, 6 that Defendants, all Defendants by name, and inclusive, were, 7 and at all times herein mentioned, entities licensed and authorizes 8 to do business and are doing business in the City of Coronado, 9 County of San Diego, State of California. 10 3. Each Defendant is sued as an agent and/or employee � 0 11 of every other Defendant, acting within the course and scope ' z ; ; 12 of such employment, unless otherwise specified. Reference made u81_ a ; ; M 13 in this Complaint to "Defendants, and each of them, " shall be ; z0 14 deemed to mean the acts of Defendants, acting individually, joint- rtA 15 ly, and/or severally. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and X • O < X • N , oZW <= 16 based thereon allege, that each Defendant has ratified and affirmec z ,. � z < - o = � = 17 the acts of each of the other Defendants. z 18 4 . The injuries upon which this action is based occurred _ 19 in the City of Coronado, County of San Diego, State of California. 20 5 . That at all times herein relevant, Plaintiff , David R. 21 Benson, and Plaintiff, Nancy L. Benson, were and are husband 22 and wife. Plaintiffs were and are residents of the County of 23 San Diego, State of California. 24 6. Hereinafter, the term "Defendant" will refer to Defen- 25 dants, Coronado Landmark, Inc. , dba Coronado Cay Company; Allied- ' 26 Signal Company; The Signal Company; Signal Oil Company; Pullero 27 Contracting Co. ; and DOES 1 through 100, and each of them, unless ' 28 otherwise indicated. t 1 7. On or about mid=July 1986, through September or October ' P 2 1986, Plaintiff, David R. Benson, was working as a Job Foreman 3 for a company hired by Defendants to install underground utilities 4 electricity, gas, telephone - and television, in a joint trench ' 5 on property owned and developed or modified by Defendants located 6 in the City of Coronado, County of Sari Diego, State of California. 7 8 . Defendants, with the exclusion of Defendant, Pullero 8 Contracting Co. , was the owner and developer of a residential 9 real estate project called Coronado Cays. The property owned , 10 and developed by Defendants was an old municipal and United States 11 Government waste and dump site. ' 12 9. Defendant, Pullero Contracting Co. , was hired and con- ON I : 3 : 13 tracted by the other Defendants to prepare, grade, and remove J � J the existing waste and trash deposits to prepare the land for; � � 14 0 . 15 residential dwellings. Among the trash deposited on the land u = Fz^ 16 awned and intended for development by Defendants, were certain , _ � Z 17 remnants, containers, wires, and liquid substances from electrical 18 transformers and power lines. 19 10 . Defendants, and each of therm, owed a duty to Plaintiffs 20 to use reasonably prudent care in their ownership, development, 21 preparation, and management of this steal property to prevent , 22 the exposure and contact of the toxic: substances contained in 23 this dump site with persons and individuals, including Plaintiff, 24 David R. Benson, who would be working at the site of this resi- 25 dential development. 26 11. At the time and place aforesaid, Defendants, and each 27 of them, breached that duty when they so negligently, carelessly, 28 wantonly, and unlawfully failed to provide adequate notice, con- - 3 - • I I • 1 tainment, burial and/or removal of these toxic remnants. During 2 the course of building joint utility trenches , which were built 3 to a variable depth of 54-60 inches, and a width of 30 inches, I4 the trenches were flooded on a daily basis by incoming tides . 5 As the job foreman charged with the duty of overseeing the instal- 6 lation of the underground utilities, Plaintiff, David R. Benson, 7 was exposed to sea water which had been contaminated by toxic 8 remnants from the electrical transformers and other materials 9 and substances. Furthermore, Defendants, and each of them, negli- 10 gently, carelessly, wantonly, and unlawfully failed to act upon I . � 11 the knowledge that their residential development was being con- On 12 structed on a several generations old dump site, which included, INS ,. 13 among other things, the toxic remnants of electrical transformers , ; so 14 to such an extent that no notices were issued to advise Plaintiff , 0 � ' = > t � 15 David R. Benson, and others , of the potential of toxic exposure oc < 0 c i C= � =' 16 to the transformers remnants . Defendants, and each of them, izU � 17 failed in the exercise of their knowledge that the development • U c ` U 18 was on a dump site which contained toxic remnants to properly I � and/or remove the toxic remnants such that Plain- 9 contain, bury, • 20 tiff , David R. Benson, and others , would not come into contact I21 with these toxic remnants. 22 12. Defendants, and each of them, allowed and failed to 23 prevent the toxic exposure with a conscious disregard of the I24 safety of Plaintiff, David R. Benson, in that Defendants, and 25 each of them, engaged in an ultrahazardous activity with the I26 knowledge that toxic remnants and substances existed on a location 27 intended for residential development. Defendants, and each of ' 28 them, were uncertain of the containment and burial of these toxic A - I • 1 remnants such that they hired Defendant., Pullero Contracting 2 Co. , to contain, bury, and/or remove the toxic remnants and sub- t 3 stances. The material removal and/or containment was improperly 4 done, such that serious injury could and would result from the 5 exposure of these toxic remnants and substances by means of Defen- 6 dants deficient operations and procedu::es. Despite Defendants ' 7 and each of them knowledge of a foreseeable exposure of the toxic 8 remnants and substances, they hired and intended persons, such 9 as Plaintiff, David R. Benson, to perform certain services to 10 prepare this property for residential development, and thus created , ; 11 a substantial risk of serious injury and/or danger to each and no 12 every person who would be working on the development of this J " ~ o 13 property, and knowingly exposing each person, including Plaintiff , 14 David R. Benson, to said risks in conscious disregard for their r ' ; ` : 15 and his safety. J ° W <= 16 13 . As a direct and proximate result of the negligence, z < - iZU =� 17 carelessness, recklessness, wantonness, and unlawfulness of Defen- � � 18 dants, and each of them, the resulting release and exposure of 19 - the toxic transformer remnants and substances to Plaintiff, David R� c • 20 Benson, has caused severe and permanent injuries to Plaintiffs, 21 all to Plaintiffs' damage in a sum within the jurisdiction of , 22 this court and to be shown according to proof . 23 14. By reason of the foregoing, Plaintiffs have been required' 24 to employ the services of hospitals, physicians, surgeons, nurses, 25 and other professional services, and Plaintiffs have been compelled 26 to incur expenses for medicines, x-rays, and other medical supplies 27 and services. Plaintiffs are informed, and believe, and thereon 28 allege, that further services of said nature will be required ' . . i 1 by Plaintiff, David R. Benson, for an unpredictable period in 2 the future, all to the damage of Plaintiffs in an amount to be 3 shown according to proof. 4 15 . As a further direct and proximate result of the negli- 5 gence, carelessness, recklessness, wantonness , and unlawfulness 6 of Defendants, and each of them, and the resulting release and 7 exposure of the - toxic remnants and substances, as aforesaid, 8 Plaintiff , David R. Benson, has suffered, and on information 9 and belief, and thereon alleges, will continue in the future 10 to suffer a loss of earning capacity for an unpredictable period 11 in the future, all for the damage of Plaintiffs in an amount sO 12 to be shown according to proof. � 5 13 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION J ` - 14 16 . Plaintiffs refer to Paragraph Nos. 1 through 15, inclu- Z . O f g ` 15 sive, of the First Cause of Action herein, and by this reference 0 4_ 16 incorporate and reallege each and every allegation thereof , as aZZ _ 4u < 17 though set forth in full herein. uz 18 17 . Defendants, and each of them, in their ownership, devel- 19 opment, and preparation of the dump site for residential purposes, I20 did, allowed, and failed in direct violation of generally accepted 21 industry practices, standards, safety statutes, and regulations 22 to implement and protect against the type of exposure, accident, ' 23 and injuries allowed to occur herein. Defendants, and each of 24 them, did the things herein mentioned in disregard of the safety 25 of Plaintiff, David R. Benson, and consciously failed to implement 26 recognized and established practices and procedures of proper 27 waste management and disposal. 28 - 6 - 1 18 . As a direct and proximate result of said conscious 2 failure to conform to established and recognized practices and r 3 procedures of toxic material containment., burial, and/or removal 4 by Defendants, and each of them, well knowing the perils to Plain- 5 tiffs created thereby, as aforesaid; PLa.intiff , David R. Benson, 6 sustained severe and permanent injuries to his person, all to 7 Plaintiffs' damage in a sum within the jurisdiction of this court 8 and to be shown according to proof. 9 19. By reason of the foregoing, Plaintiffs have been required 10 to employ the services of hospitals, physicians, surgeons, nurses, 11 and other professional services, and Plaintiffs have been compelled f ". 12 to incur expenses for medicines, x-ray:s, and other medical supplies 13 and services. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon sze 14 allege, that further services of said nature will be required ' o . < , < ' t : 15 by Plaintiffs for an unpredictable period in the future, all U = � Z` 16 to the damage of Plaintiffs in an amount to be shown according ; zJw < — 5 4 17 to proof. G + 18 20. As a further direct and proximately result of said ': o 19 conscious failure to conform to the safety requirements of waste • 20 management and disposal by Defendants, and each of them, well 21 knowing the peril to Plaintiff, David R. Benson, created thereby, 22 as aforesaid, Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon 23 allege, that Plaintiff, David R. Benson, has suffered a loss 24 of earning capacity for an unpredictable time in the future, 25 all to the damage of Plaintiffs and in an amount to be shown 26 according to proof. 27 28 7 - • I I M I THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 2 21. The allegations of Paragraph Nos. 1 through 15 of the 1 3 First Cause of Action are incorporated herein by reference, as 4 though set forth in full. 5 22. Defendants, and each of them, knew that dangerous, 6 poisonous and toxic chemical materials and substances had been j7 deposited, buried, and covered on the property intended by Defen- 8 dants, and each of them, for residential development. 9 23. The containment, burial, and/or removal of the toxic 10 transformer remnants and substances was ignored, or done in an 11 unsafe manner, such that adequate and effective safety measures, 1 12 supervision, and control were not utilized by Defendants to prevent Y 'd F 0 13 the foreseeable contact of the toxic remnants and substances J � 14 with Plaintiff, David R. Benson. • _ 6 ; ' � 15 24 . As a direct and proximate result of Defendants ' failure 16 to warn, contain, bury, and/or remove the toxic remnants and W _ � � 17 substances, Plaintiff, David R. Benson, sustained severe and eu ' 18 permanent injuries to his person, all to Plaintiffs ' damages 19 in a sum within the jurisdiction of this court and to-be shown 20 according to proof. 21 25. By reason of the foregoing, Plaintiffs have been required 22 to employ the services of hospitals, physicians, surgeons, nurses, 23 and other professional services, and Plaintiffs have been compellec 24 to incur expenses for medicines, x-rays, and other medical supplieE 25 and services. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon 26 allege, that further services of said nature will be required 27 by Plaintiff, David R. Benson, for an unpredictable period in 28 // /, 1 the future, all to the damage of Plaintiffs in an amount to be 2 shown according to proof . 3 26. As a further direct and proximate result of the negli- 4 gence, carelessness, recklessness, wantonness, and unlawfulness 5 of Defendants, and each of them, and the resulting release and � 6 exposure of the toxic remnants, as aforesaid, Plaintiff , David R. 7 Benson, has suffered, and on information and belief, and thereon 8 alleges, will continue in the future to suffer a loss of earning 9 capacity for an unpredictable period in the future, all for the 10 damage of Plaintiffs in an amount to be shown according to proof. 11 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION ` 12 27. The allegations of Paragraph Nos. 1 through 15, inclu- < 3 :5 13 sive, of the First Cause of Action, are incorporated herein by J � ; log 0 14 reference, as though set forth in full . o 15 : g"- J � 28 . The toxic waste dump site purchased, owned, developed, : < • � = W =' 16 and prepared by Defendants, and each of them, for the purpose _ ri = 17 of constructing residential dwellings, constituted an abnormally = u ' 18 dangerous and/or ultrahazardous activ:;ty in a location where 19 it was planned that: 20 (a) There necessarily involved a risk of serious harm to 21 persons who would work and live directly in or on top 22 of the site of the toxic dumping ground, and said persons 23 could be exposed to and injured as a result of the 24 exposure to the toxic remnants and substances . Said 25 persons likely to be injured. included Plaintiff, David R.11 26 Benson, and said risk could not be eliminated by the 27 exercise of even the utmost: care; and, 1 28 A - 9 - 1 (b) Such activity, above described, is not and was not 2 owned, operated, supervised, controlled, and maintained 3 by individuals as a matter of common usage. 4 29. Defendants, and each of them, engaged in this ultra- 5 hazardous activity of attempting to contain, bury, and/or remove 6 the toxic remnants and substances from property intended for 7 residential purposes . 8 30 . At the time and place aforesaid, and as a direct and 9 proximate result of Defendants ' maintenance of the said abnormally 10 dangerous activity, the toxic remnants and substances were allowed z °- 11 to become exposed to and come in contact with Plaintiff , David R. W i < < : 12 Benson, causing injuries and damages as alleged. U W ~ O . ; ; N 13 31. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants ' super- 1q 14 vision, control, preparation, and maintenance of the said ultra- 07 15 hazardous activity as aforesaid, Plaintiff, David R. Benson, . o a i . oZ � Z' 16 sustained severe and permanent injuries to his person, all to U., � z < — 0 , 17 Plaintiffs ' damage in a sum within the jurisdiction of this court ~ - UZ ` -� � 18 and to be shown according to proof . 19 32. By reason of the foregoing, Plaintiffs have been requirec 20 to employ the services of hospitals , physicians, surgeons, nurses , 21 and other professional services, and Plaintiffs have been compellec 22 to incur expenses for medicines, x-rays, and other medical supplies ' 23 and services. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon 24 allege, that further services of said nature will be required 25 by Plaintiff, David R. Benson, for an unpredictable period in ' 26 the future, all to the damage of Plaintiffs in an amount to be 27 shown according to proof. 28 ' - 10 - 1 33. As a further direct and proximate result of the negli- 2 gence, carelessness, recklessness, wantonness, and unlawfulness 3 of Defendants, and each of them, and the resulting release and 4 exposure of the toxic remnants and substances, as aforesaid, 5 Plaintiff, David R. Benson, has suffered, and on information 6 and belief , and thereon alleges, will continue in the future 7 to suffer a loss of earning capacity .for an unpredictable period , 8 in the future, all for the damage of Plaintiffs in an amount 9 to be shown according to proof. 10 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION � ; 11 34 . The allegations of Paragraph Nos. 1 through 15, inclu- � � : 12 sive, of the First Cause of Action, a::e incorporated herein by e � 3y 13 reference, as though set forth in full. ` 14 ; z � 35. Defendants, and each of the: , purchased, owned, devel- w ` < ` o < � 15 oped, and prepared the dump site located in the City of Coronado < ` o ) IW <- Oc = 16 for the purpose of* constructing residential dwellings thereon. L � z � °a z C 15 5s , i 17 The municipal and United States Government dump site was a product % 1u 18 designed, prepared, and manufactured for the intended purpose L � 19 of containing and burying waste and other substances which were 20 toxic or would become toxic, if not properly disposed of. When 21 Defendants, and each of them, purchased, owned, prepared, and 22 developed the property upon which Plaintiff was exposed to toxic 23 remnants and substances, they had reason to know that poor manage-� 24 ment and inadequate containment, burial, and/or disposal of the 25 toxic remnants and substances were likely to be harmful and danger, 26 ously injurious such that Defendants, and each of them, had a 27 duty to exercise reasonable care to inspect, post, notice, plan, 28 - 11 - 1 contain, bury, and/or remove the toxic remnants and substances , 2 and to test this product before exposing Plaintiff , David R. 3 Benson, and others, to the foreseeable hazards of these toxic 4 remnants and substances in the course of preparing this piece 5 of property for residential use. 6 36 . Defendants, and each of them, had actual and constructive I7 notice of the dangerous condition and inherent defects of the 8 dump site which Defendants, and each of them, intended through 9 their ownership, development, and preparation, to be used as I10 a residential location. This dangerous condition and defect • 0 11 was such of an obvious nature and condition that Defendants re- F 12 tained the services of Defendant, Pullero Contracting Co. , to � . o y F - isgo. 13 contain, bury, and/or remove the toxic remnants and substances 14 from the dump site before the property could be used as a resi-W r: > ` f ^ 15 dential location. Nonetheless, the dump site condition was not • i^ 16 appreciably changed when Plaintiff, David R. Benson, arrived � � ` 17 to perform his responsibilities of laying underground utility 18 services for the residential development. C • 19 37 . As a direct and proximate result of Defendants ' failure 20 or omission of supervision, control, ownership, preparation, 21 and maintenance of the dump site, such that it remained unchanged 22 from the status that it was received in, Plaintiff , David R. 23 Benson, sustained severe and permanent injuries to his person, 24 all to Plaintiffs ' damage in a sum within the jurisdiction of 25 this court, and to be shown according to proof . 26 27 28 - 12 - 1 38. By reason of the foregoing, Plaintiffs have been required' 2 to employ the services of hospitals, physicians, surgeons, nurses, 3 and other professional services, and Plaintiffs have been compelled 4 to incur expenses for medic:nes, x-rays, and other medical supplie� 5 and services. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon 6 allege, that further services of said nature will be required 7 by Plaintiff, David R. Benson, for an unpredictable period in 8 the future, all to the damage of Plaintiffs in an amount to be 9 shown according to proof. 10 39. As a further direct and proximate result of the negli- ro 11 gence, carelessness, recklessness, wantonness, and unlawfulness a < zoo 12 of Defendants, and each of them, and the resulting release and 0 e15PO 13 exposure of the toxic remnants and substances, as aforesaid, • 1W --- : 14 Plaintiff, David R. Benson, has suffered, and on information 30 . , os < : 15 and belief, and thereon alleges, will continue in the future 16 to suffer a loss of earning capacity Eor an unpredictable period f j Z < - 4o4 17 in the future, all for the damage of Plaintiffs in an amount Tsui ' U ' 18 to be shown according to proof. r ': ; _ _ 19 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION -Aft 20 40. The allegations of Paragraph Nos. 1 through 15 of the 21 First Cause of Action are incorporated herein by reference, as 22 though set forth in full herein. 23 41. Plaintiff, Nancy L. Benson, further alleges that as 24 a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned conduct, 25 or lack of it, by Defendants, and each of them, she has in the 26 past and will in the future suffer a loss of services, including 27 consortium in all of its manifestations, all to her general damage 28 in an amount in excess of the jurisdictional minimum of this 13 i 1 court. 2 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs seek judgment against Defendants , 3 and each of them, as follows: 4 AS TO THE FIRST THROUGH FIFTH CAUSES OF ACTION 5 1. General damages according to proof ; 6 2 . Medical, hospital, and related expenses according to 7 proof; i8 3 . Loss of earnings and earning capacity incurred according 9 to proof; ' 10 4 . Costs of suit herein; 11 5 . Prejudgment interest pursuant to California Code of W i 12 Civil Procedure Sections 3287, 3288, and/or 3291; U °u 5 13 6 . Such other and further relief as the court deems just 3 J • 0 < -- : ; _ e 14 and proper. 0. 15 AS TO THE SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION X . ° U _ 0 ° - <I 16 1. For general damages according to proof ; ` ai < � ? = ui 17 2 . For loss of services, including loss of consortium, z � u 18 on behalf of Nancy L. Benson; _ zi $ 19 3 . For costs of suit incurred herein; and, _ ; _ 20 4 . For such other and further relief as the court may 21 deem just and proper. r22 DATED: :;-j,Ja ?O 1987 . HARRINGTON, FOXX, DUBROW & CANTER 23 EDWARD R. LEONARD, ESQUIRE 24 MICHAEL A. LANPHERE, ESQUIRE 25 By !, 04. 26 Michael A. Lanphere ' 27 Attorneys for Plaintiffs , DAVID R. BENSON and NANCY L. BENSON 28 - 14 - 1 LANDMARK aka CORONADO LANDMARK, ) THE CITY OF CORONADO, PULLARO ) 2 CONTRACTING COMPANY, CONSTRUCTION ) CARRIERS, JACK DANTZLER, HENLEY ) 3 PROPERTIES, INC. , THE HENLEY ) GROUP, INC. , SCRAPP DISPOSAL, and ) 4 FRED TRIPP, ) 5 Counter/Cross-Defendants. ) 6 ) AND ALL RELATED COUNTER AND ) 7 CROSS-ACTIONS ) 8 ) CITY OF CORONADO, ) 9 ) Cross-Claimant, ) 10 ) VS. ) 11 ) ROBERT E. BARNHART, an individual, ) 12 ) Cross-Defendant. ) 13 ) 14 I. INTRODUCTION 15 Defendants/Cross-claimant CITY OF CORONADO ("CITY") hereby 16 oppose the motion of Defendants SIGNAL LANDMARK, INC. , THE HENLEY 17 GROUP, INC. , and THE BOLSA CHICA CO. (collectively "SIGNAL") for an 18 order barring all cross-claims by non-settling defendants against 19 SIGNAL, on grounds that the settlement between SIGNAL and Plaintiffs 20 MR. and MRS. SALIM D. SESI, MR. and MRS. WADIE DEDDEH, MR. and MRS. 21 KYRIAKOS ATTISHA, MR. and MRS. ASMAR D. ASMAR, MR. and MRS. SAMI _ 22 ROUMAYAH, MRS. IBA SEIBA, (collectively "SESI") , was not made in good r 23 faith under the requirements of California Code of Civil Procedure 24 §§ 877 and 877.6. CITY further joins in the opposition of Defendants 25 JOSE MARTINEZ and MARIA GUADALUPE MARTINEZ ("MARTINEZ") . 26 A good faith settlement at this early stage of the litigation 27 is highly prejudicial to the interests of all non-settling ' 28 defendants. There is no assurance that damages will be apportioned \292\111175.1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES, WITH 33-oso3o6m3oot JOINDER IN ARGUMENTS. -2- 1 based on actual liability. SIGNAL is potentially liable for most if 2 not all of the damages herein as evidenced by the fact that SIGNAL 3 has already been in a state court proceeding to be liable for full 4 damages in the amount of $2.5 million. Thus, a contribution of only ' 5 $1.25 million to clean-up costs can hardly be deemed proportional to 6 SIGNAL's potential liability in the case at bar. 7 There has been no determination of potential damages herein, 8 and CITY, which participated in good faith in the settlement process, 9 has been denied the opportunity to do any discovery of SIGNAL. 10 Again, the only determination of potential damages has been the $2. 5 11 million judgment of the State Court against SIGNAL. However, SESI 12 has, in the past, informed this Court that potential liability can 13 be enormous: 14 The contamination of plaintiffs' property creates a potentially awesome situation. It has been 15 estimated that more than 125, 000 cubic yards of ' contaminated material was deposited on the 16 subject property by the respective responsible parties. Remediation estimates previously 17 submitted have ranged between 20 million dollars and 40 million dollars. 18 [Plaintiffs' Settlement Conference Statement filed on or about July 19 27, 1992, 5:15-20] 20 Although SIGNAL now chooses to rely on informal estimates of 21 $2.5 to $4.8 million in remediation costs, SIGNAL has previously , 22 informed this court that SESI, in the State Court action, sought 23 damages in the amount of $34 million. That amount, according to 24 25 SIGNAL, represented potential liability for all of the contamination of the Cactus Road site. [Defendant SIGNAL's Settlement Statement 26 filed on or about July 29, 1992, 5:12-15] . CITY does not wish toi 27 i subvert the settlement process. However, there is simply no basis 28 in fairness or equity for SIGNAL to escape its proportionate share \s2,111175.1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES, WITH 33-OS03o I4=1 JOINDER IN ARGUMENTS. -3- 0 1 of liability leaving the remaining defendants stuck for the 2 difference. CITY and the remaining defendants are not SIGNAL's 3 sureties; if SESI is willing release SIGNAL under the circumstances 4 of the settlement , than the liability of each remaining defendant 5 should be capped at that party's proportionate share of liability. 6 7 Finally, as addressed by in the opposition filed by MARTINEZ ' 8 and joined in by CITY, SIGNAL should not be entitled to cut-off the 9 rights of the other defendants without suffering the same fate vis 10 a vis its present and future claims against the other defendants. 11 II. THE SETTLEMENT IS NOT IN GOOD FAITH UNDER CCP 66 877 AND 877.6 12 13 SIGNAL's motion hinges on whether the settlement is in� 14 "made in good faith" under Code of Civil Procedure § 877.6. "Good 15 faith" is defined by the California Supreme Court in Tech-Gilt. Inc. 16 y. Woodward-Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, 213 Cal.Rptr. 17 256: 18 A more appropriate definition of "good faith". . would enable the trial court to inquire, 19 among other things, whether the amount of the settlement is within the reasonable range of the 20 settling tortfeasor's proportional share of comparative liability for the plaintiff's 21 injuries. 22 '�. at 499. 23 Although the Court in Tecxi-Bilt makes clear that " 'bal 24 faith' is (not] 'established by a showing that a settling defendan 25 paid less than his theoretical proportionate or fair share'" ( . ]� 26 the amount of the settlement is a factor that must be considered b 27 'the court 28 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES, WITH 33.pg030614=1 JOINDER IN ARGUMENTS. -4- 1 Rather, the intent and policies underlying section 877.6 require that a number of factors ' 2 be taken into account including a rough approximation of plaintiffs' total recovery and 3 the settlor's proportionate liability, the amount paid in settlement, the allocation of settlement ' 4 proceeds among plaintiffs, and a recognition that a settlor should pay less in settlement than he 5 would if he were found liable after a trial . . ' . Finally, practical considerations obviously 6 require that the evaluation be made on the basis of information available at the time of 7 settlement. "[A] defendant's settlement figure must not be grossly disproportionate to what a 8 reasonable person, at the time of the settlement, would estimate the settling defendant's liability 9 to be." 10 IA. Unfortunately the Court found that a settlement releasing a 11 party for a nominal amount was not in good faith because it 12 essentially served the goal of encouraging settlement to the 13 exclusion and frustration of the coequal goal of allocating costs 14 ' equitably among multiple tortfeasors. Id. at 501-03. 15 It is evident that a rough approximation of SESI 's total ' 16 recovery and SIGNAL'S proportionate liability is not available to 17 CITY and the other non-settling defendants who participated in the 18 settlement conferences conducted by Magistrate-Judge McCue and abided 19 by Magistrate-Judge McCue's order barring discovery. As a result, 20 non-settling defendants have not had the opportunity to determine 21 whether remediation will cost $2.5 million, $34 million, or some 22 other amount. Moreover, they have also been denied the ability and 23 opportunity to determine SIGNAL's proportionate liability. 24 It is equally evident that SIGNAL's contribution of only 25 $1.25 million for remediation is grossly disproportionate given the 26 potential remediation costs and SIGNAL's likely proportionate share 27 particularly in light of the State Court determination that SIGNAL 28 was entirely liable for all clean-up costs determined therein. In \2U\,11175.i MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES, WITH 33_0S03WI4=1 JOINDER IN ARGUMENTS. -5- 1 fact, SIGNAL proposes that it should be released after paying only ' 2 one-half to one-quarter of its estimated clean-tip costs. ' 3 III. LIABILITY UNDER CERCLA MAY BE EITHER JOINT AND SEVERAL OR APPORTIONED 4 , 5 SIGNAL argues that "because the comparative fault rule 6 governs settlement of the CERCLA claims, non-settling defendants face , 7 no greater liability or increased risk as a result of the Settlement 8 Agreement between Plaintiffs and the Signal defendants. " [SIGNAL's 9 Memorandum of Points and Authorities, 9:3-7] SIGNAL's right to an 10 order barring all indemnity and contribution claims by non-settling 11 defendants depends in part upon the application of the Uniform , 12 Comparative Fault Act ("UCFA") . Thus, CITY believes that the UCFA 13 should be mandated herein. 14 However, apportionment is not rule in CERCLA cases. United 15 States v. Stringfellow, 661 F.Supp. 1053, 1059-61 (1987) (holding 16 that joint and several liability is available in a cost recovery 17 action despite the removal of all references to "joint and several" 18 in CERCLA section 107 (a) ) . Should there be any question regarding 19 whether strict apportionment is or should be the rule of liability , 20 herein, CITY respectfully maintains that there is no basis at this 21 stage of the litigation for the Court to find that the settlement 22 will not be disproportionate and prejudicial to non-settling ' 23 defendants. ' 24 IV. JOINDER IN OPPOSITION OF rINEZ 25 MARTINEZ filed points and authorities making similar 26 arguments. Without commenting on any position MARTINEZ may take , 27 concerning CITY's potential liability herein, CITY joins in all parts 28 �z3z�ttitl5.t MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES, WITH u_psptpt JOINDER IN ARGUMENTS. -6- SAMPLING PLAN FOR DAN'I"LLER AND BARNHART PROPERTIES OTAY MESA, CALIFORNIA 1 Prepared for: Signal Landmark c/o The Koll Company 4343 Von Karman Avenue Newport Beach, California 92660 Prepared by: 1 ENVIRON Corporation One Park Plaza, Suite 700 Irvine, California 92714 January 26 1993 EXHIBIT A 28 MICHAEL M. RUANE ' DIRECTOR. EMA 4 U NTY O F JOHN W.SIBLEY CHIEF DEPUTY DIRECTOR. EMA 2 1 12 CIVIC CENTER PLAZA 5 plc 3 RAN G E SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA MAILING ADDRESS P-O. BOX 4048 SANTA ANA. CA 92702-4048 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY TELEPHONE (714) 834-5302 FAX A 834-2395 ' SEP 2 4 1991 FILE Laura Phillips, AICP Associate Planner NCL 91-119 City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 SUBJECT: Screening of the Bolsa Chica EIS/EIR Alternatives ' Dear Ms. Phillips: The above referenced items are the ten (10) Alternatives chosen for the Bolsa ' Chica Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR) for the City of Huntington Beach. The County of Orange has reviewed the Alternatives resulting in the following comments: ' BICYCLE TRAILS The Master Plan of Countywide Bikeways (MPCB) identifies three Class I (paved, off-road) bicycle trails in the project vicinity: o Route 25, along Pacific Coast Highway; ' o Route 30, along the C05 flood control channel; o Route 34, along the southern boundary of the project. The EIR should address these trails for each alternative. ' CIRCULATION The EIR proposes to analyze a number of land use and circulation alternatives. We suggest that all land use alternatives be analyzed with and without the Cross ' Gap Connector. FLOOD ' The following is suggested: o A consulting firm is preparing a project report for the East Garden Grove- ' Wintersburg Channel (Facility C05) which traverses through the project site. Expected completion date of the report is July, 1992. Laura Phillips, AICP ' Page 2 o Alternatives for channel alignment shown and discussed in the document are ' general and conceptual in nature. Therefore, inconsistencies that may exist with our project report cannot be discussed at this stage. However, when the necessary detailed studies are available from the proponents, especially for the outlets being proposed, they must be submitted to the Manager, EMA/Flood Program Office for review. Impacts on the flood control channel and its ability to function satisfactorily with the outlet located within the wetlands must be addressed. OPEN SPACE/RECREATION ' The following is recommended: Master Plan of Regional Recreation Facilities The project includes the proposed Bolsa Chica Regional Park. All of the Alternatives described in the Screening provide for siting the park on the bluff area at the east side of the project except Alternative 5, which sites it farther west in the lowland. This siting would diminish vistas from the park and could increase the cost of constructing facilities within the park. This alternative would also result in park visitors' impacting the biotic ' resources of the wetland to a greater degree, an :impact which should be addressed under Alternative 5. It would also subject the park to greater , constraints arising from wetland protection laws, potentially making development of the park much more difficult. It should be explained in the EIR/EIS that Alternative 5 is not consistent with ' the Draft General Development Plan (GDP) for the park. The Draft GDP has been approved by the citizens' advisory committee, and is in the process of receiving formal approval from the City and the County. For this and the other , disadvantages of Alternative 5 given above, we recommend against it. Master Plan of Regional Riding and Hiking Trails The project includes the Huntington Beach Trail, designated #7 in the County , Master Plan of Regional Riding S Hiking Trails. This trail has been planned to be routed through Bolsa Chica Regional Park. If the park were sited as in Alternative 5, constructing the trail in the lowland could require more complicated construction methods; this consideration should be addressed in the EIR/EIS. Master Plan of Local Parks , The method of compliance with the City's local park code should be detailed. ' Resources Element - Open Space Component PCH is a designated Viewscape Corridor on the County Master Plan of Scenic Highways. To preserve this visual resource within the Bolsa Chica area, as well as to provide continuity with the corridor outside of this area, a 30, landscaped, parkway strip should be included in any alternative which abuts PCH. ' ' Laura Phillips, AICP Page 3 MEASURE M - GROWTH MANAGEMENT ELEMENT ' Measure M, which provides tax revenues for critical road projects, was passed by Orange County voters on November 6, 1990. With the adoption of Measure M, local jurisdictions are required to adopt a Growth Management Element to their general ' plan. The purpose of the Element is to mandate that growth and development be based upon the jurisdiction's ability to provide an adequate circulation system pursuant to the Orange County Division, League of California Cities "Countywide ' Traffic Improvement and Growth Management Plan Component." Specifically, the Element must address the following issues: 1) Level of Service (LOS) standards for arterials, 2) development mitigation and 3) development phasing and annual monitoring. iA model Growth Management Element has been approved by the Regional Advisory and Planning Council as part of the countywide Growth Management Program Implementation Manual. Cities may use the Model Element as a basis for adopting ' their own element by the April 1992 deadline. DEVELOPMENT PHASING PLAN ' In order to implement the Growth Management Element requirement for a development phasing plan, the EIS/EIR should also include a development phasing plan which will ensure that infrastructure improvements are completed prior to ' or concurrent with project development so as to maintain adequate Levels of Service (LOS), especially on the roadway system. A development phasing plan would contribute to traffic congestion and air quality impact mitigations ensuring acceptable levels of service throughout the development of the project. Development and infrastructure phasing plans have been used effectively by Orange County to implement the goals, policies and objectives of the Growth ' Management Plan (GMP) Element. The phasing plans usually function by authorizing a portion of building permits only after an identified infrastructure or public service improvement has been completed. ' AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (AQMP) IMPLEMENTATION An extensive process has been established in Orange County to deal with AQMP ' compliance. The Regional Advisory and Planning Council (RAPC) established by the League of California Cities, Orange County Division, and the County of Orange has formed an Air Quality Technical Advisory Committee (AQTAC). It is ' recommended that city staff members participate in the AQTAC to track and to provide input to the countywide AQMP Implementation Program development process. This program may ultimately result in recommendations which may affect the land use approval process. ' CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (CMP) REQUIREMENTS The EIR/EIS should include language which acknowledges the requirements of AB 471/1791 pertaining to the County Congestion Management Program. City staff have been apprised of and involved in the ongoing development of Orange County's CMP and are aware of specific CMP requirements, including: 1) maintenance of Level of Service (LOS) E; 2) trip reduction and travel demand management; 3) consistency with regional model/database, and 4) development of a Seven Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for mitigation of transportation impacts. Laura Phillips, AICP Page 4 Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the EIS/EIR Alternatives. Please send five (5) copies of the draft EIS/EIR to Kari Rigoni at the above address. (One unbound copy that we could reproduce would suffice.) If you have questions, please call Ms. Rigoni at (714) 834-2109. Very truly yours, , Joan Golding, Program Manager Regional Coordination Office ' By: g Ri o S ner CH:ap/mg(PL02-007)1266 1091907131825 ' 1 1 1 1 29 01�1 ' rourxEan CAufOaI11R ROOCIRTM OF GOVEanmEW 818 West Seventh Street,12th Floor 4 Los Angeles,California 90017-3435 _ (213)236-1800 • FAX(213)236-1825 Ms. Laura Phillips, Associate Planner January 20, 1993 ' City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 RE: Proposed Bolsa Chica Project Draft Environmental Impact Report SCAG Clearinghouse Number I9200138 ' Dear Ms. Phillips: ' We are sorry you were unable to attend, the January 7, 1993 meeting of the Local Assistance and Compliance Committee (LACC). At that meeting, the LACC took the following actions on behalf of the Southern California Association of Governments in response to the City's request for review and ' comment on the Draft EIR of the Bolsa Chica Project: 1. Found the proposed Bolsa Chica Plan consistent with the projections and policies of the Regional Growth Management Plan. 2. Found the proposed Bolsa Chica Plan consistent with the Regional Open Space Plan with the following caveat: As the Bolsa Chica project has not been found consistent with State and Federal Policies, ' the LACC found the project to be of significant concern and further recommends achievement of consistency with Local, State and Federal plans. Stated regional policy is to preserve, wherever possible, prime agricultural land and open space areas identified in local, state and federal plans as well as SCAG's Conservation and Open Space Plan. 3. Found the proposed Bolsa Chica Plan inconsistent with the Transportation Demand Management ' program requirement of the State Implementation Plan. 4. Request that if the Bolsa Chica project is approved, SCAG be notified of the City Council's ' action so that the implications for the Regional Comprehensive Plan, now under preparation, can be evaluated with respect to transportation and other services. ' A copy of the SCAG staff report to the LACC which formed the basis for the LACC action is enclosed John Longvllle City of Rialto-President. Abe Seabolt Imperial County-First Vice President. Judy Nieburger City of Moreno Valley-Second Vice President. John Flynn Ventura County-Past President + Richard Alatorre City of Los Angeles. Michael Antonovich Los Angeles County, Robert Bartlett City of Monrovia. George Bass City of Bell, Ronald Bates City of Los Alamitos. George Battey,Jr.City of Burbank. Ernani Bernardi City of Los Angeles. Hal Bernson City of Los Angeles. Walter Bowman City of Cypress. Tom Bradley City of Los Ange- les. Marvin Braude City of Los Angeles. Susan Brooks City of Rancho Palos Verdes. Art Brown City of Buena Park. Jim Busby,Jr.City of Victorville. John Cox City of Newport Beach, Deane Dana Los Angeles County. Elmer Digneo City of Loma Linda, Richard Dixon City of Lake Forest. Douglas Drummond City of Long Beach. John Ferraro City of Los Angeles. Joan Millie Flores City of Los Angeles. Irwin Fried City of Yorba Linda, Terry Frizzel City of Riverside, Geraldine Furr City of Oxnard. Ruth Galanter City of Los Angeles. Sandra Gents City of Costa Mesa, Candace Haggard City of San Clemente. Garland Hardenum City of Inglewood. Robert Hargrave City of Lomita- Mike Hernandez City of Los Angeles. Nate Holden City of Los Angeles, Robert Jamison City of Artesia, Jim Kelly City of South El Monte. Richard Kelly City of Palm Desert. Bob Kuhn City of Glendora. Abbe Land City of West Hollywood, Darlene McBane City of Agoura Hills. John Melton City of Santa Paula, Stella Mendoza City of Brawley, Barbara Messina City of Alhambra. Jon Mikels San Bernardino County, Judy Mikels City of Simi Valley.David Myers City of Palmdale. Kathryn Nack City of Pasadena. Gwenn Norton-Perry City of Chino Hills. Ronald Parks City of Temecula. Iry Pickier City of Anaheim, Joy Picus City of Los Angeles, Beatrice Proo City of Pico Rivera. Larry Rhinehart City of Montclair. Robert Richardson City of Santa Ana, Mark Ridley-Tho- mas City of Los Angeles, Albert Robles City of South Gate. Bob Stone City of Bellflower, Thomas Sykes City of Walnut, Jeff Thomas City of Tustin. Laurie Tully-Payne City of Highland, Joel Wachs City of Los Angeles. Harriett Wieder Orange County. Rita Walters City of Los Angeles, Evelyn Wells City of Lynwood, Michael Woo City of Los Angeles. Judy Wright City of Claremont, Zev Yaroslaysky City of Los Angeles, Norton Younglove Riverside County ' �165 i for your information. As can be seen from this report, the project has been evaluated as having design ' features and mitigation measures which are noteworthy: • Transfer of title of 775 acres of wetland area to custodial agencies is consistent with the ' Regional Conservation and Open Space plan and is beneficial towards attainment of regional policy goals. • The development of 4,884 new dwelling units is beneficial towards achieving jobs/housing balance and is consistent with the projections of the Growth Management Plan for the Northwest Orange subregion. , We wish you continued success on this and future projects towards attainment of regional objectives. i Sincerely, a"� J. '9� I ARNOLD I. SHERWOOD, Ph.D. ' Director Forecasting, Analysis and Monitoring i 818 W.Seventh Street,12th Floor • Los Angeles,CA 90017-3435 0 (213)236-1800 • FAX(213)236-1825 1 ' MEMORANDUM TO: Local Assistance and Compliance Committee (LACC) ' FROM: Arnie Director-F.A.M. 213 236-1 Sherwood, ( ) 900 ' Eric Roth, Manager-IGR (213) 236-1843 Maggie Ide, IGR Analyst (213)236-1881 ' RE: Bolsa Chica Project SCAG No. 19200141 DATE: === December 22, 1992___________________________ Project Description: ' The Bolsa Chica Project site is located on 1,976 acres in the northwestern coastal proposed J section of Orange County and is predominantly in an unincorporated section of the County. A small section is within the City of Huntington Beach. The project includes residential development involving up to a maximum of 4,884 units. The Land Use Plan for the project area will be prepared to include infrastructure, parks, environmentally sensitive habitat area, ' vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle circulation, and design standards as well as a proposed Wetlands Restoration Project. Among City actions sought are an amendment to the Local Coastal Program; a General Plan Amendment; adoption of a Land Use Plan and Specific Plan; ' requested zone change for the Specific Plan; and approval of a Wetlands Restoration Project. Key Issues ' • Is the project consistent with the Regional Growth Management Plan? ' • Will the proposed Transportation Demand Management Program be adequate to meet the Transportation Demand Management program goals of the Regional Mobility Plan(RMP) and the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP)? • Is the project consistent with the Regional Conservation and Open Space plan? ' Staff Analysis Some of the issues of regional significance associated with this project are: • The proposed Bolsa Chica project falls within the limits of local input used to formulate the policies of the GMP and would therefore appear consistent with the Regional Growth ' Management Plan. • Filling of 134.6 acres of wetland area waters of the United States for residential uses. 1 • Transfer of title of 775 acres of wetland area to custodial agencies is consistent with the ' Regional Conservation and Open Space Plan and is beneficial towards attainment of regional policy goals. • Addition of 4,894 new dwellingunits to the Northwest Orange subregion resulting in , unresolved circulation, traffic and transportation issues. The transportation demand management measures of this project are not yet adequate to demonstrate relief from the ' burden the project may impose on the circulation and transportation systems of the community and region. ActionRcquested 1 It is recommended that the LACC: • Find the proposed Bolsa Chica project consistent with the Regional Growth Management Plan. ' • Find the proposed Bolsa Chica project consistent with the Regional Conservation and Open Space Plan. • Find the proposed Bolsa Chica project inconsistent with the Transportation Demand Management program requirement of the State Implementation Plan. ' 1 IOYTfEC"CRAIS W10clsom atAr0' 918 West Seventh Street,12th Floor a Los Angeles,CalFbmla 90017-3435 ❑ (213)236-18W a FAX(213)236.182S ' Ms. Laura Phillips, Associate Planner December 11, 1992 City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street ' Huntington Beach, CA 92648 RE: Proposed Bolsa Chica Project Draft Environmental Impact Report ' SCAG Clearinghouse Number I9200138 Dear Ms. Phillips: Thank you for submitting the Draft Environmental Impact Report to the Proposed Bolsa Chica Project Environmental Impact Report to SCAG for review and comment. As Areawide Clearinghouse for regionally significant projects, SCAG assists cities, counties and other agencies in reviewing projects and plans for consistency with the Regional Housing Need Assessment (RHNA), Regional Mobility (RMP), Growth Management (GMP), and Air Quality Management (AQMP) Plans, all of which are included in the State Implementation Plan (SIP). The attached comments are meant as staff comments to provide guidance for considering the proposed project within the context of our regional goals and policies which are based in part upon state and federal mandates. SCAG's policy level review will be initiated with the presentation of this proposed project to SCAG's Local Assistance and Compliance Committee(LACC)on January 7, 1992. If you have any questions about the attached comments, please contact Maggie Ide at(213)236-1881 or Eric ' Roth, IGR Program Manager at (213) 236-1843. They will be contacting you to participate in the January 7th L.ACC Meeting. ' Sincerely, ARNOLD i. SHERWOOD, ?h.D. Director Forecasting, Analysis and Monitoring i Jobs LooBvlBe City of RialtoPreaident Abe Seatrok imperial Carry-First Via President. Jaty Nkborger City of Mormu Valky-Socartd Vim Presi4s4 Join Flyaw Ventura County-Past President • Richard ALstarve City of Los Angeles, Michael Aaf000vlcb Los Angeles County, Robert Bartlep City of Monrovia, George Ron Cisy of BeL. Ronald Bates Cky of Los Alamitos, George Battey,Jr.City of Burbank. F.rsad BernaraGry of Los Angeles, Hal llersaoe City of Los Angeles.Walter Bowman City of Cypeas, Tom Bramey City of Ls Ange- la, Marvin Braude City of L.os Angeles, Susan Brooks City of Rancho Palos Verdes. Art Brow City of Buena Part, Jim Busby,Jr.City of Victarvie. Jobs Cox City of Newyow Beach, Deane Dam Los Angeies County, Elmer Digneo City of Lone Linda, Richard Dixon City of Lake Forest- Douglas Drtsmood City of Long Besck John Ferraro City of Lot Angeles. ' Joan Make Flores City of Los Angeles. Irwin Fried City of Yotbs Linda, Terry Frlud Csy of Riverside. Geraldine Farr City of Oxnard, Ruth Galanter City of Los Angeles.Sandra Geoia City of Costs Mesa.Candace HsWrd City of San Cknrcs, Gariasd Hardeman City of Inglewood. Robert Hargrave City of Lomita, Mike sersasdes City of tins Angina Nate Hoiden Gry of Los Angela Robert Jamison City of Artesia.Jn Keily City of South O Mot, Richard Kelly City of Palm Desert, Bob Kohn Ciry 1 Gkedora. Abbe IAnd City of West Hollywood, Darlene McBase City of Agoura Hills. John MeltesCity of Santa Paula. Siena Mendoza City of Brawley, Barbara Messina City of Ahambra. Jon Mlkels San Bernardino County. Judy Mlkels City of Simi Valley.David Myers City of Paddak, Ksthryu Nods City of Pasadena- Gwen Norton-Perry City of Chino Hills.Ronald Parks Gry of TemectiA In Pickier City of Anaheim, Joy Pit-=City of Los Angeles. Beatrice Proo City of Pico Ri%era,tarry Rhlaebart City of Mowelair. Robert Richardson Ciry of Santa Ana. Mart RJiry-Tba sou City of Los An``eles. Albert Robles City of South Gate. Bob Slone City of Belinowa,Tbomas Sykes City of Walnut. Jeff Tbomas City ofTastin. Lurie Tally-PaysrCity of Highland. Joel WacsK City of Los Angeles. Harriett Wkder Osage County. RJta WalLersCsty of Los Angeles. Evelyn Wells City of Lynwood. Mldae!Woo City of Los Angeles.Jody Wright City of Claremont, Zev Yaroslovsky City of Los Angeles.Norton Younglove Rrverudr County • '®'rn 1 Space Plan. , Job/Housing Balance ' The proposed plan lies in the Northwest Orange subregion which is a jobs-rich subregion. The DEIR identifies an increase of 4,884 new housing units and no new jobs. , From the standpoint of only the jobs/housing performance ratios, the development of 4,884 new dwelling units is consistent with the projections of the growth management plan for the ' Northwest Orange subregion. SCAG finds, at this time, conformance with the GNP policies. Q A Growth Management Plan policy related to the GNP EIR is to support the policies and actions that preserve open space area identified in local, state and federal plans and those in the Regional Conservation and Open Space Plan. The project applicant would restore wetlands to the extent of mitigation required for the proposed project. The applicant's proposed plan would restore 134 acres of wetlands for project mitigation which is a 1:1 basis with those disturbed by proposed development. The applicant would convey title for restoration of the remainder of the wetlands which would be contingent upon funding from potential third party restorers. This development includes transfer of title for the entire lowland area to a government or private entity who would control overall wetland restoration. This will amount to approximately 775 acres. ' In the event that third party restorers cannot be found to complete the restoration of the wetlands, the designated agency will continue to hold title to the unrestored portion of the , wetlands. Under the terms of the proposed property transfer, the property will remain undeveloped and the designated agency will not be allowed to use this property for any purpose other than wetlands restoration as set forth in the Wetlands Restoration Plan. It is expected that long-term monitoring and management of the site will be financed by a fund to be established for this purpose. The Regional Conservation and Open Space Plan lists the Bolsa Bay and Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve as areas of regional significance and concern. Proposed action for the area is ' restoration of the wetlands. The dedication of wetlands to custodial agencies is consistent with the Regional Conservation and Open Space plan and is beneficial towards attainment of regional policy goals. Recommendations: SCAG has no recommendation with regards to growth management at this time. , 2 Y0000 M��/ 818 W.Seventh Street,12th Floor • Los An0eles.CA 90017-3435 0 (213)236-1800 • FAX(213)236-1825 I program; funding sources for each program component; identification of agencies or person sresonsi le for monitoring and administering the TDM program;and an implementation schedule for each TDM program component. It is germane to note that compliance with Measure 17, (GNP)and Regulation XV (SCAQMP) does not constitute mitigation for the RMP. VMT and emissions reductions credited are ' accounted for in the SCAQMP. Vehicle trips and vehicle miles travelled reductions credited to the Transportation Demand Management program requirements must occur over and above those in the SCAQMP baseline. ' We refer you to the SCAG Regional Mobility Plan, South Coast Air Quality Management Plan, Appendix IV-E, for further information on what a TDM program should entail and those local ' policies and implem.ntation measures which qualify. ' SIP CONFORMITY A project is found to be conforming with the State Implementation Plan (SIP) with the regional plans when it has satisfied the following three criteria: 1. It improves the subregion's jobs/housing balance performance ratio or is contributing to attainment of the appropriate subregional VMT target. 2. It reduces vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled to the maximum extent feasible by implementing transportation demand management strategies. 3. Its environmental document includes an air quality analysis which demonstrates that the project will not have a significant negative impact on air quality in the long term. Findings, As described in the proposed Bolsa Chica Project DEIR, the plan is inconsistent with regional plans at this time. The proposed project does not adequately provide for compliance with the TDM requirement of the SEr. Recommendations: Prior to considering the approval of the Proposed Bolsa Chica Project, the following problems should be addressed by the City of Huntington Beach: Unresolved circulation, traffic, and transportation issues. The transportation demand management measures of this project are not yet adequate to demonstrate relief from the burden the project may impose on the circulation and transportation systems of the community and region. r4 10�1 t W1W.N YOOM��pNr\1I 818 W.Seventh Street,12th Floor 9 Los Angeles,CA 90017-3435 0 (213)236-1800 • FAX(213)236-1825 30 E: IV 0 Chambers Group, Inc. Environmental Consultants • Scientists • Planners Engin e�s0 �� '?1. rny,l�Yrenr April 1, 1992 (6222 A) Mr. Ron Ganzfried U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Resources Branch 300 North Los Angeles Street Los Angeles, CA 90012 Dear Mr. Ganzfried: Chambers Group, Inc. is presently in the process of revising the Bolsa Chica Administrative Draft EIS/EIR pursuant to Corps, City of Huntington Beach, and applicant review comments. As you know, several meetings have been held in recent weeks to discuss the review comments and to clarify project information. Some differences of opinion on technical issues and impacts relative to the Koll Company's comments have surfaced at these meetings. As a means of focusing in on areas of difference, Chambers Group agreed to provide a written statement specifically identifying those administrative draft review comments where we technically or procedurally disagree with the Koll Company or their consultants, with specific reasons for the disagreement. This letter fulfills that commitment. In addition, we are taking this opportunity to update you on the status of information we requested from the applicant at recent meetings. As a preface to the information which follows, Chambers Group, Inc. would like to thank the Corps, the City of Huntington Beach, the Koll Company, Beveridge and Diamond and FMA for the effort and expense given to the review of the administrative draft. We believe that the comments will result in a better document and will help us to do a better job. STATUS OF NEW INFORMATION Information Received As of the date of this letter, we have received-the following promised information: ► Revised GIS maps of the four current alternative restoration plans (large scale and report scale). ► Revised grading plans (dated 1/10/92) for four current alternative restoration plans (at a scale of 1"=300'). 16700 Aston Street . Irvine. California 92714-4834 • (714) 26 1-54 14 • Fax: (714) 261-8950 Mr. Ron Ganzfried April 1, 1992 Page 2 ► Computer printouts of acreages involved with the restoration plans. These will be difficult to interpret since they consist of very raw data and printouts. ► Revised alternatives description and phasing assumptions for the Conservation Plan. ► Revised 11"x 17" conceptual drainage plan. ► Information relative to rewriting the purpose and need section. ► Fiscal analysis information for additional alternatives from David Taussig Associates ► 404 Permit Application Information Needed As of the date of this letter, we have not received the following promised information: ► 404b(1)Analysis, in particular, we need the cost/feasibility of mitigation banking and the alternatives analysis for offsite housing development. ► Costs for mitigation plans. ► Listing of Koll's mitigation commitments. ► Traffic modelling analysis for Applicant's revised 4,884 unit project. RESPONSE TO REVIEW COMMENTS We have not responded to every comment, but have limited our response to areas of disagreement or other substantive issues where a response would clarify how something will be handled in the next draft. If a comment is not addressed in this letter, we are in general agreement and it can be assumed that we will modify the EIVEIR text to respond to the comment, or will provide a reason for not responding with submittal of the revised draft EIVEIR. It would be helpful to keep a copy of the Kroll Company's comments, dated February 4, 1992, close by for reference. Mr. Ron Ganzfried April 1, 1992 Page 3 General Comments 1. Overview Chambers Group, Inc. has initiated several actions to simplify and shorten the document, including creation of technical appendices, consolidating alternatives, combining or eliminating figures, altering table formats and editing the text. The general approach to alternatives consolidation was described in a letter to you dated, February 27, 1992. 3. Feasibility of The Alternatives We have discussed this issue extensively with the Koll Co., the Corps of Engineers and Beveridge and Diamond. We feel that the alternatives should stay in for CEQA/NEPA adequacy since we cannot clearly demonstrate it is not feasible. However, we have agreed to include additional language describing the difficulty in implementing the project if Koll were not conveying land and paying for a portion of the restoration. 8. Mitigation Measures Regarding the comment stating the need for a list of mitigation measures, Table 3.5-1, Summary of Mitigation Commitments, provides such a list. Measures are numbered consecutively by resource heading. Executive Summary 3. It is our experience that the EIS must include such a table, even though the information is discussed elsewhere in the text. 10. For environmental document purposes, the action or project is proposed and we would prefer to couch it in those terms (i.e., the principal landowner proposes to donate). 44. A basic premise of the study is that residential development could occur on the mesas under the Federal No Action Alternative 12. The similarity with Alternative 4 is not inappropriate, although we will attempt to reduce any confusion. Mr. Ron Ganzfried April 1, 1992 Page 4 46. As will be discussed in this letter under detailed section comments, it is not appropriate to place too much emphasis on continuing deterioration of the Bolsa Chica. We will attempt to provide more balance to the discussion. 55. We believe it more appropriate under both NEPA and CEQA to emphasize analysis of impacts of alternatives and comparison of alternatives on an environmental basis. Economic information is relevant, but not as factor for environmental comparison. 58. We disagree. Open space has more "value" in an urban area than visual, even though it is private property. What about soil/water interactions, wildlife habitat values, and buffering from the sometimes congested urban space? The Huntington Beach General Plan views open space is an environmental amenity which is capable of preserving unique examples of geology, topography and other physical features. We would include the Bolsa in the category of unique landforms. 60. CEQA guidelines, Section 15123, indicate that the summary shall contain: "(3) Issues to be resolved including the choice among alternatives and whether and how to mitigate the significant effects." Impacts and Mitigation Summary Tables 6. As the summary tables are revised, we will consider the addition of a new column to the table as suggested. However, our current feeling is that the tables should be simplified by removing some information. We will reserve the right to limit discussion of implementation of mitigation to the mitigation monitoring plan. Mitigation Summary Tables and General Comments on Mitigation Measures General - We will be revising the summary tables to be consistent with the more detailed resource analyses in the latter sections of the report. We will address these comments in the context of revisions to the detailed sections as necessary. i Mr. Ron Ganzfried April 1, 1992 Page 5 Section 2 - Purpose and Need For Action 6. & 7. As you know, the issues of the comprehensive plan and economic analysis has been the subject of interim meetings including one at the Corps to rewrite this section. Our inclusion of alternative cost data in the EIS/EIR continues to be hampered by the unavailability to us of the Section 404 b(1) analysis being prepared by the applicant. Section 3 - Alternatives Considered 3. We agree in concept that the distinctions be made clearer, however, we will alter the discussion to make the wording not advocating the project. 5. We believe that a reasonable worst case approach is warranted and needed for CEQA/NEPA adequacy. 10. The Corps of Engineers has indicated that they will require consideration of a range of alternatives. Additionally, this range of alternatives are required for CEQA. 49. The Corps will require a listing of Koll's actual mitigation commitments. 1 81, 82 & 83. Unfortunately, the Corps does not accept this all or nothing approach and still looks for the proper rationale for lowland residential development. Section 4.1 - Land Use 6. We will add a discussion of construction of boating facilities to enable wetlands restoration. However, the Coastal Commission seriously questions the interpretation of housing, commercial or industrial facilities as "other feasible ways to achieve restoration of the site, other than in conjunction with a boating facility" (see letter response to NOP dated 6/5/91). While this interpretation has been allowed in the past, the Coastal Commission presently believes "... a proper interpretation of Section 30411 does not allow for an expansion of the types of development uses appropriate for fill in coastal wetlands. The question of appropriate uses for wetlands fill is addressed and expressly limited by Section 30233". 21. The proposed density on Bolsa Mesa is an average of 18 du/ac. This is higher than the average density along Los Patos of 7 du/ac. � 1 mr. Ron Ganz-fried April 1, 1992 Page 6 40. We have not found in the Specific Plan an discussion of building setbacks in relation P� Y g to oil facilities. 43. Impacts to sensitive nesting species is not discussed in this section. Section 4.2 - Earth Resources It should be noted that portions of the geology section of the EIS/EIR were prepared by Zeiser Geotechnical, Inc. (ZGI) and portions were prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. ZGI has provided detailed response to comments on the portions of text they prepared and has assisted with a response to other portions. 1. We have covered erosion impacts in the hydrology sections. 15. ZGI indicates that the reports referenced in this review comment (San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station reports) are outdated. Recent studies by Fisher and Mills (1991) indicate that an average of 7 km of right lateral displacement has occurred along the Newport-Inglewood fault zone since early Pliocene time. 16. Based on definitions in the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone Act (Hart, 1990), the South Branch and Bolsa Fairview faults are "potentially active" not "inactive". 18. ZGI suggests that the paragraph be modified as follows, from the third sentence: "...Per the request of the CDMG, the fault zone across the site was further investigated. As a result of this investigation, a portion of the Bolsa Chica Mesa and lowlands were classified as special studies zones in accordance with the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone Act of 1972 (APSSZA; Hart, 1989). This act defines an active fault as one which has had surface displacements during Holocene time, and a potentially active fault as one which has had surface displacement during Quaternary time. The intent of the APSSZA act is to mitigate the hazards of surface rupture to proposed development along known active faults. 25. Both the review comment and text are technically correct. Either may be used, but the existing text demonstrates the liquefaction induced ground failure has occurred on the site in the past. 35. We cannot find similar information in the reference material. Can the reviewer please provide a reference for this assertion? Mr. Ron Ganzfried April 1, 1992 Page 7 36. ZGI recommends the bullet be revised to read: "A ground acceleration of 0.25 �' g was calculated based on a magnitude 7 earthquake". 38. ZGI's seismicity analysis sis to date has been limited in scope to analysis of reports provided by the applicant's consultants, review of available public information, and application of expertise within the fum. Based on this level of review, ZGI believes that the ground acceleration value presented in the WCC report are unrealistically low. This belief is based on the following: ► Actual strong ground motion observed during recent California earthquakes at close to moderate distances from causative fault rupture generally exceed the peak acceleration value presented in the WCC report for a wide range of magnitudes, (from about M 5.0 to 7.1). In many cases, and, in fact, for relatively small magnitude events (about M 5.0 to 5.5), these recorded peak acceleration values are more than 100% greater than the �. WCC "approved" value. [References: Huang, et al., 1990; Shakal, et al., 1990; Reichle, 1990; Shakal and Ragsdale, 1983; Porcella, et al., 1979; Porter, 1979; Espinsoa, 1979]. As has repeatedly been the case, formerly "approved" levels of seismic shaking are soon discovered to be inadequate as the seismological community gains more strong motion data with each new earthquake. For the Loma Prieta earthquake "soft" bayshore sites had peak ground acceleration values that greatly exceeded the values predicted from the attenuation relationships. [Reference p. 83, Seed, et al., 1990.1 ► Our preliminary analysis is consistent with historical data. The effects of the M 6.2 1933 Long Beach earthquake were clearly visible on and around the subject site. The M 4.7 Inglewood earthquake of 1920 shows that a Newport-Inglewood zone of deformation is capable of producing multiple damaging earthquakes within a few decades time period, i.e., well within the "conservative" 200-year recurrence interval. ► The Joyner and Fumal (1985) method that we used for predicting strong ground motion levels is a recognized "state-of-the-art" procedure published by the U.S. Geological Survey. ► "Approval" by the CDMG and Coastal Commission of peak horizontal ground acceleration represented in the WCC reports was based upon data that has now been superseded (enhanced)by 8 more years of earthquake strong ground motion observations. As stated in the first comment, these new data (in particular, that of the M 7.1 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake) show that previous "predictive" ground motion relations generally underestimated the observed peak shaking levels. Mr. Ron Ganzfried April 1, 1992 Page 8 ► WCC performed similar probabilistic analysis on the Rose Canyon fault zone which is the southern continuation of the Newport-Inglewood-Offshore Zone of Deformation fault system and predicted significantly higher peak acceleration values (0.40 g and 0.34 g) for near fault sites in the San Diego area (Raines, et al., 1991; Berger and Schug, 1991). These results appear inconsistent with the results they propose for the Bolsa Chica site, which is located within the rupture zone for the 1933 Long Beach earthquake, and lies significantly closer to other known active faults (e.g., Palos Verdes, Whittier, and San Andreas faults) than a coastal site in San Diego. One would expect greater hazard/risk at the Bolsa Chica site than a similar site in coastal San Diego. IN. Our preliminary analysis is limited in scope and considers only the hazard from one fault zone, the Newport-Inglewood zone of deformation. This zone clearly represents the greatest hazard to the Bolsa Chica site, and the consideration of other active fault zones in the region would increase the total hazard/risk, not decrease it as suggested by the reviewer(s). 40. It is a piece of information from an existing published source which contributes to the understanding of the history of seismicity at Bolsa Chica. 42. Please provide a reference for the assertion relative to :3ubsidence rate of 0.01 feet per year. 49. These comments are addressed in our response to Comment 38 regarding seismicity. 50. Re last sentence, active faults are capable of producing surface rupture during an earthquake, therefore is it pertinent. 52. ZGI recommends replacing the current last sentence with: "Not withstanding the small �. potential for surface rupture on new or currently identified fault splays, the probable area of potential surface rupture risk should likely be contained within the currently recommended setback limits for mitigation of fault surface rupture hazards." 53. Rather than inserting the word "liquefaction" as suggested, ZGI recommends that the phrase "liquefaction induced ground failure" be used. 54. These comments are addressed in our response to Comment 38 regarding seismicity. 56. See response to Comment 52. Mr. Ron Ganzfried April 1, 1992 Page 9 57. The information in the IIS/IIR regarding the potential for liquefaction on the mesa areas was not made without basis. On a similar site with similar Quaternary Terrace deposits in Newport Beach, an investigation was conducted to evaluate the effects of an artificially elevated groundwater table relative to the potential for liquefaction (Leighton, 1982). Their conclusion was that the sandy Terrace deposits could liquify during an earthquake if groundwater were to become perched over impermeable zones at the base of the deposits. Subsequent to their initial input for the IIR, ZGI has been provided with additional project reference material. Based on a review of this information, including Reference Document 204, ZGI indicates that, based on the available soil boring data, it appears that the soils on the mesas are well densified and unlikely to be subject to liquefaction. The paragraph will be revised accordingly as will all other text statements relative to liquefaction of mesa areas. 58. The phrase "tens of lateral" will be replaced with "several". 60. ZGI believes that items 5 and 6 are valid statements, especially with respect to the natural slopes descending from the mesa areas. 62. Several small slump failures on the bluffs were observed during a brief site inspection. Proposed grading has not precisely been determined, and the effects of future grading has not been evaluated with respect to slope stablility. The existing text is valid. 63. May we see documentation for this revision? 66. Recent studies conducted on offshore faults in the Southern California region show strong evidence for Holocene activity, some with dip-style faulting. These faults, capable of generating tsunami may not have been considered in the Houston and Garcia (1974) reference. The potential for tsunami runup should be re-evaluated in detail for the Bolsa Chica site. Section 4.3 - Hydrology 6. Using a datum of MLLW for the grading plans is much more accurate and conforms with standard practice utilized in marine/coastal construction because of navigational concerns with water ways (i.e., the jetty projection). It is not our intention to oppose the elevation Mr. Ron GanzfHed April 1, 1992 Page 10 ,r method used for this project. Therefore, we recommend that the grading plans have a legend depicting the correlation between MSL and NM W. We will bracket "0" behind the MLLW elevations cited from the Moffatt & Nichol reports the MSL elevations. 8. Freeman Creek is named as a feature which describes an existing watercourse. The filling of it will be mitigated by the installation of a proposed discharge line. Therefore, the discussion of the impact provides rational for the construction of the discharge line and as such will remain. 13. Please provide the current "Bolsa Chica Surface Use Agreement" for review and analysis. 15. Since individual property owners could practice excessive (irresponsible) irrigation practices this statement will remain. 17. This matter was discussed with Ms. Jammie Pesicka at Williamson & Schmid on 12/16/91. We inquired if they could supply information on the specific capacity for the water well(s) which would irrigate the seasonal ponds in the Edwards Thumb area. She replied that Williamson & Schmid to date had only priced out installing such a well(s) to a depth of about 100 feet below ground surface and that there was no other available information except that they expected the aquifer to be at 60 feet below the ground surface. If the feasibility of using a well(s) for irrigation purposes is based on a comparison of other wells used in the lowlands, then data on their specific capacity and an estimate of the amount of irrigation water anticipated would help us to assess if the hypothetical impacts we presented are valid. Otherwise, we will not change these possible impacts. 19. We believe the reviewer has mistaken the location of the: "concrete box channel" as being along the Bolsa Pocket instead of northeast of the Cross Gap Connector along the length of the MW`D parcel. This work will be done for any Alternative where development of the MWD parcel occurs. Presently, there is a Memorandum of Understanding between the County and the Koll Co. to do so, as per cony. with Art Rico 9/18/91. 23 & 31. On 12/13/91 the grading plans were discussed in detail and with David Canon at Moffatt & Nichol's office. The elevation of the connector was supposed to be apparent to us from the fact that the connector overpass for the EGGW Channel was at +10 MSL and the connector did not show an elevation change elsewhere on the plans. We discussed that the Cross Gap Connector height at +10 MSL was sound engineering practice given the highest tide would be a +5.7 MSL in addition another r Mr. Ron Ganzfried April 1, 1992 Page 11 2 feet of superelevation was needed from an El Nino caused wave step, which would bring the height to +7.7 MSL. This left +2.3 feet of freeboard should the Connector subside 2 feet over the next hundred years (0.02 ft/yr) as per the latest geotechnical subsidence report. Subsequently, comments on the geotechnical section imply that a subsidence rate of 0.01 ft/yr should be used, however, we have seen no documentation of this assertion. During response to these comments David Canon was contacted concerning the berm (dike) heights again. We were informed that the new grading plans show a dike separating a lowered Cross Gap Connector from the muted tidal area. Subsequently, we requested and received the revised grading plans. These plans show the dike and its elevation but do not have elevation(s) for the connector. Williamson and Schmidt indicates that the connector elevation would vary. In order to properly assess the hydrological and water quality impacts, we need to know how and where the 120 foot wide area between the crown of the connector and the top of the berm will drain, and request a cross-section perpendicular to the connector illustrating the berm, connector, residential development area, and the adjacent neighborhood (with elevations). Williamson and Schmidt also indicated that subsidence was not taken into account in the design of the 9' MSL dike around the full tidal area. We would recommend that a 10' MSL height would mitigate a 0.02 foot/year settlement rate for a 100 year period. Section 4.5 Oceanography 8. The term "sea wall" may imply to the reader a vertical concrete wall. However, the Army Corps of Engineers recognizes this to include curved face, stepped-face, pile bulkheads, rubble-mound, and their combinations. If the Coastal Commission does not like sea walls they should say so in response and can specify what they prefer. They only other structural alternative would be sheet pile or rock mound groins which present other problems. However, we will expand our discussion to include these various types. 11. The sand on the south side of the inlet was proposed as Mitigation #3 to replace the sand on the north side. Therefore, it is not felt there would be enough sand to mitigate the erosion at the seacliffs. Also the rate of erosion at the seacliffs may be faster than sand deposition elsewhere. The reviewer contends that this beach is not a natural condition. However, it has been there for at least the last 20 years (that we know of) providing recreational use and vehicle passage (except at high tides and large surf). Mr. Ron Ganzfried April 1, 1992 Page 12 Section 4.6 - Marine and Aquatic Biology 23. We do not believe that the aquatic fish and invertebrate communities will be subject to deterioration from existing conditions if restoration does not occur. After the creation of the dike around the Ecological Reserve in 1978 cut off the flow of tidal water to the aquatic habitats in the back lowlands, they ceased to have any real value as aquatic habitats. The only fishes that occur there now are two exotic species, Gambusia and Tilapia. The invertebrate fauna is limited to a few species of extremely salt tolerant arthropods. I would expect these species to persist without restoration. The Ecological Reserve does support a reasonably healthy estuarine fish community. Because muted _ tidal flow will continue to occur without restoration, we would not expect this community to deteriorate substantially. Increased urbanization in the watershed might slightly decrease the quality of water entering Bolsa Bay from the Wintersburg Flood Control _ Channel. However, because pollutants in stormwater is becoming increasingly scrutinized and regulated, we would expect increasing urbanization to be balanced by stricter regulation. We do not foresee that water quality would deteriorate to the point that it would alter the aquatic community which consists of reasonably hardy species. (Note: this response is also applicable to Koll's comment 32 under the No Action Alternative.) 30. Koll's reviewer states that Gray Whales follow the 100 foot depth contour off Huntington Beach and it would, thus, be impossible for them to be affected by construction of the ocean inlet. A few years ago, Chambers Group consulted on a pipeline construction project in nearshore waters off Huntington Cliffs a couple of thousand yards downshore from the location of the proposed ocean inlet. The proposed pipeline ran from Oil Platform Emmy to the beach. At that time we did considerable investigation and coordination with the resource agencies on possible impacts on the Gray Whale. According to information we received at the time, gray whales may travel close to shore especially on their return journey. The resource agencies considered it an important issue and, had pipeline construction occurred during gray whale migration season, extensive mitigation measures would have been required. We agree that impacts on gray whales from ocean inlet construction are unlikely, but in light of our previous experience in this area, we feel that the potential for such impacts cannot be completely dismissed and must be addressed in the document. We will reconsider this position if the reviewers can provide us with documentation supporting dismissal of this issue. Mr. Ron Ganzfried April 1, 1992 Page 13 Section 4.7 - Botanical and Wildlife Resources General - Re the issue of continuing habitat decline: While it is true (and mentioned several times in the document) that the non-tidal, dry pickleweed areas are "degraded", and certainly would benefit from restoration, we have not seen hard data which would cause us to conclude that they will "continue to deteriorate" independent of the influence of drought conditions. 5. The text indicates, and we stand by this conclusion, that quantitative comparisons would not be valid due to artifacts of vegetation classification as well as sampling method. 10. Re Bolsa versus Anaheim-this comparison can only confuse the issues pertinent to Bolsa Chica. We will improve discussions of marsh "quality". Statement on saltgrass was based on field observation, however, we will strike the words "high salinity". 22. Regarding the species table; the numbers in the right-hand column are the sources of information, which are listed at the end of the table. The final version will make this more clear. 34. The validity of Belding's savannah sparrow population distribution (Figure 4.7-3) stands, however, we will review the more recent census data, as a comparison will be useful. 75. The impacts of development and restoration alternatives were based upon acreage figures of various habitats provided by the applicant's consultants. These figures, and therefore some impacts, may be re-evaluated based upon receipt of new maps. 86. Don't confuse natural and native, they are not interchangeable. Natural is generic; native 1 has specific meaning. Non-native grassland is correctly considered natural vegetation (as opposed to artificial vegetation). 91. We believe that the impacts to raptors are among the most important to consider in reference to project construction in the uplands. Table 4.7-12 was not included in the review document; this table provides population projections for raptors at Bolsa Chica under the various alternatives, and was based upon available information about home range sizes of the different species, primarily from literature summarized in Palner (1988) and Johnsgard (1988 and 1990). The goal was to use objective scientific criteria to assess potential impacts to raptors; thus, this section (including the species listed as high/moderate/low potential for elimination) is not subject to substantial modification at this time. For example, it is agreed that barn owls are "adaptable", but they still require substantial amount of open foraging habitat; foraging, rather than nesting, habitat is the 1 Mr. Ron Ganzfried April 1, 1992 Page 14 limiting factor for barn owls and several other raptor species in evaluating the proposed project. Section 4.8 - Cultural Resources Section 4.8.1 j 5. We have used several sources of information to depict physical conditions stated in this section, including SRS, Infotec, and geologic reports. All sources are referenced. �. 7. Our project surveys and research indicate that the taxa as listed are correct. Section 4.8.5 - Literature Review and Previous Investigations 1. Our reluctance to cite this source has been due to there being no record of this report at the UCLA Information Center, as well as our inability to obtain a copy of the report. This reference has now been obtained and reviewed. 2 & 3. These potential sites have now been recorded with identifying trinomials. SRS's contention that these sites "appear" to be natural deposits does not eliminate the need to do additional testing as recommended by Chambers Group to determine if these are actually natural deposits. ' Section 4.8.5 - Re-evaluation of Previously Recorded Sites 2. The sites were combined for the discussion in the EIS/EIR to be consistent with the recommendations of Infotec (1990)performed under contract to the Corps of Engineers. 3. The past excavations were referred to in the same manner as the authors of the cited reports referred to them. However, we will check the accuracy of the citations. 5. We are citing this information directly from the reference source. We will check the accuracy of the citation. Mr. Ron Ganzfried April 1, 1992 Page 15 Section 4.8.3 - General Discussion of Impact l.b. Data on other sites has been taken from Infotec (1990) and Scroth, et al. (1989). SRS's reports on various sites in the Bolsa Chica have been reviewed as acknowledged in the Bibliography of the cultural resources technical appendix. I Section 4.8 - Cultural Resources 7. We have not seen full mitigation for sites ORA-85 and ORA-78. Reports containing such information are not yet available. Section 4.9 - Paleontological Resources 3a. Our paleontologist, John Cooper, has reviewed the information relative to the two sites mentioned. While these sites are considered important and represent more complete documentation of paleontologic resources of the vicinity, these sites are inconsequential because they lie outside of the project boundary. The sites represent, essentially, a duplication of the fauna recovered from the UCLA localities to the north (discussion by Demere in SRS, Inc., 1985). This additional information serves to underscore Dr. Cooper's recommendations for onsite paleontological monitoring during the development phase of the project, as included in the administrative Draft EIS/EIR. Dr. Cooper's report will be included in the EIS/EIR appendix. Section 4.11 - Air Quality General response: The amount of detail and explanation in the air quality section purposely had been kept short due to attempts to limit document size. Formulation of an appendix will solve some of the lack of detail discussed in the review comments. We are working to provide additional analysis, particularly related to combining emissions from the different project phases as appropriate and adding discussion to mitigation. Adding construction emissions to mobile source emissions as suggested will require consideration of project phasing, the source of which will be the phasing assumptions used in the Fiscal Impact Report (i.e. 12-year buildout assumption for applicant's proposed project). I Mr. Ron Ganzfried April 1, 1992 Page 16 Section 4.13 - Socioeconomics and Recreation 5. According to the City of Huntington Beach, the regional park, wetlands and ESHA's were not included as parkland because they are either inaccessible for recreational purposes or are regional facilities distinct from this development. This explanation will be included in this section. The most recent Bolsa Chica LCP does designate neighborhood parks. As the acreage still falls short of the City's parkland standard, we will check with the City to determine whether additional mitigations are required. If you require additional information relative to our response to review comments, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, CHAMBERS GROUP, INC. I Thomas C. Ryan Deputy Project Manager TCR/p1h010 cc Ms. Laura Phillips - City of Huntington Beach 31 Recording Requested By: 13Y City of Huntington Beach 9E-�"L-EGT5 2000 Main Street t kU�c:SAD �RUJC�T Huntington Beach, CA 92648 When Recorded Return To: City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT By and Between THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ("City") and SIGNAL BOLSA CORPORATION ("Developer") BCDAB-2.DA 032492 J TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. DEFINITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1 .1 "Adopting Ordinance" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1 .2 "Agency.. . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.3 "Agreement" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1 .4 "Annexation Proceedings" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1 .5 "Annual Review" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1 .6 "Approval Date" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.7 "Assign." . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1 .8 "City.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.9 "City Council" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.10 "Coastal Commission" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1 .11 "Conveyance A" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1 .12 "Conveyance B" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.13 "Conveyances" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1 .14 "Day" or "days" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1.15 "Developer" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1 .16 "Development Approvals" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1 .17 "Development Exaction" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1 .18 "Development Plan" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1.19 "Director" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 1 .20 "Effective Date" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 1 .21 "EIS/EIR" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 1 .22 "Estoppel Certificate" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 1 .23 "Exhibit" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 1 .24 "Existing Land Use Regulations" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 1 .25 "Financing District" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 1 .26 "404 Permit" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 , 1 .27 "Future Development Approvals" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 1 .28 "Include." . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 1.29 %CP" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 1.30 "LCP Study Area" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 1 .31 "Mortgage" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 1 .32 "Mortgagee" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 1 .33 "Offers" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 1 .34 "Parcel A" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 1 .35 "Parcel B.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 l 1 .36 "Party" or "Parties" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 1 .37 "Project" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 1 .38 "Property.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 1 .39 "Reimbursable Costs" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 1 .40 "Restoration Project" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 SCDAS-2.DA 032492 i i 1 .42 "Subsequent Land Use Regulations" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 1 .43 "Term" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2. DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 2.1 Vested Right to Implement Development Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . 10 2.2 Developer's Obligations, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 2.3 Preliminary Title Report. 10 2.4 Conveyance of Parcels A and B. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 2.4.2 Other Conditions Precedent. 10 2.4.3 Form of Conveyances 11 2.4.4 Equitable and Legal Title . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 2.4.5 Conveyance A/Eauitable Title . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 2.4.6 Conveyance B/Eguitable Title 12 2.4.7 Conveyance A/Legal Title . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 2.4.8 Conveyance B/Legal Title . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . 12 2.4.9 Restriction on Use 12 2.4.10 Recordation of Conveyances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 2.5 Linear Park. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . • 13 2.6 Neighborhood and Community Parks 13 2.6.1 Landscaping and Recreational Improvements . . . . . 13 2.6.2 Maintenance of Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 2.7 Traffic 13 2.8 Sewer and Drainage Improvements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 2.8.1 Sewage Treatment Plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 2.8.2 Reclaimed Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 2.9 Public Safety Facility. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 2.9.1 Dedication of Site 14 2.9.2 Paramedic Service 14 2.10 Fees. Taxes, and Assessments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 2.11 Reimbursement Agreements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 I 2.12 Approval of Dedication Forms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 3. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND SCHEDULE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 3.1 Governing Approvals and Regulations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 3.2 Future Development Approvals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 3.3 No Conflicting Enactments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 3.4 Timing and Phasing of Development. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 3.5 Development Exactions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 3.6 Subsequent Land Use Regulations. 16 3.7 Amendments to Existing Land Use Regulations. 16 3.7.1 Owner's Written Consent . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . 17 3.7.2 Concurrent Development Agreement Amendment 17 3.7.3 No Development Agreement Amendment Reauired 17 3.7.4 Wetlands Restoration Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 BCOA8.2.DA 032492 II 4. AMENDMENT OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 4.1 Initiation of Amendment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 4.2 Procedure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 4.3 Consent. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 4.4 Consent of Assignees. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 4.5 Minor Project Modifications. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 4.6 State and Federal Laws and Regulations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 4.7 Uniform Codes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 4.8 Emergency Situations. 19 4.8.1 Application to Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 4.8.2 Challenge by Developer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 5. PROCESSING OF DEVELOPMENT APPROVALS_ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 5.1 Applications. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 5.2 Relation to Existing Land Use Regulations n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 5.3 Cooperation in Securing Approvals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 6. PERIODIC REVIEW OF DEVELOPER'S COMPLIANCE WITH AGREEMENT; DEFAULT; REMEDIES: TERMINATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 6.1 Periodic Review. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 6.1.1 Annual Monitoring Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 6.1.2 Procedure for Review of Annual Monitoring Report . 21 6.1 .3 Proceedings Upon Finding of Non-Compliance . . . . . 22 6.1 .4 Hearing on Termination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 6.2 Certificate of Compliance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 6.3 Failure to Conduct Annual Review. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 6.4 Separate Proceedings in Event of Partial Assignment. . . . . . . 23 6.5 Defaults: General Provisions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 ' 6.6 Termination. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 6.7 Inaction Not a Waiver of Default. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 6.8 No Cross-Defaults. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 6.9 Defaults Affecting Health and Safety. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 6.10 Termination in Event of Judicial Invalidation. . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 6.11 Restitution to Developer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 , 7. GENERAL PROVISIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 7.1 Indemnification, Defense, Hold Harmless. 25 7.2 Specific Performance Remedy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 7.3 Assignment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 7.3.1 Right to Assign . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 7.3.2 Developer Relieved of Obligations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 7.3.3 Consent of Assignees to Development Agreement Amendment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 BCDA8-2.DA 032492 III 7.3.4 Consent of Developer to Development Plan Amendments 26 7.4 Encumbrances of the Property: Rights of Mortgagees . . . . . . 26 7.4.1 Mortgagee Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 7.4.2 Notice of Default to Mortgagee: Right of Mortgagee to Cure 27 1 7.4.3 Bankruptcy . : . . . . • . • . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 7.4.4 Disaffirmation 28 7.4.5 Mortgagee Not Obligated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 ' 7.5 No Third Party Beneficiaries . . . . 28 • 7.6 Term. 29 7.6.1 The Effective Date . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 7.6.2 Base Term . . . . . . 29 7.6.3 Extensions for Delay. • • . . . . . . . . . . . • • . • . . • . . 29 7.7 Termination. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 7.7.1 End of Term . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 7.7.2 Individual Lots. Units. or Parcels . . . . . • . • . 30 7.8 Subdivision Maps. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 7.8.1 Vesting Tentative Subdivision Maps . . . . . . . . . . . 31 7.8.2 Extension of Vesting Maps. 31 7.8.3 Phased Final Maps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 7.9 Annexation to City. . : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 31 7.10 Provision of Services. 31 7.11 Financing Districts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 7.12 Covenants Run with the Land. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 7.13 Project as a Private Undertaking= 32 7.14 Consent. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 7.15 Cooperation: Execution of Documents: Estoppel Certificates. . 33 7.15.1 Necessary Documents . 33 7.15.2 Estoppel Certificate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 1 7.16 Cooperation in the Event of Legal Challenge. . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 7.17 Amendment of Development Agreement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 7.18 Initiative Measures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 7.19 Waivers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 7.20 Enforced Delay: Extension of Times for Performance. 34 7.21 Severabilitv. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 7.22 Notices. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 7.23 Interpretation and Governing Law. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 7.24 Attorney's Fees. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 7.25 Compliance with City Procedures. 36 7.26 Authority to Execute. 36 7.26.1 City Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 7.26.2 Developer Authority 37 7.27 Signing and Recordation. 37 BCDA8-2.DA 032492 iv i DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AND SIGNAL BOLSA CORPORATION THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is entered into by and between the CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, a municipal corporation ("City"), and SIGNAL BOLSA CORPORATION, a California corporation ("Developer"). R E C I T A LS A. The Legislature of the State of California has adopted legislation (Gov. Code, sections 65864 through 65869.5) which authorizes City to enter into a development agreement with any person having a legal or equitable interest in real property for the purpose of establishing certain development rights in and obligations with respect to such property; and B. Pursuant to the authorization set forth in such legislation, (Section 65865(c)), the City Council of City adopted Resolution No. 5390 on June 18, 1984, establishing procedures and requirements for consideration of Development Agreements; and C. Developer is the legal and/or equitable owner of approximately acres of real property which is described in Exhibit A (the "Property"). The Property is shown on the Site Map attached as Exhibit B; and D. The Property is part of approximately 1,708 acres included within the Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Program study area (the "LCP Study Area"). The LCP Study Area includes both an area known as the "lowlands" (which consists of both wetlands and uplands) and two mesas adjoining the lowlands. These mesas are known as the Bolsa Chica Mesa and the Huntington Mesa. All land, including the Property, within the LCP Study Area is either annexed to the City or within its sphere of influence. The Study Area is shown on Exhibit B; and 1 E. The "wetlands" area at Bolsa Chica presently is mixed with a criss-cross pattern of uplands, includes areas of ongoing degradation, and is not readily susceptible to comprehensive restoration planning and implementation while in private ownership and in its existing configuration; and ' BCDA8-2.DA 032492 i F. The Balsa Chica Local Coastal Program (the "LCP") has been drafted to reconfigure the existing wetlands at Bolsa Chica to: 1 . Produce a consolidated and expanded wetlands; area which will allow a feasible, comprehensive, and productive restoration planning effort; and 2. Produce a consolidated uplands area to replace existing wetlands experiencing significant degradation; and 3. Enable development of the non-wetland portions of the Study Area , as designated by the LCP in.order to begin the implementation of the restoration plan; and G. _City desires to enter into this Agreement to secure the following public benefits from Developer: 1 . A commitment to reconfigure the existing wetlands to make restoration planning and implementation feasible; 2. A commitment to dedicate acres of the reconfigured wetlands to make it available for restoration pursuant to the LCP; 3. A commitment to begin the restoration process by restoring, pursuant to the mitigation requirements of a federal "404 Permit," a portion of the reconfigured wetlands as viable and functioning wetlands; 4. A commitment to dedicate land for the Linear Regional Park; 5. A commitment to dedicate certain land for use as a public safety substation; 6. A commitment to dedicate a reservoir storage site and to construct other needed public improvements as set forth within this Agreement, including water and sewer lines, lift stations, pump facilities, and drainage improvements; and H. City has determined that it is appropriate to provide Developer with assurances that it may proceed with and complete development of the Property in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, which are consistent with the adopted land use element ol:the City's General Plan and the Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Program; and BCDA8-2.DA 032492 2 I. City recognizes that development of the Property in full accordance with this Agreement will require Developer to make substantial capital expenditures and investments with respect to the construction and installation of major infrastructure and facilities, both on-site and off-site, public and private, to pay substantial developer fees, and to make substantial dedications of land for public benefit; and J. City acknowledges that Developer would be both unable and unwilling to make the commitments set forth in this Agreement without the assurances provided and the rights vested in Developer by this Agreement; and K. The environmental impacts of development of the Property have been addressed in the Joint Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report No. (the "EIS/EIR") prepared in connection with a series of actions related to the Property, including the LCP and this Agreement. The EIS/EIR was certified and approved by the City Council through its adoption of Resolution No. on , 1992. The City has considered the environmental impacts and mitigation measures of the development of the Property as discussed and analyzed in the EIS/EIR prior to approving this Agreement; and L. On , 1992, the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Government Code Section 65867, held a duly-noticed public hearing regarding this Agreement and, after the conclusion of the hearing and consideration of all evidence submitted by the City Staff, Developer, and interested parties, adopted its Resolution No. 92-_ recommending that the City Council approve this Agreement; and M. On , 1992, the City Council held a duly-noticed public hearing regarding this Agreement and, after the conclusion of the hearing and consideration of all evidence submitted by the City Staff, Developer, and interested parties, on _ 1992, City Council adopted its Ordinance No. 92-_ approving this Agreement; and N. The City finds that development of the Property and the dedications and improvements to be made by Developer pursuant to this Agreement are 1 consistent with the goals, policies, and objectives of the City's General Plan and the Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Program, and will provide balanced land uses, promote an economically sound community, facilitate the preservation and restoration of wetlands through implementation of the Restoration Project, and be in the best interests of the health, safety, and general welfare of the City, its residents, and the public of the region; ' BCDA8.2.DA 032492 3 TERMS , In consideration of the mutual promises contained in this Agreement, the City and , Developer enter into this Agreement upon the following terms and conditions: 1. DEFINITIONS. The following definitions apply only to their use within this Agreement and not to any other document or Agreement pertaining to the Project, including the Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Program. These definitions are intended to have substantive effect: 1 .1 _ Adopting Ordinance refers to City Ordinance No. adopted by the City Council on 1992, authorizing the City to enter into this Agreement. 1 .2 "Agency" refers to the responsible agency or entity which will agree in writing to unconditionally accept the Conveyances described in Section 2.4. 1.3 "Agreement" means this Development Agreement. 1.4 "Annexation Proceedings" means the pending proceedings to annex into the City those presently unincorporated portions of the Property identified on Exhibit B. 1.5 "Annual Review" means the review of Developer's good faith compliance with this Agreement as set forth in Section 6 below. 1 .6 "Approval Date" means , 1992, the date on which the Adopting Ordinance approving this Agreement was introduced before the City Council (as opposed to the Effective Date of the Adopting Ordinance). 1 .7 "Assign." All forms of use of the verb "assign" and the nouns , "assignment" and "assignee" shall include all contexts of hypothecations, sales, conveyances, transfers, leases, and assignments. 1 .8 "City" means the City of Huntington Beach, California. 1 .9 "City Council" means the City Council of the City. 1 .10 "Coastal Commission" means the California Coastal Commission. BCDAS-2.DA ' 032492 4 ' 1 .11 "Conveyance A" means the conveyance to the Agency of that property shown as Parcel A on Exhibit C. The form of the document to be used for Conveyance A is attached as Exhibit D. ' 1.12 "Conveyance B" refers to the conveyance to the Agency of that Y Y 9 Y property shown as Parcel B on Exhibit C. The form of the document ' to be used for the Conveyance B is attached as Exhibit D. 1 .13 "Conveyances" refers to Conveyance A and Conveyance B. ' 1 .14 "Day" or "days" refers to calendar days. 1.15 "Developer"means Signal Bolsa Corporation,a California corporation, and any successor in interest to the equitable or legal interest of Signal Bolsa Corporation in and to all or any portion of the Property, as more particularly set forth in Section 7.3 of this Agreement. 1 .16 "Development Approvals" means plans, maps, permits, and entitlements to use of every kind and nature which are necessary or requested by Developer to implement the Development Plan, to the extent that Developer consents in writing to such Development Approvals. Development Approvals include, but are not limited to, all approvals and permits necessary or incidental to the development of the Project, whether discretionary or ministerial, such as approval of the Restoration Project, Coastal Development Permits, site plans, parcel, tentative, and final tract map approvals (whether standard or vesting), project plans, variances, zoning designations, conditional ' use permits, special permits, grading, building, and other similar permits, and any amendments or modifications to those plans, maps, permits, and entitlements. 1 .17 "Development Exaction" means any requirement of City for dedication of land, construction or installation of improvements or facilities, or payment of fees, in whatever manner or form imposed, relating to the Project or Developer's right to proceed with all or any 1 portion of the Project. 1 .18 Development Plan refers to the improvement of the Property for the uses and in the manner set forth in the LCP. The Development Plan includes the construction of the structures, improvements, and facilities allowed by the LCP, including grading, the construction of on-site and off-site infrastructure and public facilities, and the construction and/or installation of buildings, structures, utilities, driveways, parking areas, landscaping, lighting, signs, an all related BCOAS-2.oa 032492 5 i - improvements. The "Development Plan" does not include the , maintenance, repair, reconstruction, or redevelopment of any building, structure, improvement, or facility after its initial , construction and completion if the Term of this Agreement has expired. 1 .19 "Director" means the Community Development Director of the City , or any successor to that title or a successor title. 1 .20 "Effective Date" means the date on which this Agreement becomes , operative and applicable to all of the Property as set forth in Section 7.6.1 below. 1 .21 "EIS/EIR" refers to the joint Environmental Impact Statement / Environmental Impact Report prepared for the Project and certified by the City Council. 1 .22 "Estoppel Certificate" refers to the certificate issued pursuant to Section 7.15.2 below. 1 .23 "Exhibit" means an exhibit to this Agreement as listed in Section 8. All Exhibits are incorporated as a substantive part of this Agreement. 1 .24 "Existing Land Use Regulations" refers to the permitted uses of the Property, the density or intensity of use, the maximum height and ' size of proposed buildings, the provisions for reservation and dedication of land for public purposes, the design, improvement, and ' construction standards for the Project, and all conditions to development of the Property, all as set forth in City's General Plan, the LCP, City's Mitigation Monitoring Plan adopted for the EIS/EIR, ' and, unless specifically addressed and superseded in the LCP, all provisions of the ordinances, regulations, resolutions, rules, and official policies of the City and all Development Approvals approved (as opposed to becoming effective) either (i) on or before the Approval Date or (ii) with Developer's written consent, between the Approval Date and the Effective Date, inclusive. , 1 .25 "Financing District" for purposes of this Agreement means any assessment district, special district, community facilities district, maintenance district, or other similar district, legal entity, or mechanism formed pursuant to the provisions of legislation in effect at the time the Financing District is formed. The purpose of a Financing District is to finance the cost of public improvements, facilities, maintenance, or services. Examples include districts formed BCDA8-2.DA 032492 6 under the Municipal Improvement Acts of 1911 and 1913 and the Mello-Roos Community Facilities District Act of 1982. ' 1 .26 "404 Permit" refers to the permit(s) to be issued by the Army Corps of Engineers pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC Section 1344) where necessary to allow the implementation of ' any part of the Project or the Restoration Project. 1 .27 . "Future Development Approvals" refers to Development Approvals ' which are acted upon (i.e, considered, approved, disapproved, or otherwise reviewed) by the City after the Approval Date. 1 .28 "Include." The use of any context or derivation of the word "include" means "including but not limited to." 1 .29 "LCP" refers to the "Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Program" prepared pursuant to Section 3500 of the California Coastal Act of 1976 and approved by the City on , 1992, and certified by the California Coastal Commission on , 1992. The LCP is comprised of three parts: ' a. Part 1, the Land Use Plan ("LUP") and Policies; b. Part 2, the Bolsa Chica Specific Plan ("SP") which contains the Implementing Actions Program ("IAP") for the LUP and includes the land use regulations applicable to the Study Area; and C. Part 3, the Wetlands Restoration Plan and Implementation Program. 1 .30 "LCP Study Area" refers to the approximately 1700 acres included within the Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Program study area and includes ' both an area known as the "lowlands" (which consists of both wetlands and uplands) and two mesas adjoining the lowlands. These mesas are known as the Bolsa Chica Mesa and the Huntington Mesa. 1 .31 "Mortgage" means a mortgage, deed of trust, or sale and leaseback arrangement or other transaction in which all or any portion of or interest in the Property is pledged as security. 1 .32 "Mortgagee" refers to the holder of a beneficial interest under a Mortgage or the owner of any interest in all or any portion of the Property under a Mortgage, including those portions acquired by BCOAB-2.OA 032492 7 assignees. 1 .33 "Offers" refers to the offers of dedication for Parcels A and B as described in Section 2.4.2. The form of the Offers is contained in Exhibit D. 1 .34 "Parcel A" refers to that parcel of land identified as Parcel A on Exhibit C and which is the subject of one of the Conveyances. 1 .35 "Parcel B" refers to that parcel of land identified as Parcel B on Exhibit C and which is the subject of one of the Conveyances. 1 .36 "Party" or "Parties" shall mean City and Developer, individually or collectively and, following an assignment (see Section 1 .7 above) of all or a portion of the Property, any assignee (excluding any assignee acquiring an interest after the expiration of the Term of this Agreement). 1 .37 "Project" means the development project contemplated by the Development Plan. 1 .38 "Property" means the real property described in Exhibit A. 1 .39 "Reimbursable Costs" means the costs to be reimbursed to Developer through a "Reimbursement Agreement" as set forth in Section 2.12 and Exhibit G for improvements in excess of those required to mitigate the impacts of the Project. 1.40 "Restoration Project" means the "Bolsa Chica Lowland Restoration Project" set forth within the LCP. 1 .41 "Section." Reference to a "Section" of this Agreement includes all ' subsections of the Section to which the reference is made. 1 .42 "Subsequent Land Use Regulations" means all ordinances, , resolutions, codes, rules, regulations, official policies, and administrative actions of the City, whether adopted by the City , Council, voter approved initiative, or otherwise and which become effective after the Approval Date of this Agreement. Subsequent Land Use Regulations include those actions of the City which govern the development, use and maintenance of land, including general plan, specific plan, and local coastal program amendments, moratoria, regulations regarding the rate, time or sequence of development, regulations placing a moratorium on, restricting, or BCDAB-2.DA 032492 8 phasing the provision of public facilities, services, or utilities, and air quality maintenance plans. 1 .43 "Term" means that period of time during which this Agreement shall be in effect and bind the Parties. 2. DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY. 2.1 Vested Right to Implement Development Plan. Developer shall have the legal vested right to implement the Development Plan in accordance with the Existing Land Use Regulations and the other provisions of this Agreement. City shall have the right to regulate the Project on the Property consistent with this vested right and the terms and conditions of this Agreement. 2.2 Developer's Obligations. Developer will construct and dedicate the improvements identified in this section in accordance with the Development Plan and the Existing Land Use Regulations. 2.3 Preliminary Title Report. Developer will furnish to the City Attorney on the California Land Title Association (CLTA) form a Preliminary ' Title Report for all lands to be dedicated with full documentation of all exceptions. Except as provided within this Agreement and its Exhibits, dedications of land shall be in fee simple with Developer reserving oil, gas, and mineral rights below 500 feet, with no right of surface entry. Developer also may reserve rights necessary or incidental to the development of the Project, such as the right to bring utilities across dedicated lands, the right to phase out oil development and other existing activities, the right to use dedicated lands for Developer's environmental mitigation, and so forth. 2.4 Conveyance of Parcels A and B. Developer shall convey Parcels A and B (the "Conveyances"), as shown on Exhibit C, to a responsible ' agency or entity (the "Agency") which will agree in writing to unconditionally accept the Conveyances. The making of the Conveyances is subject to the following timing, terms, and ' conditions: 2.4.1 Identification of the Agency. Identification of the Agency to unconditionally accept the Conveyances is a condition precedent to Developer' obligation to make the Conveyances. The Agency must be acceptable to Developer and must agree to comply with any conditions imposed on the Project by any governmental entity having ' BCDA8-2.DA 032492 9 jurisdiction over the Property. The Agency must agree to , actively work, in good faith, to implement the Restoration Project. ' 2.4.2 Other Conditions Precedent. a. This Agreement must be effective as set forth in , Section 7.6 below; b. The City has identified the Agency pursuant to r Section 2.4.1 above; C. The City must not be in default under this ' Agreement; d. Developer's rights under this Agreement must not be suspended or modified; e. Developer's obligations under this Agreement i must not be subject to an enforced delay pursuant to the provisions of Section 7.20 below; , and f. All conditions precedent to the Conveyances set forth in Exhibit D and this Section 2.4 must have been satisfied. 2.4.3 Form of Conveyances. Subject to the timing, terms, and ' conditions of this Section, Developer shall execute and deliver to the Agency two irrevocable offers to dedicate Parcels A and B (the "Offers"). The Offers shall be in the forms shown on Exhibit D. A different form of conveyance, encompassing the same general terms and conditions, may , be used if the Parties mutually agree. If a different form of conveyance is used, the transfer of equitable and legal titles shall occur at the corresponding times as if the Offers were ' used. 2.4.4 Equitable and Legal Title. The making of each of the Offers , shall be deemed conveyance of equitable title to the property proposed to be conveyed by the Offer being made. Legal title shall be conveyed upon the recordation of , acceptance by the Agency, provided that all terms and conditions of the particular Offer have been met. BCDAS-2.DA ' 032492 10 1 ' 2.4.5 Conveyance A/Equitable Title. Conveyance A will transfer to the Agency approximately 82 acres in the Lowland ("Parcel A"). The Offer for Parcel A shall be made by Developer and delivered to City in recordable form immediately upon the issuance of the first mass grading ' permit for development in Mesa Planning Districts A or B. 2.4.6 Convevance B/Equitable Title. Conveyance B will transfer to the Agency approximately acres in the Lowland ("Parcel B"). The Offer for Parcel B shall be made by Developer and delivered to City in recordable form immediately after both (i) the issuance by the Army Corps ' of Engineers of a 404 Permit for the Restoration Project and (ii) the receipt by Developer of all local, state, and federal land use and other entitlements necessary to complete the Restoration Project. 2.4.7 Conveyance A/Legal Title. The Agency shall not accept the Offer for Parcel A until after the issuance of building permits for 25% of the maximum number of residential units permitted to be built in Mesa Planning Areas A and B ' by the LCP. 2.4.8 Conveyance B/Legal Title. The Agency shall not accept the ' Offer for Parcel B until after issuance of a federal 404 Permit for the Restoration Project, but in no event later than three months after completion of all on-site mitigation work required by the 404 Permit to be performed by Developer as mitigation for the housing component of the Restoration Project. If this condition is not met within three years from the conveyance to the Agency of equitable title to Parcel B, Developer shall have the continuing option to terminate the Conveyance, in which case equitable title shall revert to ' Developer. ' 2.4.9 Restriction on Use. The Conveyances shall restrict the uses that can be made of the property transferred to those set forth in the LCP. Developer shall have a power of ' termination that may be exercised at Developer's option if this use restriction is violated. 2.4.10 Recordation of Conveyances. Upon delivery to the Agency, the Agency may submit the Conveyances to the Orange County Recorder for recordation. ' BCDA8-2.DA 032492 1 2.5 Linear Park. Developer shall dedicate approximately 50 acres as ' shown on Exhibit E to City for regional park facilities, for which Developer will receive credit toward all City local parks requirements. , 2.6 Neighborhood and Community Parks. Developer shall dedicate (1) acres for the development of a community park as identified in , Exhibit E and (2) _acres for the development of neighborhood parks as identified in Exhibit E (_ acres park/viewpoint; _ acre park; _ acre park; and _acre park); Each neighborhood and community park site shall be identified upon the appropriate tentative tract map and shall be dedicated upon , recordation of the appropriate final map. 2.6.1 Landscaping and Recreational Improvements. Developer ' shall construct landscape and recreational improvements within each neighborhood park. Developer shall spend a cumulative total (all parks) of no less than $ for those , improvements. Improvements to each neighborhood park shall be completed no later than occupancy of one-half of the residential units within the planning area in which the , park is located. Developer shall receive credit toward any City local parks requirements for the full amount of the cost of these improvements. , 2.6.2 Maintenance of Improvements. As to each park dedicated and improved by Developer, Developer shall be responsible for the maintenance of the park landscaping and improvements for that Park until City accepts dedication of the improvements. City shall accept dedication and assume maintenance responsibilities upon final release of the tract within which the park is located. Maintenance of any park located in a private community shall be the responsibility of ' a homeowner's association for that community. Developer shall receive credit toward any City local parks requirements for the full amount of these maintenance costs. 2.7 Traffic. The Project's EIS/EIR has identified mitigation measures which have been incorporated into the LCP to fully mitigate all traffic and circulation impacts of the Project. In addition to those mitigation measures, Developer shall be responsible for payment of a traffic , impact fee of per incremental trip generated by the Project for city-wide transportation system improvements outside the limits of BCDA8.2.DA , 032492 12 1 the LCP Study Area and identified in 2.8 Sewer and Drainage Improvements. 2.8.1 Sewage Treatment Plant. Developer shall accelerate payment of all sewer annexation fees to allow early ' upgrading of the sewage treatment facility for Sanitation District No. 11 . 2.8.2 Reclaimed Water. Developer shall construct and install the , service and distribution lines for green acres reclaimed water project concurrent with domestic water lines to 1 service the Project. 2.9 Public Safety Facility. 2.9.1 Dedication of Site. Developer shall dedicate a one acre site designated by City along Springdale Street for a Public Safety Facility. Upon acceptance by City of these improvements, Developer shall be eligible for reimbursement pursuant to Section 2.12 below. ' 2.9.2 Paramedic Service. [TO BE DISCUSSED FURTHER. SHOULD BE COVERED BY EIS/EIR.] 2.10 Fees. Taxes. and Assessments. Developer shall pay all fees applicable to the Project which exist under fee programs found in the Existing Land Use Regulations. Except as provided by this Agreement, the rates of such fees shall be the rates in existence on a city-wide basis at the time those fees are normally required to be ' paid to City. Upon payment of any impact fees that are required by this Agreement, Developer shall not be required to pay an additional amount based on those same payments due to a subsequent increase ' in the amount already paid. City shall not, without the prior written consent of Developer, impose any additional fee, tax, or assessment on all or any portion of the Project, whether as a condition to a Development Approval or otherwise, except such fees, taxes, and assessments as are described in or required by this Agreement or the Existing Land Use Regulations. Except as provided by this Agreement, the rates of ' such fees, taxes, and assessments shall be the rates in existence at the time said fees, taxes, and assessments are normally required to be paid to City. ' BCDA8-2.DA 032492 13 2.11 Reimbursement Agreements. Developer and City shall enter into reimbursement agreements providing for the reimbursement to Developer of all costs incurred by Developer for dedication, construction, funding, and maintenance related to all Project improvements to the extent those costs are in excess of Developer's fair share. * This reimbursement requirement applies to those , conditions identified in Exhibit F and to all other public improvement obligations under any applicable Development Approval,Existing Land Use Regulation, or Subsequent Land Use Regulation applicable to the Property under this Agreement. This provision shall be implemented as provided in Exhibit G. 2.12 Approval of Dedication Forms. Instruments conveying all dedications , shall be subject to approval as to form by the City Attorney as required by the City Charter. Those forms attached as Exhibits to , this Agreement have been reviewed and approved by the City Attorney and may be used without further review as to form. 3. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND SCHEDULE. , 3.1 Governino Approvals and Regulations. Except as provided within this , Agreement, the Development Plan and the Existing Land Use Regulations shall exclusively control the development of the Property (including the uses of the Property, the density or intensity of use, , the maximum height and size of proposed buildings, the provisions for reservation or dedication of land for public purposes and the design, improvement, and construction standards and specifications ' applicable to the Project). 3.2 Future Development Approvals. City shall have the right to fully exercise its discretion provided by the LCP in considering whether to approve or issue any Future Development Approval. City shall not withhold, by any means or premise, any Development Approvals, ' either to block construction of or impose conditions on the Project. In exercising its discretion to implement the Development Plan and grant Development Approvals necessary to implement the ' Development Plan, City shall only take action which complies with and is consistent with the Development Plan and this Agreement, unless Developer agrees otherwise. City and Developer will use their , best efforts to ensure that all applications for Development Approvals are sought and processed in a timely manner. 3.3 No Conflicting Enactments. Except as specifically provided within this Agreement or the LCP, no Subsequent Land Use Regulation, BCDAB-2.13A , 032492 14 1 ' Development Approval, or other action of City may be applied to the Property or the Project if it: ' a. Will have the effect of restricting Developer's vested right to develop the Project in such order, at such rate, and at such times as Developer deems appropriate; or b. In any way places restrictions or constraints on the rate, timing, or sequencing of the Project which are not expressly ' contained within the Development Plan; or C. Imposes any requirement, condition, exaction, or other ' restriction on the Project which is not expressly contained within the Development Plan. 3.4 Timing and Phasing of Development. Subject to the phasing requirements and conditions of the LCP, Developer may decide (in its own subjective business analysis) the timing, phasing, rate, and ' sequencing of development of the Project. After the Effective Date, Developer shall use its best efforts to implement the Development Plan as soon as reasonably possible in the exercise of Developer's ' normal business judgment and practices. The Parties acknowledge that Developer cannot at this time predict precisely when or the rate at which phases of the Project will be developed. Developer shall ' have the right, but not the obligation, to develop the various portions of the Project in such order and at such rate and at such time and such number of units as Developer deems appropriate. 3.5 Development Exactions, No Development Exaction or other requirement, restriction, or limitation may be imposed by the City ' upon the Project at any time except those set forth in the Existing Land Use Regulations and this Agreement. "Development Exaction" means any requirement of City for dedication of land, construction or installation of improvements or facilities, or payment of fees, in whatever manner or form imposed, relating to the Project or Developer's right to proceed with all or any portion of the Project. 3.6 Subsequent Land Use Regulations. Except as specifically provided by this Agreement, no Subsequent Land Use Regulations shall apply to ' the Project. 3.7 Amendments to Existing Land Use Regulations. The following rules ' apply to future amendments to the Existing Land Use Regulations: ' BCOA8-2.DA 032492 15 1 3.7.1 Owner's Written Consent. Any change to the Existing Land Use Regulations to which OWNER does not agree in writing shall not apply to the Property or the Project while this Agreement is in effect. 3.7.2 Concurrent Development Agreement Amendment. Any ' amendment to Existing Land Use Regulations requiring amendment of this Agreement. shall be processed concurrently with an amendment to this Agreement. ' 3.7.3 No Development Agreement Amendment Required. An amendment to Existing Land Use Regulations which ' increases the intensity or density of a planning area (but not of the Project as a whole) or changes the permitted uses within a planning area or at a particular site (but not as to 1 the Property as a whole) or otherwise modifies standards applicable to a planning area, but not the Project as a whole, shall be deemed consistent with this Agreement and shall not require an amendment to this Agreement. 3.7.4 Wetlands Restoration Plan. The Parties recognize that the ' Wetlands Restoration and Implementation Programs of the LCP are subject to future changes to accommodate environmental changes, developing technology, the requirements of wetland restorers, and changes in state and federal regulations. Provided that Developer has complied with its obligations to dedicate and restore wetlands to the extent required by this Agreement, no change in any aspect of the LCP's provisions dealing with wetlands restoration will require an amendment to this Agreement. 4. AMENDMENT OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. ' 4.1 Initiation of Amendment. Either Party may propose an amendment to this Agreement. 4.2 Procedure. Except as set forth in Section 4.5 below, the procedure for proposing and adopting an amendment to this Agreement shall be the same as the procedure required for entering into this Agreement in the first instance. 4.3 Consent. Except as expressly provided in this Agreement, any I amendment to this Agreement shall require the consent of both Parties. No amendment to all or any provision of this Agreement ' BCOA8-2.DA 032492 16 shall be effective unless set forth i,) writing and signed by duly ' authorized representatives of each of the Parties. 4.4 Consent of Assignees. Notwithstanding any other provision of this , Agreement, where an assignee of Developer applies for an amendment to this Agreement, the written consent of Developer shall I always be required before City approval of the amendment. Further, an assignee shall not be required or entitled to approve. an amendment to the Agreement. The recordation of this Agreement ' shall serve as notice to all assignees of the provisions of this Section. 4.5 Minor Project Modifications. Implementation of the Project may , demonstrate that changes are appropriate with respect to the details and performance of the Parties under this Agreement. The Parties desire to retain a certain degree of flexibility with respect to those , items covered in general terms under this Agreement. Therefore, non-substantive procedural modifications of this Agreement shall not require compliance with Section 4.2 above. A modification will be ' deemed non-substantive and/or procedural if it does not result in a material change in the Development Plan changing density (e.g., density increases within a planning area are not material unless the ' total number of dwelling units for the entire Project area exceeds 4884, intensity of use, permitted uses, the maximum height and size of buildings, the reservation or dedication of land for public purposes (e.g., the elimination or relocation of a reserved public facility site and the redesignation of the site as residential, without increasing the total number of units allowed within the Project, shall not be a ' material change), or the improvement and construction standards and specifications for the Project. If and when the Parties find that such changes or adjustments are necessary or appropriate to further the intended purposes of this Agreement, they may, unless otherwise required by law, effectuate such changes or adjustments through mutual written agreement or formal action of the City Council with , the written consent of Developer. 4.6 State and Federal Laws and Regulations. Where state or federal laws or regulations enacted after the Approval Date prevent or preclude compliance with one or more provisions of this Agreement, those provisions shall be modified by the mutual consent of the Parties, , through revision or suspension, to the extent necessary to comply with such state or federal laws or regulations and the modified Agreement shall remain in effect, subject to the following: , a. The City shall not request modification of this Agreement SCDA8-2.DA ' 032492 1 r ' pursuant to this provision unless and until the City makes a finding that such modification is required (as opposed to permitted) by state and federal laws or.regulations; ' b. Unless otherwise agreed by the Parties, the modifications must be limited to those required (as opposed to permitted) ' by the state or federal laws; C. The modified Agreement must be consistent with the state ' or federal laws or regulations requiring modification or suspension; ' d. Unless otherwise agreed by the Parties, the intended material benefits of this Agreement must still be received by each of the Parties after modification; e. Neither the modification nor any applicable local, state, or federal laws or regulations may render the modified Agreement impractical to enforce; and f. The Parties shall have the right to seek judicial review of ' any proposed modification to ensure compliance with this Section. 4.7 Uniform Codes. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement to the contrary, Developer shall comply with all adopted ' development and building standards set forth in the Uniform Building Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, National Electrical Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, Uniform Fire Code, and other similar state-mandated ' Uniform Codes in effect at the time development occurs and which would otherwise be applicable to the Project in the absence of this Agreement. ' 4.8 EmergencySituations. This Agreement shall not prevent the City g from adopting Subsequent Land Use Regulations which directly result ' from findings by the City that failure to adopt such regulations would result in a condition injurious or detrimental to the public health and safety. 4.8.1 Application to Project. The City shall apply to the Property or the Project only those Subsequent Land Use Regulations ' adopted under this Section for which the City Council has adopted a resolution, after a duly noticed public hearing, ' BCDAS-2.DA 032492 18 1 setting forth the following findings: ' a. The injurious or detrimental condition can be ' substantially corrected or avoided only if the Subsequent Land Use Regulation is applied to the Property or the Project; and , b. Of all means reasonably known to City which could feasibly correct or avoid the injurious or , detrimental condition, the regulation adopted is the means most reasonably acceptable to Developer. The City shall not adopt any such regulation without first ' seeking Developer's written input regarding Developer's suggested means to avoid the injurious or detrimental ' condition. 4.8.2 Challenge by Developer. Developer shall have the right to challenge the findings of the City Council through an action brought under Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.5. The City Council's findings must be supported by a , preponderance of the evidence and shall be subject to the "independent judgment" standard of review relating to fundamental vested rights. This provision is not intended , to limit the rights or remedies of Developer under this Section or this Agreement. 5. PROCESSING OF DEVELOPMENT APPROVALS. ' 5.1 Applications. City shall accept for processing and review all ' applications for Development Approvals in accordance with Existing Land Use Regulations and this Agreement. City agrees that no ' subsequent or supplemental environmental impact report shall be required for any Development Approval, except as required by the California Environmental Quality Act. , 5.2 Relation to Existing Land Use Regulations. This Agreement is intended, in some instances, to implement and interpret the Existing Land Use Regulations, and particularly the LCP. If, however, the provisions of this Agreement directly con-radict and cannot be reconciled with a provision of the Existing Land Use Regulations, the provisions of the Existing Land Use Regulations, if applicable, shall control. BCDA8-2.OA , 032492 19 5.3 Cooperation in Securing Approvals. City shall cooperate with Developer in its efforts to obtain such permits and approvals as may be required by other governmental or quasi-governmental agencies having jurisdiction over Development of the Project on the Property. Developer will reimburse the City its out-of-pocket costs, if any, occasioned in compliance with this subsection to the extent not ' anticipated or otherwise included in fees paid by Developer. 6. PERIODIC REVIEW OF DEVELOPER'S COMPLIANCE WITH AGREEMENT; DEFAULT: REMEDIES: TERMINATION. ' 6.1 Periodic Review. 6.1 .1 Annual Monitoring Report. The Director of Community Development shall review this Agreement annually, on or before the anniversary of the Effective Date, in order to ascertain the good faith compliance by Developer with the ' terms of the Agreement. Developer shall submit an Annual Monitoring Report thirty (30) days prior to the anniversary date to the Director of Community Development. The ' Annual Monitoring Report shall be in a form reasonably acceptable to the Director of Community Development and shall be accompanied by an annual review and ' administration fee sufficient to defray the costs of review and administration of this Agreement. The amount of the annual review and administration fee shall be set by City but shall not exceed the reasonable costs incurred by City in review and administration of the Agreement. ' 6.1 .2 Procedure for Review of Annual Monitoring Report. Upon completion of a periodic review, the Director of Community Development shall submit a report to the City Council ' setting forth the evidence concerning good faith compliance by Developer with the terms of this Agreement and his or her recommended finding on that issue. If the City Council ' finds on the basis of substantial evidence that Developer has substantially complied in good faith with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the review shall be concluded. If the City Council finds and determines, on the basis of substantial evidence, that Developer has not substantially complied in good faith with the terms and ' conditions of this Agreement for the period under review, the City Council may, at its discretion, proceed to BCDAB-2.DA 032492 20 terminate this Agreement pursuant to the provisions of ' Section 6.1 .3 below or establish a time period for compliance in accordance with the procedures set forth in this Section. , 6.1 .3 Proceedings Upon Finding of Non-Compliance. If, upon a preliminary finding under Section 6.1 .2, the City determines , that Developer is not in substantial good faith compliance with this Agreement and elects to proceed with termination of this Agreement, City shall give written notice to ' Developer of such intention. The notice shall be given at least thirty (30) calendar days prior to the scheduled hearing and shall contain: ' a. The time and place of the hearing; b. A statement that City is considering possible ' termination or modification of the Agreement and the nature of any proposed modification; and ' C. Such other information as is reasonably necessary to inform Developer of the nature of the , proceeding. 6.1 .4 Hearing on Termination. At the time and place set for the ' hearing on termination, Developer shall be given an opportunity to present oral and written testimony. If the City Council finds, based upon a preponderance of the ' evidence, that Developer has not commenced or diligently proceeded to cure such default within the time period set forth ir. Section 6.5, the City Council may terminate this ' Agreement with respect to the portion of the Property as to which the default exists. The decision of the City Council , shall be final on an administrative level. Developer shall have the right to challenge the termination through any and all judicial proceedings authorized by this Agreement and/or the law. , 6.2 Certificate of Compliance. If at the conclusion of a periodic review the City Council finds Developer to be in compliance with this Agreement, City shall, upon request Cry Developer, issue a Certificate of Agreement Compliance to Developer stating that after the most ' recent periodic review and based upon the information known or made known to the Director of Community Development and City BCDAS-2.DA , 032492 21 Council that (1 ) this Agreement remains in effect and (2) Developer is not in default. The Certificate of Compliance shall be in recordable form and shall contain information necessary to communicate constructive record notice of the finding of compliance. Developer may record the certificate with the County Recorder. ' 6.3 Failure to Conduct Annual Review. The failure of the City to conduct the Annual Review shall not be a default of Developer. 6.4 Separate Proceedings in Event of Partial Assignment. Subsequent to any assignment (see Section 1 .7) by Developer of its interest in all or any portion of the Property and at the normal time for the Annual Review, City shall conduct the Annual Review separately with respect to each separate ownership within the Property. To the extent that the City Council finds a particular owner to be in ' compliance with this Agreement with respect to the portion of the Property owned by such owner, City shall issue a separate Certificate of Compliance to such owner in accordance with Section 6.2. 6.5 Defaults: General Provisions. Subject to extensions of time by mutual consent in writing or as set forth in Section 7.20, the material ' failure or delay by a Party to perform any material term or provision of this Agreement shall constitute a default under this Agreement. In the event of an alleged default or breach of any terms or ' conditions of this Agreement, the Party alleging such default or breach shall give the Party allegedly in default not less than thirty (30) days notice in writing specifying the nature of the alleged default and the manner in which said default may be satisfactorily cured. During any such thirty day period, the Party charged shall not be considered in default. If the nature of the default in question is such ' that it cannot reasonably be cured within such thirty day period, the commencement of the cure within such time period and the diligent prosecution to completion of the cure shall be deemed a cure within ' such period. During the cure period, the non-defaulting party shall not be permitted to pursue any administrative, legal, or equitable remedy against the defaulting party except to the extent necessary ' to protect against irreparable injury. The City cannot be held liable for monetary damages in the event that the City defaults or breaches the Agreement. The only remedy against the City is Specific ' Performance. 6.6 Termination. In addition to termination proceedings conducted pursuant to the Annual Review, either Party may terminate this Agreement with respect to any portion of the Property as to which BCDA8-2.DA 032492 22 i a material default exists and is not cured within the time period set ! forth in Section 6.5. Any such termination proceedings by City shall comply with the same procedures as required by this Section 6 for ' Annual Reviews, including all notice and hearing requirements, and shall be reviewable in the same manner as provided for Annual Reviews. , 6.7 Inaction Not a Waiver of Default. Failure or delay in giving notice of a default shall not waive a Party's right to give future notice of the ' same or any other default. Any failure or delay by a Party in asserting any of its rights and remedies as to any default shall not waive that Party's right to assert such rights and remedies as to the same or any other default, nor shall it deprive such Party of its right , to institute and maintain any actions or proceedings which it may deem necessary to protect, assert, or enforce any such rights or remedies. ' 6.8 No Cross-Defaults. A default by an assignee shall not be deemed a default by, grounds for termination against, or cause for an enforcement action against Developer or any other assignee then owning or holding interests in all or any portion of the Property. ' Likewise, a default by Developer shall not be deemed a default by, grounds for termination against, or cause for an enforcement action against any assignee then owning or holding interests in all or any ' portion of the Property. Enforcement proceedings may be brought only against persons or entities actually in default. 6.9 Defaults Affecting Health and Safety. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 6.8, if a default with respect to one portion of the Property prevents development of any other portion of the ' Property from proceeding without posing a material threat to public health or safety (such as would be the case, for example, if the default prevented completion of a water or sewer line needed by the ' other development), City may delay development of the non- defaulting portion of the Property until the threat to public health or safety has been removed. If such a delay occurs, City shall ' cooperate with any non-defaulting owner to minimize the delay and expedite enforcement of City's rights under this Agreement. The non-defaulting owner shall have the option to cure the defaulting owner's default to the extent necessary to eliminate the health and safety threat. Any non-defaulting owner who incurs expenses as a result of eliminating the health and safety problem may pursue all available remedies to recover those costs from the defaulting owner. BCOA8-2.0A ' 032492 23 . 1 i 6.10 Termination in Event of Judicial Invalidation. If the final judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction determines that this Agreement is invalid, then neither City nor Developer shall have any further rights or obligations under this Agreement as of the date the judgment becomes final. A judgment shall not be deemed "final" until all appellate review has been completed or the time for seeking appellate review has passed without any review having been sought. 6.11 Restitution to Developer. In entering into this Agreement, Developer has agreed to dedicate land and/or construct, install, and/or maintain public improvements to an extent greater than Developer's pro rata share. If this Agreement is terminated by City without just cause and 1 Developer is unable to or elects not to compel enforcement of this Agreement through judicial or other means, Developer shall be reimbursed by City for all such improvements actually constructed and City shall reconvey all parkland and open space previously dedicated by Developer in excess of statutory requirements. 7. GENERAL PROVISIONS. 7.1 Indemnification, Defense, Hold Harmless. Developer shall protect, defend, indemnify, and hold and save harmless City, its officers, and employees against all liability, claims, judgments, costs, and demands (collectively, "actions"), however caused, including those resulting from death or injury to Developer's employees and damage to Developer's property, arising directly or indirectly out of the obligations or operations undertaken by Developer with respect to this Agreement. This provision shall apply to those actions arising from the passive concurrent negligence of City, but not those arising from the active concurrent negligence, sole negligence, or the sole willful misconduct of City. Developer will conduct all defense at its sole cost and expense. If Developer is required to defend against any such actions, Developer shall have the right to select counsel and manage that defense. Developer's obligation is conditioned upon City and its employees and elected and appointed officials cooperating in all respects in the defense of any such action. City shall be reimbursed by Developer for all costs or attorney's fees incurred by City in enforcing this obligation. 7.2 Specific Performance Remedy. Due to the size, nature, and scope of the Project, it will not be practical or possible to restore the Property to its pre-existing condition once implementation of this Agreement ' has begun. After such implementation, Developer may be foreclosed from other choices it may have had to utilize the Property and provide BCDAB-2.DA 032492 24 for other benefits. Developer has invested significant time and resources and performed extensive planning and processing of the Project in agreeing to the terms of this Agreement and will be investing even more significant time and resources in implementing the Project in reliance upon the terms of this Agreement. It is not possible to determine the sum of money which would adequately compensate Developer for such efforts. For the above reasons, the Parties agree that damages would not be an adequate remedy if City fails to carry out its obligations under this Agreement. Therefore, specific performance of this Agreement is necessary to compensate Developer if City fails to carry out its obligations under this Agreement. Owner shall be entitled to specific performance in the event of a City default. 7.3 Assignment. 7.3.1 Right to Assign. Developer shall have the right to assign (see Section 1 .7) any or all of its rights, duties, and obligations under this Agreement to any person or entity at any time during the Term. 7.3.2 Developer Relieved of Obligations. Developer shall be relieved of any delegated obligations on the effective date of an assignment, unless Developer is in default under this Agreement at the time of the assignment, in which case the delegation will be effective upon the cure of that default. 7.3.3 Consent of Assignees to Development Agreement !� Amendment. Where an assignee of Developer applies for an amendment to this Agreement, the written consent of Developer shall always be required before City approval of the amendment. Further, an assignee shall not be required or entitled to approve an amendment to the Agreement. The recordation of this Agreement shall serve as notice to all assignees of the provisions of this Section. 7.3.4 Consent of Developer to Development Plan Amendments, Any Development Plan amendment, whether initiated by City or an assignee, to which Developer does not agree in writing shall not apply to the Property or the Project while this Agreement is in effect. 7.4 Encumbrances of the Property; Rights of Mortgagees. Developer, in its sole discretion, may encumber all or any portion of the Property SCOAS-2.DA 032492 25 1 or improvements on the Property with any Mortgage. City acknowledges that Mortgagees may require certain Agreement interpretations and modifications and agrees upon request from time to time, to meet with Developer and representatives of such Mortgagees to negotiate in good faith any such request for interpretation or modification. City will not unreasonably withhold its consent to any such requested interpretation or modification. Any Mortgagee of the Property shall be entitled to the following rights and privileges: 7.4.1 Mortgagee Protection. Neither entering into this Agreement nor any default under this Agreement shall defeat, render invalid, diminish, or impair the lien of Mortgagees having a mortgage on any portion of the Property made in good faith and for value, unless otherwise required by law. No Mortgagee shall have an obligation or duty under this Agreement to perform Developer's obligations, or to guarantee such performance prior to any foreclosure or �l deed in lieu of foreclosure. A Mortgagee who takes title to �f all or a portion of the Property pursuant to its rights under a Mortgage (including, for example, the receipt of a deed in lieu of foreclosure) shall succeed to all rights of Developer under this Agreement, including the right to assign set forth in Section 7.3. 7.4.2 Notice of Default to Mortgagee: Right of Mortgagee to Cure. If the City Clerk timely receives notice from a Mortgagee requesting a copy of any notice of a default given to Developer under the terms of this Agreement, City shall provide a copy of that notice to the Mortgagee within ten (10) days of sending the notice of default to Developer. The Mortgagee shall have the right, but not the obligation, for a period up to ninety (90) days after receiving that notice from the City to commence to cure or remedy the default unless a further extension of time to cure is granted in writing by City. If the default is of a nature which can only be remedied or cured by the Mortgagee upon obtaining possession, the Mortgagee shall diligently seek to obtain possession through foreclosure, the appointment of a receiver, or otherwise, and shall cure the default within thirty (30) days after obtaining possession. If the default, with diligence, cannot be cured within that thirty (30) day period, then the Mortgagee shall have such additional time as may be reasonably necessary to cure the default if the BCDA8-2.DA 032492 26 Mortgagee begins the cure during the initial thirty (30) day period and diligently pursues and completes such cure. 7.4.3 Bankruotcy. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, if any Mortgagee is prohibited from exercising its rights under it Mortgage or this Agreement because it is constrained by bankruptcy or insolvency proceedings involving Developer, the tiries specified in this Section for commencing a cure or commencing or prosecuting foreclosure or other proceedings shall be extended for the period of that constraint. 7.4.4 Disaffirmation. If this Agreement is terminated because of a default or is disaffirmed by a receiver, liquidator, or trustee for Developer or Developer's estate, City, if requested by any Mortgagee, shall enter into a new development agreement for the Project with the most senior Mortgagee requesting such new agreement, for the remainder of the Term, effective as of the date of such (� termination, upon the same terms, provisions, covenants, 1� and agreements contained in this Agreement, and subject to the laws then in effect and the rights, if any, of the Parties or assignees then in possession of any part of the Property, provided: a. The Mortgagee shall make a written request to City for the new development agreement within thirty (30) days after the date of termination; and b. The Mortgagee shall pay to City at the time of the execution and delivery of the new development agreement all expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees, which City has incurred as a result of DevelopE:r's default. 7.4.5 Mortgagee Not Obligated. This Agreement does not require any Mortgagee to enter into a new development agreement pursuant to this Section, to cure any default of Developer, or to perform any of Developer's obligations or other affirmative covenants of Developer under this Agreement. 7.5 No Third Party Beneficiaries. This Agreement is entered into for the sole protection and benefit of City, Developer, and their successors and assigns. No other person shall have any right of action based BCOAa-2.DA 032492 27 upon any provision in this Agreement. 7.6 Term. This Agreement shall become operative and applicable to the Property as follows: 7.6.1 The Effective Date. This Agreement shall be "entered into" by the Parties' signing the Agreement after each of the following events has occurred: a. The Adopting Ordinance has become effective; b. The LCP has been certified by the California Coastal Commission in form and substance approved by both the City Council and, in writing, by Developer; and C. The annexation of all portions of the Pro perty to the City is both complete and effective. The "Effective Date" (as that term is used throughout this Agreement), shall be the first day on which each of those events is complete. 7.6.2 Base Term. The term of this Agreement (the "Term") shall commence on the Effective Date and shall continue for twenty-five (25) years, terminating at the end of the day preceding the twenty-fifth anniversary of the Effective Date, subject to specific extension and termination provisions of this Agreement. Extensions are cumulative and can occur in any sequence. 7.6.3 Extensions for Delay. The Term shall be extended for delays arising from the following events, for a time equal to the duration of each delay which occurs during the Term: a. Litigation related to the Existing Land Use Regulations or Development Approvals or any litigation having the actual effect of delaying implementation of the Project; b. Any amount of time after the Effective Date resulting from the processing (whether ultimately approved or rejected) of any permit or entitlement from any state or federal agency, division, BCDA8-2.oA 032492 28 department, or similar entity which is necessary , to implement all or any pa:t of the LCP; C. Any delay resulting from the acts or omissions of City or any other governmental agency or public utility and beyond the reasonable control of Developer; d. The "enforced delay" events set forth in Section 7.20 of this Agreement; and e. A delay resulting from a default of City under this Agreement. 7.7 Termination. This Agreement shall terminate and be of no force and effect: 7.7.1 End of Term. At the end of the Term, including all extensions allowed by this Agreement; Completion of Project. If not already terminated for any other reason, upon completion of the Project and the issuance of all occupancy permits and acceptance by City of all dedications and improvements as required by the Development Plan; 7.7.2 Individual Lots. Units, or Parcels. As to individual lots, units, or parcels, where this Agreement provides for the release of those lots, units, or parcels. Any termination shall be effective without the execution or recordation of any further document or instrument. Upon termination, the Property no longer subject to this Agreement. At that time, the Parties shall cooperate and execute any document reasonably requested by the other Party to remove this Agreement from the title records of the Property or any applicable portion of the Property. Termination of this Agreement shall not result in a termination of any Development Approvals applicable to the all or any portion of the Property. 7.8 Sljbdiyision Maps. ecoas-z.0A 032492 29 7.8.1 Vesting Tentative Subdivision Maps. Because of the level of Project detail provided by the LCP, Developer may apply for and receive vesting tentative subdivision maps for the Project without compliance with the City's standard vesting tentative tract map requirements. Developer's application for vesting tentative subdivision maps shall comply with the City's requirements for ordinary subdivision maps, but shall indicate "Vesting" on the face of the map. The adoption by the City of the Adopting Ordinance shall be deemed an amendment of the City's existing subdivision ordinance to permit the processing of vesting subdivision maps for the Project as set forth in this Section. 7.8.2 Extension of Vesting Maps. To the extent permitted by law, City shall extend through the Term (pursuant to j Government Code Section 66452.6) all Vesting Tentative Subdivision Maps applied for by Developer and approved by City in the future. 7.8.3 Phased Final Maps. As many as thirty phased final maps may be filed for each tentative tract map approved for the Project. 7.9 Annexation to City. The Parties anticipate that the county portion of the Property will be annexed into the City in the future. City agrees to initiate proceedings under the Cortese-Knox Government Reorganization Act of 1985 for the annexation of the Property and to take all reasonable actions required of it to complete the annexation under such conditions as are imposed by the Local Agency Formation Commission and reasonably acceptable to Developer. This Agreement will not be operative until the annexation proceedings are completed, and if the annexation is not completed within ten (10) years of the Effective Date, this Agreement shall be null and void without further action by either Party. 7.10 Provision of Services. After annexation of the Property and upon Developer's request, City will provide, or cause to be provided, sewer, solid waste disposal, drainage, flood control, water, electrical, street, police, fire, and similar infrastructure and municipal support capacities sufficient to serve the needs of the Project, provided that Developer performs all acts required by the Development Plan and this Agreement with respect to the construction, enhancement, or implementation of improvements necessary to deliver these services. BCDA8-2.DA 032492 30 7.11 Financing Distr'cts. The LCP and this Agreement impose very substantial financial obligations upon Developer to construct and/or contribute to the construction of the public improvements and infrastructure,including improvements and infrastructure identified on Exhibits E and F. In most instances, these improvements are to be provided by Developer well in advance of the completion of the ' private income-producing components of the Project which should provide the economic return sufficient to justify the initial substantial investment in these improvements. Because of this substantial "up front' financial obligation, Developer, in all likelihood, will not be able to implement the Project unless City approves the formation of Financing Districts sufficient to provide funding for these improvements. Therefore, subject to all statutory requirements, all public improvements and infrastructure required to implement the Project may be constructed, acquired, and maintained through the formation and operation of Financing Districts. With the understanding that City has not reviewed or received any information concerning any Financing Districts proposed for the Project and has not reached any conclusion on the desirability or feasibility of their implementation, the Parties agree to work in good faith toward establishing Financing Districts to implement the Project and to agree on all matters related to Financing District formation and bond issuance, including: selection of legal, financial, and administrative consultants and bond underwriters, type of Financing District to be formed, financing structure, and other related legal, financial, and administrative matters. If, in Developer's sole business judgment, Financing Districts are not established which are sufficient to implement the Project in a manner which is economically viable to DeVOOper, Developer may terminate this Development Agreement and the obligations of both Parties shall cease at the time of termination, including all dedication requirements. 7.12 Covenants Run with the Land. The provisions of this Agreement j shall constitute covenants which shall run with the Property and, except as expressly stated in this Agreement, the benefits and burdens of this Agreement shall bind and inure to the benefit of the successors and assigns of the Parties. 7.13 Project as a Private Undertaking, The Project is a private development. Neither Party is acting as the agent of the other with _ BCOA8-2.OA 032492 31 respect to any aspect of the Project, except as may be expressly stated in a written document between the Parties. Each Party is an independent contractor with respect to the terms, covenants, and conditions of this Agreement. No partnership, joint venture, or other association of any kind is formed by this Agreement. The only relationship between City and Developer is that of a government entity regulating the development of private property and the owner of such private property. 7.14 Consent. Except as expressly set forth within this Agreement, where the consent or approval of a Party is required or necessary under this Agreement, such consent or approval shall not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned, or delayed. 7.15 Cooperation; Execution of Documents: Estoppel Certificates, 7.15.1 Necessary -Documents. Each Party shall execute and deliver to the other all instruments and documents necessary to carry out the intent of, fulfill the provisions of, or evidence or consummate the transactions contemplated by this Agreement. 7.15.2 Estoppel Certificate. Either Party may at any time deliver written notice to the other Party requesting an estoppel certificate (the "Estoppel Certificate") stating: a. The Agreement is in full force and effect and is a binding obligation to the Parties; b. The Agreement has not been amended or modified either orally or in writing or, if so amended, identifying the amendments; and C. No default in the performance of the requesting Party's obligations under the Agreement exists or, if a default does exist, the nature and amount of any default. The Party receiving a request for an Estoppel Certificate shall provide the signed Estoppel Certificate to the requesting party within 30 days after receipt of the request. The Community Development Director may sign Estoppel Certificates on behalf of the City. An Estoppel Certificate may be relied on by assignees and mortgagees. The BCDA8-2.DA 032492 32 Estoppel Certificate shall be substantially in the same form as Exhibit H. 7.16 Cooperation in the Event of Legal Challenge. In the event of any legal action instituted by any third party, including any other governmental entity or official, challenging the validity or enforceability of any provision of this Agreement, or any Development Approval granted pursuant to this Agreement, or any other action by either Party related to this Agreement, the Parties shall cooperate ful'y with each other in defending against that action. 1 7.17 Amendment of Development Agreement. This Agreement may be amended from time to time by mutual consent of City and Developer in accordance with the provisions of Government Code Sections 65867, 65867.5, and 65868, including any applicable requirements for notice and public hearing. ` 7.18 Initiative Measures. The Parties intend that this Agreement is a legally binding contract which will supersede any initiative, measure, moratorium, referendum, statute, ordinance, or other limitation enacted in the future. Any such enactment (whether relating to the rate, timing, or sequencing of the development or construction of all or any part of the Project) which affects, restricts, impairs, delays, conditions, or otherwise impacts the implementation of the Development Plan (including the issuance of all necessary Development Approvals for the Project) in any way contrary to the terms and intent of this Agreement shall not apply to the Project. 7.19 Waivers. All waivers of the provisions of this Agreement shall be in writing and signed by the authorized representatives of the Party granting the waiver. 7.20 Enforced Delay; Extension of Times for Performance. The Term and the time within which either Party shall be required to perform any act under this Development Agreement shall be extended by a period of time equal to the number of days during which performance of such act is delayed unavoidably by war, insurrection, strikes, walk- outs, lock-outs, riots, floods, earthquakes, fires, and other acts of , nature, oil spills, casualties, unavailability of materials, governmental restrictions imposed or mandated by governmental entities, including initiative, referenda, and moratoria, suspension of rights in accordance with the existence of unforseen circumstances, litigation, or any other cause beyond the reasonable control of party seeking the extension. If written notice of such delay is given to the other BCDAB-2.DA 032492 33 Party within thirty (30) days after such delay begins, an extension of time for performance shall be granted in writing for the period of the delay or a longer period to which the Parties agree. 7.21 Severability. If any non-material provision of this Agreement is found by a court to be invalid, void, or illegal, it shall in no way effect, impair, or invalidate any other provision of this Agreement. If any material part of this Agreement is found by a court to be invalid, void, or illegal, the Parties shall cooperate to take any reasonable steps available to modify the Agreement to implement the original intent of the Parties. These steps may include the waiver by either of the Parties of their right under the unenforceable provision. If �- however, this Agreement objectively cannot be modified to implement the original intent of the Parties and the Party substantially benefitted by the material provision does not waive its rights under the unenforceable provision, the entire Agreement shall become void. For the purposes of this Section, the "material" provisions of this Agreement include all provisions of Section 3. If any provision of Section 3 is invalidated, Developer shall have the option to waive the invalidated provision and that provision shall be deemed severed from this Agreement. 7.22 Notices. Any notice required by or given pursuant to this Agreement shall be in writing, and may be given either personally or by certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested. A notice shall be effective on the date delivered in person or, if delivered by certified mail, on the date when the postal authorities indicate that the mailing is delivered to the address of the receiving party. Such notices or communications shall be given to the Parties at their addresses set forth below: If to City: City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Attn: Community Development Dept. Director of Community Development Copy to: City Attorney City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 BCOAS-2.0A 032492 34 If to Developer: The Koll Company , Managing Agent for Signal Bolsa Corporation 4343 Von Karman Avenue Newport Beach, CA 92660-2083 Attention: Lucetta Dunn Copy to: Tim Paone Paone, Callahan, McHolm & Winton 19100 Von Karman Avenue, 8th Floor Post Office Box 19613 Irvine, CA 92713-9613 The addresses to which. notices shall be sent may be changed by giving notice to a new address. 7.23 Interpretation and Governing Law. This Agreement and any dispute relating to this Agreement shall be governed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of-the State of California. This Agreement shall be construed as a whole according to its fair language and common meaning to achieve the objectives and purposes of the Parties. The rule of construction to the effect that ambiguities are to be resolved against the drafting Party shall not be employed in interpreting this Agreement because all Parties were represented by counsel in the negotiation and preparation of this Agreement. 7.24 Attorney's Fees. In any judicial proceeding between the Parties regarding this Agreement, the prevailing Party shall be entitled to recover its attorney's fees and costs. 7.25 Compliance with City Procedures. Developer will observe City's ' building and safety, insurance, indemnity and other requirements in construction of facilities to be furnished City under this Agreement. Developer will comply with generally accepted procurement safeguards and requirements applicable to public works contracts. 7.26 Authority to Execute. 7.26.1 City Authority. By signing this Agreement, the City confirms and acknowledges that City, acting through its City Council and the City Planning Commission, have complied in full with the requirements of Section 65867 of the Government Code for public hearings and the giving of notice of intention to consider adoption of this Agreement, BCDAB-2.DA 032492 35 and that this Agreement has been approved by ordinance as required by Section 65867.5 of the Government Code. City warrants and represents that City has given all notices, held all hearings, and complied with all other procedures required to.make this a valid agreement. 7.26.2 Developer Authority. The persons executing this Agreement on behalf of Developer warrant and represent that they have the authority to execute this Agreement and represent that they have the authority to bind Developer to the performance of its obligations under this Agreement. 7.27 Signing and Recordation. Within ten (10) days after the Effective Date, the City Clerk shall cause a copy of this Agreement to be signed by City and, within ten (10) days after that signing, recorded in the Official Records of Orange County. The signing and recordation of this Agreement is deemed a ministerial act and the failure of the City to sign and record the Agreement as required by this Section does not make the Agreement void or ineffective. 7.28 Entire Agreement. This Agreement sets forth the entire agreement of the Parties regarding the subject matter of this Agreement. There are no oral or written representations, understandings, or ancillary covenants, undertakings, or agreements which are not contained or expressly referred to within this Agreement. No testimony or evidence of any such representations, understandings, or covenants shall be admissible in any proceeding of any kind or nature to interpret or determine the terms or conditions of this Agreement. 8. LIST OF EXHIBITS. The following Exhibits are attached to and incorporated within this Agreement: Exhibit A: Legal Description of the Property Exhibit B: Site Map Exhibit C: Parcels A and B Exhibit D: Offers A and B Exhibit E: Park Dedications ' Exhibit F: Other Dedications and Improvements BCDA8.2.DA 032492 36 32 vows m >w ®®om% h% T��InTTC'�-�Ilri 1C® T E�TIECHIe11CAL INP Ts� � gkAno a•a,, aye�s� .w S ARM- 2 t Q� Ir m zam z w w 12 2 u mU�-- W w Z� WQ (92 zZ 2� W Z 60 J i wow Nola w slow* m m W III W rlli M r11 " M M M GEOTECHNICAL I14PUTS TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE 1 .0 Introduction 1 1.1 Geotechnical Considerations in Planning 1 1.2 Purpose of Study 1 1. 3 Scope of Study 2 1.4 Methodology 2 1.5 Limitations 2 2.0 The Geologic Setting 4 2.1 Regional Geologic Setting 4 2.2 Regional Geologic Structure 6 2. 3 Regional Seismicity 7 2.4 Local Geology 10 2.5 Local Seismicity 11 3.0 Geologic Problems 19 3.1 Fault Displacement 19 3.2 Earthquake Shaking 20 3. 3 Liquefaction, Lurching and Differential Compaction 28 3.4 Tsunamis and Seiches 32 3.5 Peat and Organic Soil Deposits 37 3.6 Expansive Clays 37 3. 7 Beach Erosion 38 3.8 Land Subsidence 33 3. 9 Groundwater 39 4. 0 Geotechnical Considerations for Land Use Planning 42 4.1 Land Use Capability Analysis 42 4.2 Recommended Geologic Considerations 46 5.0 The Seismic-Safety Element 52 5.1 Safety Legislation 52 5.2 CIR Guidelines 55 6.3 Methodology 59 6. G Appendix A Glossary of Terms 60 B Selected References 64 C Aerial Photographs 69 r 00 U � 00 O c SECTION 1 . 0 INTRODUCTION 1 . 1 Geotechnical Considerations in Planning One of the great challenges that faces modern man is to properly balance his use of the land with the forces of nature. The rapid urbanization of Soutern California has not always allowed for full consideration of natural forces within the context of land use planning. Although geologic forces are part of what must be taken into consideration, geology and its application to urbanized areas are important to maintaining this balance. 1 The geologic forces that are continually in the process of change move so slowly that man is barely able to detect them. Consequent- ly , they go unnoticed until some significant geologic event, such as an earthquake, occurs . An example was the San Fernando earthquake of February 1971 . Although not as powerful an earthquake as others of recent history, it was particularly significant because of its close proximity to the Los Angeles metropolitan area and the resultant damage that occurred. While it is only recently that urban geology has been recognized as having significant impact on the long range planning process , its basic principles are known and able to be applied to compre- hensive planning. t1 . 2 Purpose of the Study This study was contracted for by the City of Huntington Beach with the firm of Leighton-Yen and Associates to provide the Planning Department with technical geologic data for use in the General Plan program. Although primarily directed towards the Seismic Safety Element, the results of the study significantly affect the Open Space and Conservation and Land Use Elements . 1 . t \< WOMM _ w"M w Y a C. t vluslt v0. SLATER > f - -- -:� _ .. _ rA„e, ,7 -r s GARFIELD � s rwcroww f I. "DAMS MIANAPOILIS / < F t c Y.\ 4.(- ATIAwrA s f.. ' Wurow rs� - f I Figure 1-1 PLANNING AREA huntington beach planning department �' 3. N C)) c N N .O O MIR m tm m rr mw 4m =k m m m on ,o `rm mo on am +r m 1 SECTION 2. 0 THE GEOLOGIC SETTING 2. 1 Regional Geologic Setting The City of Huntington Beach lies very near the northern end of one of the major geomorphic provinces of coastal southern California: the Peninsular Range Province. (Refer to Figure 2 -1 Regional Setting) The onshore portion of the Peninsular Range Province consists of elongated, northwesterly-trending mountains and valleys that extend over 900 miles from near the base of the Santa Monica Mountains to the southern tip of Baja, California. A considerable portion of the Province, termed the Continental Borderland, actually lies submerged beneath the Pacific Ocean. The Los Angeles Basin is the northernmost physiographic unit within the onshore portion of the Peninsular Range Province. It is a gently-sloping coastal lowland 50 miles long by 20 miles wide. The present, relatively flat floor of the Basin is interrupted in places by lines of low hills . The Basin is bounded on one side by the Pacific Ocean and on the others by steep mountain ranges . On the southeast side it terminates against the San Joaquin Hills in the vicinity of Newport Beach, California. The Los Angeles Basin has been the site of almost continuous marine deposition of sediments from mid-Miocene time (15 to 20 million years ago) until about the beginning of late Pleistocene time (approximately 400,000 years ago) . A total of over 30,000 feet of sediment has been deposited over the older crystalline basement 4 . ue• TRANSVERSE Ag WfE P .g CE , M 4-4;it TER N t �1 Eq. Wills �e M•11'ce cos A n'el �s -�N - "t7�'`'''m� PEN LA 'R �NGE* fp _ . I1w�n Hilly ( 11j',,,1u„I, �.n�'�'��` y� .�� ��: '•� � Hide F ��! Hills qI A171 e� v Deeu v Ht � �� �'�J"rV••• ' e.s �i111 •t1 /� .�� 111 it f; O O ••0 S ,n If Moy P41.6 ,. a 1r c� ,�• n�c��s ✓clla6 Hills%s !N l.on9vrr "1 163 Jilt' Hill a Ghrca. P9 \C H�n1ie fie... � =r7cf.. F9 i Ncwp ;•ti ��� Sfruciura 1 s r 5 1 M Figure 2- 1 REGIONAL SETTING huntington beach planning department 5. rocks in the deepest portion of the Basin. near the confluence of the Los Angeles River and Rio Hondo . Three major streams - the Los Angeles , San Gabriel and Santa Ana Rivers - all with few major tributaries head in the surrounding mountain ranges and drain southwestward across the Basin to the Pacific Ocean. Although surface flow near the mouths of these streams is common only during the winter months , they are associated with infrequent flooding. The City of Huntington Beach is located on the coast between the mouths of the San Gabriel and the Santa Ana Rivers near the southeast margin of the Los Angeles Basin. Bedrock beneath the City is similar in its general character to the surrounding bedrock of the Basin, consisting of from 8 , 000 to 16,000 feet of Cretaceous (135, 000,000 years ago) to Recent (12, 000 years ago) sediments overlying a pre-Late Cretaceous basement complex of metamorphic and igneous rocks . If the bedrock beneath the City is common to that of the surrounding area, the manner and degree to which this bedrock has been broken and deformed is not , as discussed in the next section. 2. 2 Regional Geologic Structure The northern onshore end of the Peninsular Range Province, in the vicinity of the Los Angeles Basin, is broken into three major crustal blocks by two northwest-trending active "basement" fault systems : the Newport-Inglewood and the Whittier-Elsinore. (Refer to Figure 2 -1 Regional Setting) Movement on these basement faults has been continuing sporadically ' approximately since the Middle Miocene and is one of the chief factors responsible for the formation of the large structural depression also referred to as the Los Angeles Basin. It is the continued downwarping of the Basin, in combination with uplift in the adjacent mountains , that has resulted in deposition of the great thickness of sediments referred to in the previous section of this report . Net earth movement due to faulting on both the Whittier-Elsinore and Newport- Inglewood Fault Systems tends to be right-lateral strike-slip in nature (that is : overall movement occurs primarily in a horizontal plane with the northeast sides of the faults moving south and the southwest sides moving north) . Horizontal displacement on the Newport-Inglewood Zone since the Mid-Miocene possibly totals six miles . The City of Huntington Beach is located directly astride the Newport-Inglewood Structural Zone (refer to Figure 2-1 Regional Setting) . Newport-Inglewood Structural Zone is a term used by earth scientists to describe the elongated zone of uplifted and 6 . complexly deformed sequence of sedimentary rocks in the Los Angeles coastal area that overlies a "master" fault in the crystalline basement complex at depth. The Newport-Inglewood Structural Zone extends from the Santa Monica Mountains at least as far as offshore Laguna Beach and possibly considerably further south (Richter, 1970 ; DWR, 1964 ; Emery, 1960) . In the Los Angeles Basin the zone is marked by a line of low hills and mesas as shown in Figure 2-1 Additional information concerning the characteristics of the zone is presented in Section 2. 5, Local Seismicity. 2. 3 Regional Seismicity 0 For the purpose of the present discussion, it is significant to note that the Newport- Inglewood Structural Zone is associated with both active faulting and historical earthquakes of moderate magni- tude. The relation between faulting and earthquakes has been illustrated several times by damage to oil wells , presumably due to subsurface faulting, during minor earthquakes . (Barrows , 1973; Hamilton, 1971) . Figure 2-2 indicates characteristics of some of the more significant earthquakes known to be associated with the Newport-Inglewood Structural Zone, beginning with the 1920 event, which was the first earthquake definitely attributed to the Zone (Taber, 1920; Richter, 1970) . Epicenters are indicated in Figure 2-6 . Huntington Beach lies at the southerly onshore end of the Newport- Inglewood Structural Zone in an area where the Zone apparently undergoes a transition from being a relatively narrow zone of one or two active faults to a fault zone ten times as wide, containing at least three active faults and a large number of faults tentatively classified here as "potentially active" (discussed further in Section 3. 0) . Although probably undergoing a geologically rapid evolution with regard to its tectonic conditions , within the next 100 years this structural zone can be expected to exhibit appre- ciably the same mode and level of activity as evidenced by the historic, geologic and seismic records (Harding, 1973; Bandy, 1973) . Other faults of regional significance to the City are the Palos Verdes Hills Fault, the Norwalk Fault, the Whittier Fault, the Santa Monica-Raymond Hill Faults , the Sierra Madre Fault, the San Andreas Fault, and, to a lesser extent, the San Jacinto Fault. The latter three faults have been associated with historic earth- quakes where there has been surface rupture due to faulting. The other faults and the Newport- Inglewood System as well , have not been associated with surface rupture. Yet they evidence varying degrees of on-going seismic activity and geologic evidence of recent 7. FIGURE 2-2 haracteristics of some significant earthquakes associated with the ewport-Inglewood structural zone, excluding aftershocks . (Barrows, 973; Wood, 1966; DWR, 1964 and 1967) . SUMMARY OF DIRECTLY MAGNITUDE APPROXIMATE LOCATION ASSOCIATED DATE (RICHTER) OF EPICENTER DAMAGE/INJURY June 21, 1920 4. 9 Inglewood, California Numerous building (Inglewood (estimated) failures and severe arthquake) structural damage to poorly built struc- tures in localized epicentral area. Sev- eral people injured, 1 killed. 4arch 10 , 1933 6. 3 3. 5 miles offshore of Numerous building (Long Beach Newport Beach, Calif. failures , including Earthquake) schools . Bridges , roads , utilities damaged. Damage in excess of $40 million. 120 people killed, hundreds injured. Quake felt over 100,000 sq. mi . area. 4th most destructive earthquake in United States history. October 2 , 1933 5. 4 Signal Hill , near Los Considerable minor (Signal Hill Alamitos , California damage. Earthquake) December 27 , 1939 4. 5 Huntington Park - Long Minor damage to struc- Beach area, California tures and street lights . October 21, 1941 5. 0 Long Beach, California Damage in West Domin- guez oil field. Minor damage to structures , especially in Gardena area. $10,000 damage in Gardena. 8 . 1 November 14, 1941 5. 4 Long Beach, California 50 buildings severely damaged. Power fail- ures , damage to pipe- , lines , storage tanks , 2 schools condemned because of structural damage . Approximately $1 million damage. June 18 , 1944 4. 5, 4. 4 Dominguez Gap Area, Minor property damage. near Compton, Calif,. October 27, 1969 4. 5 1 . 5 miles offshore of Extent and type of Laguna Beach, Calif., damage, if any, (Most southerly earth- unknown. quake attributed to N-I Zone) . None of the latter faults have been n associated with earthquakes approaching the magnitude of the 1933 Long Beach Earthquake which occurred on the Newport-Inglewood System and had a Richter Magnitude of 6. 3. Although the Sierra Madre Fault System has been associated with moderate-sized earthquakes (Mag. between 5 . 0 and 7. 0) and the San Jacinto and San Andreas Fault Systems with major earthquakes (Magnitude greater than 7. 0) , the effect of considerable distance mitigates their influence on the City of Huntington Beach. Additional details on the characteris- tics of the above mentioned fault zones are presented in Section 3. 0 . 2 . 4 Local Geology The location and activity of the Newport-Inglewood Structural Zone throughout the recent geologic past has been one of the dominant controlling factors in the evolution of almost every aspect of the geologic environment in the City of Huntington Beach. Its influence has been prominent in the following areas : (1) local seismicity and earthquake hazards, (2) local bedrock deformation and petroleum accumulation, (3) distribution of earth units , (4) groundwater conditions , and (5) landform evolution. For a discussion of the implications of the presence of the Newport- Inglewood Structural Zone on local seismicity and earthquake hazards , see Re ional Seismicity, Earthquake Shaking, Fault Displacement and Liquefaction. Primarily as a result of the intensive petroleum exploration effort within the City, subsurface geologic conditions are well known in their general aspects down to depths of about 10,000 feet. Structurally, the sedimentary bedrock beneath the City can be divided into three different regions : (1) a relatively simple faulted offshore anticline (see Glossary of Terms) , (2) a complexly folded and faulted central portion (the Newport-Inglewood Structural Zone) , and (3) a relatively undeformed northeasterly-dipping flank on the northeast side of the Newport-Inglewood Structural Zone. Recent deposits (those deposited within approximately the last 15,000 years) have been only slightly disturbed by faulting and folding. The North Branch Fault appears to give the clearest evidence of recent faulting based on information obtained from water wells in the Bolsa and Santa Ana Gaps . The faults exhibiting the next best evidence are the Bolsa-Fairview and South Branch Faults . 10 . The recent geologic history of the Huntingtoni Beach area is rather complicated and a brief summary follows , based partially on a discussion in California Department of Water Resources Bulletin 63-2 (1968) . During late Pleistocene (Wisconsin) time , base level of all streams in the area was lowered due to withdrawal and "storage" of vast amounts of water in the form of ice in the continental ice sheets . This resulteE in renewed stream erosion, with the Santa Ana River cutting through the deposits being gradually uplifted along the Newport- Inglewood Structural Zone, thus forming the mesas and gaps (refer to Figure 2-3 Fault and Geologic Conditions) . At the end of the Wisconsin glaciation about 15 ,000 years ago , sea level began to rise rapidly and coarse-grained stream channel sediments filled the gaps to a considerable extent. The rapid rise in sea level abated approximately 9,000 years ago and the local stream regimen probably came to resemble today' s , resulting in the deposition of fine-grained floodplain deposits over the coarser alluvium. It is within the last 9 ,000 years that the Santa Ana River abandoned its previous courses (i.e. , through Bolsa Gap) and became established close to its present location in the Santa Ana Gap. The fine-grained floodplain deposits form the uppermost "confining layer" (further discussed in Section 3. 9 Groundwater) above the fresh water-bearing sediments , as well as the present ground surface in the gaps . During this period of deposition, peat deposits formed in the gaps where dense, water-loving vegeta- tion became permanently established around gravity and artesian springs . Also during this period, a barrier beach formed, shelter- ing the inland lagoons and tidal marshes in which fine sand, silt , clay and organic muck were deposited. Details concerning the composition and structure of rock formations and other characteristics of earth units in the Huntington Beach area are presented in Figure 2-3 Fault and Geologic Conditions and Figure 2-4 Characteristics of Near-Surface Earth Units . 2. 5 Local Seismicity A considerable amount of investigation has been conducted by various agencies with regard to understanding the basic nature of the Newport-Inglewood Structural Zone. Laboratory, seismic, subsurface and surface investigations have led to the classification of the zone as an area of "wrench faulting" or "wrench tectonics". A wrench fault system in a geologically youthful stage of development is characterized by a relatively wide fault zone (commonly greater than one mile in width) with individual faults presenting a highly complex pattern of distribution and activity. One key feature of a "youthful" wrench fault system is the lack of any one, continuous , through-going fault on which all displacement and activity may be 11 . man es = M = M i M M W M M M M M M M FIGURE 2-4 CHARACTERISTICS OF NEAR-SURFACE EARTH UNITS CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH General Spatial General Significant Engineering Age Earth Units Relationships Characteristics Geology Properties Beach and Narrow barrier beach Loose , unconsolidated, Subject to rapid erosion, Dune Sand along coast extending fine to coarse-grained transportation $ deposit- up to 10001+ inland sands . Saline ground- ion by longshore currents from shoreline, water at shallow depth and waves, especially and subject to tidal during storms. Highly fluctuations , about permeable. cil 30 ' thick. F" Recent Primarily intermixed Unconsolidated channel Channel deposits form w Alluvial $ stream channel and deposits composed of important freshwater aTidal Marsh floodplain deposits generally coarse- aquifer confined by Deposits with minor tidal and grained sands & overlying relatively lagoonal marsh gravels . Floodplain impermeable floodplain deposits in Santa Ana deposits composed of and tidal deposits. Gap. Primarily flood- fine-grained sands & Shallow aquifer subject plain deposits with silts with numerous to man-caused water- extensive areas of layers of peat. quality degradation. lagoonal and tidal Lagoonal & tidal Peat lenses compressible marsh deposits in marsh deposits of under moderate static Bolsa and Sunset Gaps . silty clays and loads . Shallow ground- clayey silts are water near coast . mixed with signifi- cant amounts of fir# t organic mud (muck) . . About 12S ' thick. �A� '1.► �I�IM�II�", N General Spatial General Significant Engineering Age Earth Units Relationships Characteristics Geology Properties Older At surface in Newport , Unconsolidated to Permeable coarse-grained z Alluvial Huntington Beach and partially consolidated layers (aquifers) serve Deposits Bolsa Chica Mesas , interlayered fine-and as important source of H o (Lakewood beneath recent coarse-grained sedi- fresh groundwater land- Q u) Formation) alluvial deposits ments . Marine & non- ward of Newport- Inglewood northeast of North marine silt-clay Structural Zone. Saline a Branch Fault in layers 25 ' to 75 ' water predominates on Bolsa Gap and north- thick in Bolsa Gap. seaward side. Shallow east of Adams Avenue Sand-gravel layers aquifers subject to in Santa Ana Gap . 50 ' to 100' thick in contamination from human Bolsa Gap. Maximum activities . Source of thickness in north sand and gravel in Huntington Beach Huntington Beach Mesa. approximately 4001 . Contains numerous sea- shell middens of arch- w eologic interest. z w Marine Limited surface expos- Unconsolidated to Permeable sandy layers a H Deposits ure in a few localities partially consolidated serve as important source i x (San Pedro around margins of deposits : Predominant- of fresh water (aquifers) Formation) Newport $ Huntington ly sandy with silt and over entire area. uaa Beach Mesas . Buried silty clay interlayers. Partially protected from p" beneath recent and About 240' thick along saline water contamination older alluvial crest of Newport- by overlying and inter- deposits in gaps and Inglewood Structural layered fine-grained, mesas. Zone. Thickens to impermeable sediments and north and south. various faults. Maximum thickness over 1000' near Santa Ana. w ar :r rr w rr� r a General Spatial General Significant Engineering Age Earth Units Relationships Characteristics Geology Properties Older Not exposed on land Partially consolidated Upper portion of formation w Marine within the City bound- predominantly fine- contains permeable beds z Deposits aries . Present at grained sediments . with fresh ground water. H U (Fernando depth everywhere with- About 1000 ' thick in Relatively minor oil a Formation - in onshore portion of area of Santa Ana production when compared a formerly City (within 300 ' of Gap . with deeper Early Pliocene a' "Pico" surface near Hamilton and Miocene units . Formation) Street) . Present (and possibly locally exposed) beneath ocean in offshore portion of City. i y L• F- expected to cccur (such as with the well-known San Andreas Fault) . Rather, stress relief is accomplished by correspondingly smaller movement on any number of the relatively short , discontinuous and "intertwined" faults characteristic of wrench fault systems . The term "Newport- Inglewood Structural Zone"' applies to the complex elongated zone of folds and faults present in the sedimentary bedrock beneath the Los Angeles-Orange County coastal plain. The localization of the structural zone in this area is thought to be due to the presence of a master fault in the crystalline basement rock that underlies the sedimentary bedrock of the Los Angeles Basin. Movement on this master fault has placed continuing stress on the overlying sedimentary bedrock, which has responded by folding and rupturing in the complex "wrench" pattern discussed above. A simplified cross section, not to scale) is indicated in Figure 2-5 to illustrate one basic interpretation of the geologic data in this area. This complex pattern of folding, faulting, and uplift as briefly described above has developed because of the inherent weakness (geologically incompetent) of the sedimentary rock sequence. This rock sequence has been able to absorb, within recent historic times , the stress placed upon it by internal adjustment (folding and faulting) at depth. Stress has apparently not accumulated to the point where stress relief by surface faulting, as well as by faulting and folding at depth, has occurred. It is the opinion of Leighton-Yen and Associates , and that of numerous other geologists , that a point in time will be reached when earthquake-related stress relief will be accomplished by surface rupture on one and probably several of the surface faults within the Newport- Inglewood Zone. The City of Huntington Beach lies within the segment of the Newport-Inglewood trend wherein this surface rupture is expected. Because of the large number of faults and folds within the zone, surface displacement on any one fault is anticipated to be minor, probably a matter of inches , though possibly greater than one foot in some areas . Displacement is expected to be complex and variable in nature, being combina- tions of different senses of dip and strike-slip. Overall displace- ment across the width of the zone is expected to have a dominant right lateral sense. Overall right-lateral surface displacement across the width of the Zone could total several feet during a maximum probable earthquake. r 15 . , St• ,I: pacific Newport- Englewood Ocean Structural Zone Sedimentary Bedrock 1 Crystalline basement + + + + —+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + "Master basement fault eFigure 2-5 SCHEMATIC CROSS SECTION huntington beach planning department 16 . i It is felt that surface displacement could be a feature of future earthquakes of lesser magnitude than the maximum probable event. The amount of expected surface displacement will vary with the magnitude of the event , as does the intensity of ground shaking. The state of knowledge of subsurface geologic conditions beneath the City of Huntington Beach and the state-of-the-art does not permit accurate estimation of either the length or magnitude of future surface faulting to be expected from a given magnitude �. earthquake occurring within the Newport-Inglewood Structural Zone. 1 17. s• FAULT GARDEN G V R SEAL BE 0U IN VA L . HUNTINGTON BEACH ,:�8' •�•~ �•. 4 'COST MESA r 4.0 NEWP� 4.s • BE CH a.a e0 �� • 4.0 I 1 Figure 2-6 EPICENTERS/FAULTS huntington beach planning department 18. i i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 section 3 � geologic problems 1 SECTION 3.0 GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS ' 3. 1 Fault Displacement The potential for fault displacement that extends to the ground surface is of particular concern in any seismic investigation because it is impractical , and in some cases , not technically ' feasible to design and build a structure capable of withstanding ground rupture . Faults within the City of Huntington Beach determined to be geologically active and expected to be associated with ground rupture at some time in the future are the North Branch, Bolsa- Fairview, and South Branch Faults ; all of these are faults within the Newport-Inglewood Structural Zone, as shown in Figure 3. 1 Fault Map. Surface rupture has apparently not occurred within the past 9,000 years on these faults in the Huntington Beach area (DWR, 1966 and 1968) . This presumed fact , in addition to the absence of ground rupture occurring with an historic moderate-sized earthquake (1933, Magnitude 6. 3, with a probable 30 kilometer length of subsurface rupture that extended entirely beneath the City of Huntington Beach) indicates that the probability is relatively low that surface rupture will occur within the next 100 years, even though ' one or more moderate-sized earthquakes may occur. The potential for surface rupture on the above-named faults is 1 greatest where they occur from Bolsa Chica Lagoon to the northwest (including the Huntington Harbor area) . Adft 19. Information available to date appears sufficient to classify the remaining faults within the City as "potentially active", based on their presumed burial beneath SO to 200 feet or more of undis- turbed or slightly disturbed recent sediments . It is felt likely ' that subsurface investigations in the Santa Ana Gap area would reveal one or several faults in that area now considered "potent- ially active" to actually be "active" to the same degree as the North, South and Bolsa-Fairview Faults . The apparent absence of surface faulting along the Newport-Inglewosd trend in the past few thousand years remains essentially unexplained. The explanation is felt to lie in the nature and various relation- ships in the geologic and seismic environments . The hypocentral depth of the 1933 Long Beach earthquake was approximately 10 kilo- meters . The earthquake originated well within the crystalline basement rocks as would be expected from the general tectonic setting of southern California. Apparently the thick sequence of relatively weak, saturated sedimentary bedrock between the crystalline basement and the ground surface can accommodate repeated large strains such as imposed by the 1933 event without surface rupture. The general nature of the deformation of the Newport- Inglewood Structural Zone would seem to support this hypothesis. Lack of recent surface faulting, gentle topography, and urbanization all tend to make fault location difficult. Although published sources agree as to the eneral location of buried fault traces, the plotted locations can a assumed to be only approximately correct, based on the most up-to-date information available, and as shown in Figures 2 . 3 and 3. 1. , 3. 2 Earthquake Shaking Without regard to any other factor such as location of subsurface geology, it has been found universally that in most earthquakes , ground shaking accounts for by far, the greatest amount of damage and injury. As a recent example, over 990 of the damage caused by the 1971 San Fernando earthquake has been attributed to ground shaking effects . In a small percentage of earthquakes , ground rupture is responsible for a major amount of damage. , Methods commonly employed for estimating ground motion for a particular site in California, and other areas where earthquakes are associated with surface faulting, begin with mapping major fault zones which are likely to influence the site and a determin- ation of the maximum probable earthquake likely to occur on these faults . One approach often used for estimating the maximum probable earthquake for a given fault is to use available geologic data and determine the maximum length of the fault and relate this to magnitude. In connection with this approach, it has not been observed that a particular fault will rupture along its entire length during a single earthquake. A maximum probable rupture 20. length equal to one-half the total fault length is considered to be a conservative assumption (Albee and Smith, 1966 ; Bonilla, 1970) . Figure 3-2 Maximum Probable and Credible Earthquakes summarizes our "best guess" magnitudes for the "maximum probable" and "maximum ' credible" earthquakes for the various major active faults that are likely to contribute to strong ground shaking within the City of Huntington Beach. The methodology employed in determining these magnitudes is as follows : 1. Determine the total length of the fault from published geologic maps . 2 . Divide this length by 2 to find the probable maximum rupture length associated with the maximum earthquake. This is based on the suggestion by Albee and Smith (1966) that the primary causal rupture at depth for the maximum earthquake which can be generated on a given fault has a maximum length of less than half the total fault length. 3. With the maximum probable rupture length, enter Figure 1 of Albee and Smith (1966) and determine the corresponding range of maximum earthquake magnitudes for the fault. 4. The lower value may be considered as the "first guess" for the maximum probable earthquake and the higher value as the "first ' guess" for the maximum credible earthquake for that fault. S. The "first guess" values are then compared with published ' expert opinions , if any, on the maximum probable and maximum credible earthquake magnitudes for the fault under study, a judgment factor applied, and "best guess" values determined. The maximum probable earthquake is one that is likely to occur with a fairly high probability. The maximum credible earthquake is one that is likely to occur with a finite probability. Figure 3-2 also ' lists the maximum historic earthquake magnitude associated with each fault zone. Once the controlling faults are recognized and the maximum probable future earthquake for each fault is determined, procedures are available for estimating base rock and ground motion characteristics based on correlations of previous earthquake records and the distance ' to the causative fault . (Seed, Idriss and Kiefer, 1969 ; Schable and Seed, 1973; Housner, 1965 ; Matthiesen, et al , 1972 ; among others) . Unfortunately, at present there are insufficient records available to cover a wide range of possible soil and geologic conditions , earthquake magnitudes and distances from the causative fault. 1 21. N N FIGURE 3-2 MAXIMUM PROBABLE X'41) CREDIBLE EARTHQUAKES CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Approximate Probable Maximum* Distande to Maximum Rupture Length Corresponding** City of Estimated Magnitude For Range of Maximum iMaximum Huntington Total Fault of Maximum Maximum Probable Credibly. Beach Length Historical Earthquake Earthquake Earthquake Earthquak Fault Zone (miles) (km) Earthquakes (km) Magnitudes Magnitude Magnitude Newport- 0-3 90+ 6. 3 4S or less 6 . 6- 7. 6 6 .6 7 . 6 Inglewood (1933) Whittier 21+ 103+ 3. 2 51 or less 6 .8-7. 7 6 . 8 7 . 7 (1971) Elsinore 25+ 180+ 5. 5 90 or less 7. 2-8. 0 7. 2 8. 0 (1938) San Jacinto 50+ 310+ 7. 1 155 or less 7. 5-8 . 2 7. 5 8. 2 (1940) (Seven quakes of M greater than 6 .0 since 1918) San Andreas 53+ 450+ 6 . S 225 or less 7. 7-8. 4 7. 7 8. 4 (from Garlock (1948) Fault S/E) *Based on the suggestion by Albee and Smith (1966) that the primary causal rupture at depth for the maximum earthquake which can be generated on a given fault has a maximum length of less than half the total fault length. **Based on Figure 1 (Albee and Smith, 1966) . i Most of the available data are for earthquakes of magnitude 6 . 5 or less and for sites that were located 20 miles or more from the epicenter or fault . Few records are available within 0 to 3 miles of the causative faults . Therefore, these procedures may be even less reliable in the prediction of ground motions immediately adjacent to the causative fault than that of greater epicentral ' distances . It appears that the 1933 Long Beach earthquake would provide a rational basis for establishing the ground motion characteristics ' to be used in connection with the minimum aseismic design of engineered construction within the City. Strong motion records for this event do not exist for any site within the City. However, strong motion records are available for the earthquake recorded at Long Beach (9-1/2 miles) , Vernon (24 miles) , and Los Angeles subway terminal (27 miles) . The distances in parenthesis refer to the distance from the center of rupture, considered to be Sunset Beach, to the recording station. These and other existing records could provide the basis of an analytical solution using computer programs and dynamic soil properties . However, even these approaches would be subject to the selection of an appropriate scaling factor to be used to modify the existing records . Here again the absence of records close to the causative fault could affect the accuracy of analytical solutions . ' Figure 3-3 summarizes the estimated ground and rock motion character- istics for the estimated maximum probable earthquakes . Based upon ' presently available empirical relationships , the maximum base rock accelerations could range from about 0 . 10g. to 0 .65g. ; the maximum ground accelerations could range from about 0 .18g. to 1. 0g. depend- ing on the causative earthquake. ' The high values of maximum base rock and maximum ground motion presented in Figure 3-3 for the Newport-Inglewood Fault should be interpreted in reference to the following constraints : 1. The data base from which accelerations are estimated does not include the effects of local soil conditions . 2 . Very few strong motion records are available for sites located within zero to three miles of the causative fault. 3. The determination of the magnitude of the maximum probable earthquake is primarily subjective and should require risk analysis depending on the type of structure or development ' involved. In view of these apparent constraints in the state-of-the-art of empirical approach for estimating ground motion very close to the causative fault and since the maximum probable earthquake on the Newport-Inglewood Fault is expected to dominate the intensity of Aft 23. N is F:GURE 3- 3 ESTIMATED GROUND AND BASE ROCK MOTION CHARACTERISTICS t,lAXIMUM PROBABLE EARTHQUAKES CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Estimated(1) Estimated(2) Predominant (3) Probable (4) Distance from Maximum Maximum Period of Duration of Causative Causative Estimates Base Rock Ground Base Rock Strong Earthquake Fault Magnitude Acceleration Acceleration Motion Shaking Fault (Miles) (Richter) (g) (g) (Seconds) (Seconds) Newport- Inglewood 0-3 6.6 0 . 65+ 1 . 0 0 . 30+ 19 0 . 9 (4) Whittier 21+ 6 . 8 0 . 21 0 . 30 0. 30+ 22 Elsinore 25+ 7. 2 0 . 20 0 . 35 0 . 35+ 30 San Jacinto 50+ 7. 5 0. 10 0 . 18 0 .45+ 40 San Andreas 53+ 7. 7 0 . 10 0. 20 0 . 50+ 46 (1) Schnable and Seed, 1972 (2) Matthiesen, et al , 1972 (3) Seed, et al, 1969 (4) Geological Survey Circular 672 , 1972 ground shaking in the City of Huntington Beach, another method for establishing minimum ground motion characteristics has been consid- ered. Analytical solutions to ground motion are beyond the scope ' of this study. We, therefore, have attempted to estimate the ground motion at Huntington Beach due to the 1933 Long Beach earthquake on the basis of intensity. It is felt that the resulting values might provide the basis for developing a "ground spectrum" to be used for minimum aseismic design in lieu of other detailed studies . According to the isoseismal map prepared by the California Division of Mines and Geology (California Geology, March 1973) , the Modified Mercalli intensity for Huntington Beach was VIII for the 1933 Long Beach earthquake. 40,1 25 . MODIFIED MERCALLI SCALE OF EARTHQUAKE INTENSITIES THE MERCALLI INTZNSITV SCALE. (As modified by Charles F. Richter in 1956 and rearranged) if Most of their ofeas then dw If Most of rhrer dim their the are observed borensky b: me.observed Intensity it. Earthquake shaking not felt.But people may ob. F,dea an people:Difficult to stand.Shaking noticed serve marginal effects of large distance earthquakes by auto drivers. without identifying thew: effects as earthquake- / Orhn effects: Waves on prods; water turbid with caused. Among them: trees, structures, liquids, mud.Small slides and caving in along sand or gravel bodies of water sway slowly,(or doors swing slowlx banks. Large bells ring. Furniture bn►ken. Hanging objects quiver. Effea an people. Shaking felt by those at rest, l Structural rffeers: Masonry D•.heavily damaged; especially if they are indoors.and by those on upper } I/ Masonry C' damaged, partially collapses in some Vlll floors J ages; some damage to Mammry B•; none to Masonry A'_ Stucco and some masonry walls fall. E ed an peu*e.Felt by most people indoors. Chimneys, factory•stacks, monuments, towers. Some an estimate duration tof shaking. But many elevated tanks twist t►r fall. Frame houses moved ton may not recognize shaking of building as caused by /// foundations if not bolted down. loose panel wells an earthquake:the shaking is like that caused by the thrown out. Decayed piling broken tilt passing of light trucks EAd an people.General fright. People thrown tip 00mr i'eetr Hanging objects swing. l ground. Structural effects: Windows or doors rattle. j /y Otkr rem Changes in how or temperature of Wooden walls and frames creak. JJJ springs and wells.Cracks in wet ground and on steep slopes. Steering of autos affected. Branches brokew Eject art po plefelt by everyone indoors. Many from trees. estimate duration of shaking. But they still may not Structural sera:Masonry D•destroyed.Masonry /X recognize it as caused by an earthquake.The shaking C• heavily damaged, sometimes with complete is like that caused by the passing of heavy trucks, collapse; Masonry B•is seriously damaged.General though sometimes,instead,people may feel the sen- damage to foundations. Frame structures, if not cation of a jolt, as if a heavy ball had struck the V bolted, shifted off foundations. Frames racked. walls. Reservoirs seriously damaged. Underground pipes Orkin ef'ertr Hanging objects swing. Standing broken. autos rock.Crockery clashes,dishes rattle or glassy , clink. Effect on pe*e: General Panic. Structwaf offrctr Doors close,open for swing.Win- Other gffectr Conspicuous cracks in ground. In dows rattle. areas of soft ground, sand is ejected through holes and piles up into a small crater,and,in muddy areas. F$ect on people: Felt by everyone indoors and by water fountains are formed. g most people outdoors. Many now estimate not only Structural Seca: Most masonry and frame struc- the duration of shaking but also its direction and trees destroyed along with their foundations. Some have no doubt as to its cause. Sleepers wakened. well-built wooden structures and bridges destroyed. Ocher iffectr Hanging objects swing. Shutters or Serious damage to dams, dikes and embankments. pictures move.Pendulum clucks stop,start or change V/ Railroads bent slightly. rate. Standing autos rock. Crockery clashes, dishes rattle or glaues clink. Liquids disturbed,•some erect an people: General panic. spilled. Small unstable objects displaced or upset. Other oefi+ctr Large landslides. Water thrown on Strrrawaf wear Week plaster and Masonry D• banks of canals,rivers,lakes,etc.Sand and mud shin. , crack. Windows break. Doors close,open or swing, ted horizontally on bathes and flat land. x/ Structural eflem General destruction of buildings. Effect on people: Felt by everyone. Many are Underground pipelines completely out of service. frightened and run outdoors. People walk un• Railroads bent greatly. ' steadily. Odhrr effaw Small church or school bells ring. Effect on people. General panic. Pictures thrown off walls,knicknocks and books off Other t�i+ar Some as for Intensity X. shelves. Dishes or glasses broken. Furniture moved Structural 4ffle+ctr Damage nearly total. the ulti- or overturned.Trees,bushes shaken visibly,or hard Vil mate catastrophe. x// , to rustic. ogTsea Masonry dam Other�em urge rock masses displaced.Lines of Structural y D• aged; some sight and level distorted. Objects thrown Into air. cracks in Masonry CO.Weak chimneys break at roof line. Plaster,loose bricks,atones,tiles,cornices,on- •Matw�nry A: GnuJ workmanship and morerr, reinforced braced parapets and architectural ornaments fall. do:sig wokal resist land tierces ' Masonry B: Gt►ted workmanship raJ au►rur. rciafi►rcetl. Concrete irrigation ditches damaged Masonry C: Good workmanship and mantar, aareiarorced. Mmmry D: ►►uor workmanship and mortar and week materials. like adobe. 26 . f are d-t stortr.- However, in some areas around Compton, which were underlain by ' saturated alluvium, the intensity was considered to be IX. It is therefore likely that the intensity within the tidal marsh areas of Bolsa Gap and Santa Ana Gap was also IX. On this basis , the following intensity distribution has been selected as reasonable for the 1933 Long Beach earthquake. 1933 Long Beach Earthquake Probable Modified Mercalli Intensity Location IX Low areas within Sunset Beach, Bolsa and Santa Ana Gaps , within one mile+ of coast and areas of peat and organic soils . VIII - IX Inland areas of recent alluvium more than one mile from coast with intensity decreasing with increasing distance from coast. VIII Higher elevations of Bolsa Chica Mesa and Huntington Beach Mesa. Rough correlations between Modified Mercalli intensity and peak ' ground acceleration and velocity are available. For peak ground velocity, the relationship as stated by Esteva and Rosenblueth (1964) is expressed by the following equations : I = to l4v o ' where I = M.M. Intensity v = peak ground velocity, cm/sec. The peak ground velocities corresponding to Modified Mercalli intensities of VIII and IX are 18 and 37 cm/sec. , respectively. The range of ground accelerations for M.M. intensities of VIII and IX taken from Nuclear Reactors and Earthquakes , TID-7024 , United States Atomic Energy Commission, 1963 and Newmann (1954) are tabulated below: 27 . Modified , Mercalli Ground Acceleration (g) Intensity T DD---702 eumann , VIII O. 1S to 0 . 3S 0. 27 Ix 0. 3S to 0 . 70 0. 53 Neumann's relationship is based on a correlation between peak ground acceleration, as measured with a strong motion seismograph, and , Modified Mercalli intensity for ten earthquakes between 1933 and 1949 in the western part of the United States . Using Matthiesen's (1972) empirical relationship between earthquake ' magnitude, peak ground velocity, and distance to the fault, a magnitude 6 . 3 earthquake may be expected to produce a peak ground velocity of 63 cm/sec. very near to the fault. Therefore , if scaling factors of 0. 28 and 0 . 59 are applied to Matthiesen' s relationship, peak ground velocities of 18 and 37 cm/sec. will be obtained. If the same scaling factors are applied to Matthiesen's relationships for peak acceleration, a rough correlation between Modified Mercalli Intensity and peak acceleration can be obtained. This was done, and ' the results are presented in Figure 3-4 , along with the results from the TID- 7024 and Neumann's relationships . The values in Figure 2 -4 may be used as a rough guide in formulating a "ground spectrum" to provide a basis for minimum aseismic design at various locations within the City. The ground acceleration value to be used in a given case would ' depend on the importance of the structure. For example, in designing a hospital or school , the upper limit of the range may be appropriate, whereas a single-story, wooden frame structure m<.y be designed on the basis of the lower value. The values presented in Figure 3-4 are considered to be tentative and subject to modi.. fication as improved relationships and procedures become availab:_e . :Newmark (1969) has demonstrated that "response spectra" can be , estimated simply by multiplying the ground spectrum by amplification factors which depend on the damping of the structure . These amplification factors are indicated in Figure 3- S. 3. 3 Liquefaction, Lurching and Differential Compaction During an earthquake, the resulting ground shaking will tend to compact loose deposits of cohesionless soils . If. the soils are saturated, the compaction process will result in an increase in the pore water pressure in the soil . With the increased pore ' t ' 28. FIGURE 3-4 ESTIMATED PEAK GROUND MOTION FOR 1933, MAGNITUDE 6. 3 LONG BEACH EARTHQUAKE IN CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Modified Peak Ground* Peak Ground Mercalli Velocity Acceleration .Location Intensity In Sec. (g) A. Low areas within Sunset Beach, IX 15 0 . 6+ ** Bolsa and Santa Ana Gaps within one mile+ of coast and areas of 0. 35 to 0 . 70 *** peat and organic soils . 0. S3+t B. Inland areas of recent alluvium VII -IX 7-15 0. 3 to 0 . 6 ** more than one mile from coast with intensity decreasing with 0. 15 to 0 . 70 *** �..■ increasing distance from coast. 7 0. 27 to 0. 53 t C. Higher elevations of Bolsa Chica VIII 7 0. 3+ ** Mesa and Huntington Beach Mesa. 0. 1 S to 0. 35 *'�* 0. 27+t * Esteva and Rosenblueth (1964) . ** Modified values based on Matthiesen, et al (1972) . *** Taken from Nuclear Reactors and Earthquakes , TID-7024 , United States Atomic Energy Commission, 1963. t Neumann (1954) . N �O FIGURE 3-5 Amplification Factors ' Percent of ' Critical Acceleration Velocity Damping Amplification Amplification 0 6. 4 4. 9 0. 5 S. 8 3. 6 1 5. 2 3. 2 2 4. 3 2 . 8 5 2. 6 2. 9 10 1. 5 1 . 3 ' 20 1. 2 1 . 1 After Newmark (1969) The use of the "response spectrum" in the design of buildings ' is a structural engineering matter and will not be considered further here. 1 30 . , pressure , the water within the soil will tend to flow upward which may turn the soil deposit into "quicksand" due to loss of shear strength. Flow to the ground surface may be manifested by ground cracking and lurching. Lurching is inclastic deformation of the ground surface due to a loss of strength in underlying strata. Where soil thickness is variable or where the subsoil conditions are erratic, differential compaction of soil layers may occur resulting in differential settlement of the ground surface . The results of laboratory tests and investigations of liquefaction ' sites indicate that uniformly graded (i.e . , predominately one size such as beach sand) materials are more susceptible to lique- faction than well-graded materials and that for uniformly graded soils fine sands tend to liquefy more easily than do coarse sands, gravelly soils , silts , or clays . In addition, loose soil deposits will tend to liquefy more readily than denser deposits and shallower strata more than deeper strata. Further, intensity of ground shaking and duration of ground shaking play an important role. The longer the duration of strong shaking, the more likely that liquefaction may occur. Since the intensity and duration of ground shaking are ' somewhat proportional to the earthquake magnitude, liquefaction is more likely for moderate to strong earthquakes. Finally, the deeper the water table, the lower the liquefaction potential. Since field and laboratory investigations were not undertaken as part of this study, the depth to ground water was the major criteria in establishing liquefaction, lurching, and differential compaction ' potential for the City of Huntington Beach. Qualitative ratings of liquefaction, ground lurching, and different- ial compaction hazards for various areas within the City of Huntington Beach are tabulated below: Liquefaction, Ground Lurching and ' Differential Compaction Hazard Location High Low areas of poorly consol- idated recent alluvium ' within one mile+ of coast ; areas of saturated peat and organic soils overlying ' sandy deposits . Moderate to Low Inland areas of recent alluvium more than one mile ' from coast with hazard decreasing with increasing distance from coast. ' Low Marine Terraces located within the higher elevations of Bolsa Chica Mesa and ' Huntington Beach Mesa. 31 . It is emphasized that liquefaction potential depends upon many factors , in addition to groundwater level, factors such as soil type, relative density, and the intensity and duration of ground shaking. Each site needs to be evaluated individually. It is entirely possible that a detailed investigation of a site located in an area considered (in this general study) to have a high liquefaction potential may reveal low or no liquefaction potential and vice versa. Areas prone to liquefaction and other seismicly induced hazards ha re been considered collectively and rated. The ratings are incorporated in the Geotechnical Land-Use Capability Map and Table in Section 4. 0 . 3. 4 Tsunamis and Seiches Definitions Tsunamis (also called seismic sea waves or tidal waves) are sea waves believed to be generated by large submarine earthquakes , volcanic eruptions , and possibly large sub- marine landslides . Seiches are stationary oscillations of enclosed or party enclosed bodies of water caused by landslides , sudden ' changes in atmospheric and wind pressure , or earthquake ; . The "sloshing" of water in a pan that has been momentarily tipped illustrates the mechanism of seiching. Only , seismically induced seiches are considered herein. 3. 4. 1 Tsunamis (General) ' All low-lying coastal areas of California are subject to the threat of tsunamis . The Presidio tide gage in San Francisco has recorded 19 tsunamis that ranged in heig} t from less than six inches to over three feet during the period 1868 to 1968. The 1964 Alaska earthquake generated ' a tsunami that caused an estimated 12 million dollars in damages in more than a dozen California coastal towns �.nd cities . It is reported (D'Arnall, 1973) that the 1964 Alaska earthquake produced a 114-foot high tidal wave" ..n ' the Huntington Harbor area. This was apparently not a breaking wave but a rapid rise in water level that resulted in some damage to anchored boats and in the flooding o = the ' Alamitos Bay area. Richter (1958) describes a great California tsunami that was generated by an earthquake in 1812. It is reportei ' that a 30-foot wave entered Refugio Harbor west of Santa Barbara and that a 50-foot wave may have struck Gaviota 32 . ' about 20 miles west. Research into the sources of these reports by Marine Advisers , Inc. (1965) has shown that the reports are grossly exaggerated and based mainly on projec- tions from second-hand accounts . In 1927 it is reported that a magnitude 7. 4 earthquake produced a 5 to 7 foot high wave along the coast north of Point Arguello (Richter, ' 1958) . We did not find any confirmed records that a tsunami was generated by the 1933 Long Beach earthquake. ' 3.4. 2 Tsunami hazard for Huntington Beach The tsunami hazard is considered to be VERY LOW for the higher elevations within Bolsa Chica Mesa and Huntington ' Beach Mesa and for other areas within the City limits located more than one mile from the coast. The low areas within one mile of the coast are considered to have a ' LOW-TO-MODERATE tsunamic hazard depending on tidal condi- tions . This opinion is based on the following data: (a) Previous History A search of available tsunami literature indicates that no known significant tsunamis have caused major ' damage to the Huntington Beach area within the period of recorded history of California. ' (b) Distant Great Earthquakes Most tsunamis that have struck the California coast in the past have resulted from very distant earth- quakes , primarily in the Aleutians and other portions of the Circum-Pacific Belt of earthquake activity. It is likely that these areas will continue to be the ' source of great earthquakes and tsunamis. Tsunamis - undoubtedly have reached the coastal areas of Huntington Beach as a result of the 1960 Chile earth- quake and the 1964 Alaska earthquake. The eye- witness account described above indicates that the 1964 Alaska earthquake may have caused minor damage in the Huntington Harbor area. Thus , the tsunami ' hazard associated with great distant earthquakes appears to be low-to-moderate, if high tide and the tsunami are coincident. (c) Local Offshore Event Current scientific opinions indicate that major ' California offshore faults are probably strike-slip - faults (Emery, 1960) and that earthquakes generated on strike-slip faults are not likely to produce large- scale tsunamis (Wiegel, 1964) . Thus , the tsunami ' hazard associated with a local offshore event appears to be low. i 33. 1 In summary, the potential for tsunami effects appears to , be LCW-TO-MODERATE for Huntington Beach. As mentioned above , most tsunamis that have struck the ' California coast in the past have resulted from very distant earthquakes primarily in the Aleutians and other portions of the Circum-Pacific Belt of earthquake ' activity. Therefore, in most cases , there will be sufficient warning of approaching waves to permit the evacuation of coastal areas . The warning will originate ' from the U. S. Coast and Geodetic Survey Observatory in Honolulu and will be transmitted -to local law enforcement agencies by the California Disaster Office and the Natioaal Warning System (NAWAS) . The Tsunami Hazard Map (Figure 3-6) prepared by the California Division of Mines and Geology (1971) recommerds ' that, in the Huntington Beach area, special caution be observed during a tsunami alert and that low coastal areas and public beaches be cleared if a flood tide and tsunamis are likely to be coincident. 3. 4. 3 Seiching , The City of Huntington Beach boundaries encompass many small ponds and Huntington Harbor which may be subject to earthquake induced seiching. A previously used meth )d ' for evaluating seiching potential (Leighton-Yen, 1973) involved comparing the fundamental period of vibration 3f the body of water with the predominate period of ground ' shaking to determine the likelihood of resonance . A crude estimate of the fundamental frequency can be made by the following formula: , T = 2L n 1 2 ' n(gd) (1) Where : T = fundamental period of oscillation in n seconds . ' L = length of water body, feet. d = depth of water, feet. g = 32 . 2 ft/sec2 . n = integer corresponding to mode. ' 34 . I � f ' i \� 1 i NEWPO HAAB . OANA, HAR * POTENTIAL HARBOR DAMAGES Figure 3- 7 TSUNAMI HAZARDS huntington beach planning department 3S . In addition , the maximum amplitude can be roughly esti- mated by the following formula: T d U ' h = n m m ___z_L (2) Where h = maximum amplitude, feet. ' m U = maximum velocity across nodal line ' m ft/sec. Further refinements to the above equation (1) , which , applies to a constant depth rectangular tank, have been made for other shapes but their use is not justified in the present limited treatment of the problem. The follow- ing estimation of seiching height is only for establishing ' an order of magnitude for planning purposes . Matthiesen's (1972) curves for velocity versus distance ' indicate a peak velocity of 30 inches per second at the causative fault for a magnitude 6. 6 earthquake. The minimum harbor width in Huntington Harbor is about 150 , feet . This distance would also resemble the minimum width of the smaller ponds . Larger widths would correspond to longer periods and are, therefore , not considered. The ' period of oscillation and maximum amplitudes for various water depths and modes of vibration are tabulated below for L = 150 feet and U = 2 . 5 feet per second. m ' T , Seconds Maximum Wave Amplitude, Ft. d n 'feet n=1 n=2 n=3 n=1 n=2 n=3 S 24 12 8 1 0 . 5 0. 3 10 17 8 6 1 . 4 0 . 7 O. S ' 15 14 7 5 1. 8 0 .9 0. 6 20 12 6 4 2 1. 0 0. 7 Since the predominate period of earthquake ground shaking , is not likely to exceed 1 second, it is unlikely that any portion of Huntington Harbor will oscillate in resonant response to ground shaking except for higher modes . The maximum wave amplitude associated with higher modes of oscillation will probably be leas than 0 . 5 feet. So long as proper planning and design of adequate freeboard on ' waterfront structures are observed, seiching alone should not be a major constraint on development. 1 36 . 3. 5 Peat and Organic Soil Dep osits ' The approximate locations of previously mapped peat and organic soil deposits are shown in Figure 3-7 Peat and Organic Soils . Additional unmapped deposits reportedly exist in the lower-lying portions of ' Huntington Beach. These deposits represent areas where long- term and large settlements may occur and where , during a major earthquake, potential liquefaction of subsoil and ground shaking may be antici- pated. A thorough geotechnical investigation should be performed for any development or structure to be located within or near these areas . ' 3.6 Expansive Clays An expansive clay hazard potential map (Figure 3-8 Expansive Soil ' Distribution Map) has been prepared based upon the U. S. Department of Agriculture Soil Map (1919) . A qualitative rating system has been employed based upon the percent of clay size particles reported ' within the typical soil profiles of the upper six feet. The hazard potential map indicates that the major deposits of clay having a MODERATE-TO-HIGH expansion potential are located within ' the inland areas of the northerly half of the City limits . The soils within this area are primarily clays, clay loams , and clay adobe with percentages of clay size particles ranging from about ' 20 to 42 percent. Bolsa Chica Mesa and Huntington Beach Mesa contain loamy soils of the Ramona Series . The soils within the upper 12 to 24 inches exhibit percentages of clay size particles ranging from 6 to 11 percent, while the underlying soils have 20 to 27 percent clay size particles . On this basis , the upper one to two feet may be consid- ered as having LOW expansion potential, while the underlying soils have a MODERATE expansion potential . The major deposit of soils having LOW expansion potential is located southeasterly of Huntington Beach Mesa. The soils in this area are predominantly silty fine sands and sandy silts with about 6 to 7 percent clay size particles . The southerly half of this area appears to contain sizeable areas of soils having MODERATE-TO-HIGH clay expansive potential . Included in the category of LOW expansion potential would, of course , be the coastal beach sands . The tidal marsh areas have been assigned a VARIABLE expansive soil potential , because no one soil type predominates and the soils range from sands to clays . 1 37. Expansive clay soils can cause serious damage to lightly loaded ' structures , pavements , driveways , sidewalks, canal linings , etc. , due to volumetric changes associated with increases or decreases 1 in moisture content . Soil engineers can identify potentially expansive clay soils by means of laboratory tests . Therefore, it is important that private geotechnical consultants be employed to ' evaluate the problem and make proper design recommendations for individual structures . 3. 7 Beach Erosion ' Three geologic processes are continually operating in all beaches : , erosion, transportation and deposition. When waves and currents transport as much sediment into a particular beach as they transport out of the beach, a rough egTibrium is attained between erosion and Teposition and the beach is grossly stable. ' With one exception, the various beaches within the City limits of Huntington Beach appear to be stable . In common with most beaches ' in southern California, large seasonal variations in mass balance (erosion vs . sedimentation) occur, with erosion greatly predominating during the winter months because of more frequent storms , increased breaker height and a dominant southerly long shore current. This ' results in a general lowering and narrowing of the beaches in the winter and their corresponding buildup during the summer when the currents shift and storms are infrequent. ' Tian-made disturbances to the natural shoreline processes are very common along the southern California coastline and in some cases have been very detrimental from both an economic and scenic point- of-view. Reportedly (D'Arnall, 1973) , the stretch of beach in the vicinity ' of Surfside suffers from erosion due to the construction of the jetty at the entrance to Anaheim Bay. Apparently, annual replinish- ment of sand is required for this area. This is the only segment of beach known to be suffering from significant natural or man- , caused beach erosion within the City limits . Although most beaches appear to have been stable since at least the ' early 1930 's (D'Arnall, 1973 ; Air Phots , Appendix) , their long-range stability is dependent upon geologic factors whose analysis is beyond the scope of this investigation. 3. 8 Land Subsidence Land subsidence due to human activities in California has been ' recognized for many years . It is of concern because of the potential problems it can cause to structures and to the construction and 1 38. i roperation Of drainage channels , sewers , pipelines , rind water Storage reservoirs (Barrows , 1973) . rSubsidence related to man 's activities in California has been attributed to four different causes : (1) groundwater withdrawal , (2) oil and gas withdrawal , (3) hydrocompaction, and (4) peat oxidation (CDMG/loodward-Lundgren, 1971) . Natural subsidence can result from sporadic, sudden faulting and slow area-wide (tectonic) deformation. Groundwater withdrawal has been identified as the most extensive type of man-caused subsidence in California (CDMG/Woodward-Lundgren, 1971) . ' Land subsidence of areas overlying oil fields along the Newport- Inglewood structural zone has been recognized for many years . An area (Miller, 1966) southwest of the Newport-Inglewood structural zone in the City of Huntington Beach has experienced some subsidence , reported to be as much in some locations as 5. 1 feet between the years 1928 and 1965 (Barrows , 1973) . Recent information indicates the pattern of subsidence is complex, however, and does not appear to be directly related to oil field operations (Ledingham, 1973) . Tectonic subsidence and withdrawal of groundwater have been postulate as two possible causes of the subsidence. Very localized subsidence up to 14 feet is also reported to have occurred in scattered areas from Sunset to Newport Beaches just inland from the coast. Consoli- dation and possibly oxidation of peat layers caused by lower ground- water levels is the probable explanation (Bechtel , 1967) . Regardless of the cause , it does not appear that subsidence within the City limits has posed any serious problems of an economic or safety nature in the past (Day, 1973) . It is felt that with the current level of water injection into oil wells (300,000 to 400,000 barrels/day) (Day, 1973) , the chances of any future problems arising from land subsidence due to oil field operations are negligible. Little additional subsidence is expected from oxidation of peat deposits but this should be evaluated on a site by site basis . The potential problems associated with land subsidence are over-shadowed by other geotechnical concerns and would probably only become important in small localized areas of peat deposits . Land subsidence in Huntington Beach is indicated in Figure 3-9. 3. 9 Groundwater Groundwater of adequate quantity and quality has been of importance in the Huntington Beach area since prehistoric times . Formerly, common "peat springs" were of probable importance to native Californians inhabiting the area prior to arrival of the white man. In more recent times , groundwater has been used extensively for domestic, agricultural and industrial purposes . 1 39 . r Groundwater of usable quantity and quality is confined to several well-known and well-defined subsurface zones known as "aquifers" . These areally extensive aquifers are relatively thin, tabular bodies of coarse-grained sediments that readily allow the transmission of fresh water from inland areas toward the coast. These aquifers are separated from each other and the ground surface by layers of impermeable sediments which serve to confine the ground- water to the aquifer (and maintain its pressure) until tapped by a well or a geologic discontinuity. Fresh-water aquifers are confined to within several hundred feet of the ground surface in the area of Huntington Beach. Deeper bodies of groundwater are brackish and saline due to dissolved mineral content. Depth to groundwater, whether saline or fresh, is of particular geotechnical significance in the Huntington Beach area for several reasons relating to foundation design and seismic ground response , (see also, "Liquefaction, Ground Lurching, and Dynamic Compaction Hazards" , this report) . Generally , the groundwater table lies within ten feet of the surface for the first mile from the coast in ' the areas of Santa Ana, Bolsa and Sunset Gaps . (DWR, 1966 ; Crandall, 1964) . It lies at an equivalent elevation beneath Huntington Beach and Bolsa Chica Mesas . Depth to the groundwater table gradually increases inland of the mile-wide coastal strip with increasing surface elevation. The various faults of the Newport-Inglewood structural zone, parti- cularly the North and South Branch Faults , act as permeability barriers with respect to the flow of groundwater (DWR, 1966 and 1968; Brown, 1973; Barrows , 1973) . This barrier effect has been of great benefit to the City, primarily because the intrusion of sea water into the fresh-water aquifers is limited and a relatively high groundwater table is maintained on the north -side of the zone . Overdrafting of water wells and oil field operations have neverthe- less contributed significantly to the historic degradation of groundwater quality in the Huntington Beach area (DWR, 1968) . Sea water intrusion was first noticed in the Santa Ana Gap in 1931 ; it became increasingly important during the 1940 's and by 1971, ground- water had been degraded in the Santa Ana Gap area for a distance of four miles from the coast (Brown, 1973 ; Bechtel, 1967) . Artificial recharge of aquifers , reduction in pumpage , and strict controls over disposal of industrial wastes and oil field brines have helped and will continue to help maintain groundwater quality within the City. Other, more sophisticated techniques are available as well (DWR, 1966) . 40 . In summary, it appears that groundwater problems are generally well- known and understood. The California Department of Water Resources (DWR) is monitoring groundwater levels and quality throughout the state. The California Water Resources Control Board, in conjunction with Regional Water Quality Control Boards , is charged with enforcing water quality standards and correcting adverse conditions . 41 . 1 1 1 section a � geotechnical � considerations 1 i SECTION 4. 0 GEOTECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR LAND USE PLANNING 4. 1 Land Use Capability Analysis One of the significant results of this study was the development of a land use capability map which rates all land within the planning area for possible geotechnical problems . In conjunction with the map a geotechnical land use capability table was developed which relates natural terrain type to characteristics and geotech- nical considerations . 4. 1. 1 Geotechnical Land Use Capability Map The geologic problems identified in Section Three were used as the basis for developing the geotechnical land use capability map in Figure 4-1 . The map is intended to provide a guide for planning purposes . The values indicated are relative only and do not represent absolute values . The analysis that was used to develop the map included the following considerations : 1 . Fault rupture potential 2. Peat deposits 3. Liquefaction potential 4 . Beach erosion S. Tsunami Hazards r t 1 42. Specifically excluded from this analysis were : 1 . Earthquake shaking 2. Expansive soils 3 . Areal land subsidence 4 . Groundwater problems The analysis was based upon an acc:ummulation of geologic problems and relative degrees of severity. Based upon this , four values were determined: 1 . Nominal Risk - Areas that display the least problems from a geotechnical point of view. Problems when they exist are minor or on a micro-scale . Areas in this category are the Huntington Beach and Bolsa Chica Mesas and those areas of the alluvial flood plain that are farthest from the coastline. 2 . Provisional Risk - Moderate geologic problems are prevelant in these areas . Usually these areas have problems that are related to soil conditions , such as peat or alluvial soils . The provisional risk areas are in the various portions of recent alluvium deposits as indicated in Figure 1-3 Geologic Condi- tions . 3. Hi Rh Risk - Areas that have potential major geologic problems but are controllable through design or locational criteria. Areas delineated for this risk have either one geologic problem of high risk, such as an active fault or a culmination of problems such as soil conditions , tsunami hazard, etc. Most of the high risk areas are dominated by either high liquefaction. potential (near the coastline) or active fault. location. 4 . High Risk - Extensive problems that are difficult , or impractical to overcome. Most of the areas in this category are the fault zones that are most likely to experience surface rupture (Refer to Figure 3-1 Fault Map) . Areas that are subject to a combination of other factors may also be indicated in this category. These occur in the alluvium or tidal marsh areas . 4. 1. 2 Geotechnical Land Use Capability Table This table (Figure 4- 2) is intended to be used with the geotechnical land use capability map and the geologic conditions map. It describes the terrain type or geologic hazard area in terms of its natural terrain characteris- tics and geotechnical considerations . 43. I t l U U LX L: HUNTINGTON BEACH - GEOTECHNICAL LAND USE CAPABILITY TABLE NATURAL TERRAIN TYPE NATURAL TERRAIN GEOTE CHNICAL OR HAZARD AREA CHARACTERISTICS CONSIDERATIONS BEACH Elongate strip of 0-ligh energy environment ; coastline immediat- subject to rapid storm ely adjacent to land seasonal (winter) Pacific Ocean. ,ierosion. Has been Width and cross- ,grossly stable for many sectional profile years . Highly susceptible seasonally variable „to man-caused disturbances 1but generally gently {that interfere with natural ! sloping and extend- shoreline processes . ing up to 1000 ' + Highly permeable ; saline iinland. - Terminafes ;groundwater at shallow linland against idepth. ( mesas , floodplain ; and tidal marshes ; : gentle , regular topography continues •, offshore for several # miles . Underlain by , : unconsolidated sands . TIDAL MARSH Flat-lying land at High ground water level , (BOLSA & SUNSET or near sea-level. lsubject to tidal fluctua- GAPS) ' Irregular tidal ytions . High liquefaction channels , swampy ;potential. Fresh water ground; character- ;aquifers at depth subject istic salt-water- ;to potential water quality loving vegetation. !degradation. Subject to Underlain by mud iflooding locally expansive and organic-rich !soils . muck over coarser- grained sediments . Poorly defined land- ward boundary against flood plain i terrain. FLOODPLAIN Uniform, gently to flooding. High (SANTA ANA GAP) seaward-sloping !Subject water table and liquefaction terrain along tpotential near coast. present course of Important fresh water . Santa Ana River as `aquifers at depth subject to , well as landward of potential water quality ' Bolsa Gap (former degradation. Scattered Santa Ana River thick peat deposits of high , course) and Sunset liquefaction potential and ' Gap. Underlain by insufficient load-bearing variable unconsoli- capacity. Locally expansive ( dated sediments . soils . ' 44 I HUNTINGTON BEACH - GEOTECHNICAL LAND USE CAPABILITY TABLE (CONTINUED) NATURAL TERRAIN TYPE NATURAL TERRAIN GEOTECHNICAL OR HAZARD AREA CHARACTERISTICS CONSIDERATIONS MESA Relatively flat Relatively minor geotechnical (HUNTINGTON BEACH erosional surfaces , constraints outside of fault BOLSA CHICA MESAS) ,elevated 25 ' to 50 ' hazard areas . Generally low above surrounding to moderate expansive soils . 'floodplain and tidallConsidering flood hazard and marsh, commonly -all other constraints not bounded by pronounc- lincluded in LAND USE CAPABILI ed scarp. Surfaces JINiAP, this terrain unit is the well-defined near most suitable for high intensit coast, but merge idevelopment and critical inland with flood- ( facilities . Contains plain. Major topo- commercial quantities of sand graphic irregular- and gravel. . ities of mesa ;surfaces related to faulting within (Newport- Inglewood ;structural zone see below) . FAULT OR General trend of Zones surrounding faults FAULT ZONE Newport- Inglewood (400 ' wide) arbitrary and (NEWPORT-INGLF.WOOD structural zone in intended to indicate STRUCTURAL ZONE) Los Angeles area limprecision of fault 'coastal plain marked location due to limitations by a line of low, of data as well as to contain domal-shaped hills . ' great majority of any short North and south branch faults . branch faults topo- graphically expres- Figure 3-1 indicates faults sed on Huntington believed to be active. ,Jo Beach Mesa by a structure for human occupancy, series of minor should be located over an hills and depres- active fault. The area ' sions . Faults well- .within SO ' of an active expressed by a 25' fault is assumed to be high scarp across underlain by active bra-Aches 'Bolsa Chica Mesa. unless and until proven otherwise. Over fault zones believed to be potentially active no habitable structure ' should be built. Detailed studies required. 45 1 Recommended Geologic Considerations for Land Ilse Planning !;aced upon the identification and analysis of geologic problems and the land use capability analysis the firm of Leighton-Yen and Associates reached the following conclusions : 1 . 2 . 1 Seismicity The City of Huntington Beach is located in a seismically active area . It has experienced numerous earthquakes from both distant and local sources and will continue to do so in the future . Within the next 100 years , seismic events of major importance to the City of Huntington Beach are most likely to originate on the Newport-Inglewood and San Andreas fault Zones . j 1 . 2 , y Ade(luacy Of I.xistiiig Data Existing earth science and seismic data are considered �idccluate to prepare a preliminary assessment of the type and magnitude of seismic hazards . Significant limitations exist in the state-of-the-art of cleterminin.g the magnitude of potential ground shaking, tsunami and seiche Phenomena. For example, most records gathered to (late on ground shaking were obtained at a distance greater than 20 miles from the causative fault . Hence , near- fault ground motion is not well-known or understood, particularly for larger earthquakes - .a fact of significance for Huntington Beach, lying as it does directly over an active fault zone. Significant advances in the theoretical state-of-the-art of near-fault ground motion are considered imminent , however, and will be of 1 great importance to the City of Huntington (leach . AltlIougll information was adequate to determine which of the faults in the City should he considered active, the information is inadequate to locate these or other faults with sufficient precision for detailed zoning purposes, although there is a high probability the faults lie within the shaded areas shown on the fault map . The existence of active branch or active secondary faults is undetermined. Detailed eoloSic_investigations involv- ing suhsurface exploration is required to more . prtcisily (fc.-fine--fault-.o.catior>_-and activity.. Conclusions that follow are based on existing data and are subject to modification as more knowledge is gained through specific 46 detailed studies . In this regard, it is emphasized that r the Fault, Geologic and Geotechnical Land-Use Capability Maps should be regarded as dynamic documents subject to continual revision as more and better information becomes available to the City. 4. 2 . 3 Fault Displacement The probability of surface rupture occurring within the ' next 100 years on the North Branch, Bolsa-Fairview and South Branch Faults is relatively low overall but in the area within and to the northwest ot Bolsa Chica Lagoon the probability of rupture is considered to be higher. The North Branch Fault (also known as the High School Fault) is considered the main active fault within the City and the fault most likely to be associated with future surface rupture as well as having the greatest amount of surface displacement. The possibility exists that surface rupture could also occur on any of the other faults shown on the Fault and Geotechnical Land-Use Capability Maps . These faults, shown in orange in the Geotechnical Land-Use Capability Map are considered potentially active. Based on available information it is felt that surface displacement, should it occur on any of the faults within the City, will be on the order of a few inches , although additional studies may indicate the potential for greater movement. M 4. 2.4 Fault Hazards and Land Use Earth science information is sufficient to indicate that ' the zones surrounding the faults as shown on the Fault and Geotechnical Land-Use Capability Maps are areas of substantially higher than average seismic risk. It is ' recommended that the public be advised of this fact and that consideration be given to the designation of these areas as Geologic Hazard Zones as defined in the Alquist- Priolo Geologic Hazards Zone Act (Chapter 7. 5, Division 2, Public Resources Code, State of California) , and subject to additional detailed studies as discussed under Ade5uacy of Existin& Data that would be needed to better e- ine and locate the faults . 47 . i The designation of some , or all , of the fault hazard zones (meant here to be the zone surrounding an active or poten- tially active fault) as Geologic Hazard Zones would have to be based on an agreement with the State Geologist and would require the accomplishment of certain special studies based on the criteria, as specified in the Draft Statement of August 24, 1973 issued by the State Mining and Geology Board regarding the Alquist-Priolo Act. ' Even if, on the basis of additional geologic studies , it is determined to designate some, or all , of the fault hazard zones as Geologic Hazard Zones , it is not antici- pated that unacceptable risk levels will be found to ' exist with respect to existing single family residences and other low occupancy structures . It is possible , however, that a long-range abatement plan pointed towards reduced levels of occupancy or alternative land uses ' within all or certain portions of the fault hazard zones will be found to be a feasible solution to the fault displacement hazard. Sites of schools , high occupancy structures and other critical facilities currently existing within the North Branch, Bolsa-Fairview and South Branch fault hazard zones should be subjected to detailed geologic-fault investiga- tions as soon as possible. There is a reasonable possibil- ity that one or more of these structures will be found to be existing. under conditions of unacceptable fault displace- ment risk. 4 . 2. 5 Ground Shaking The present state-of-the-art does not permit reliable evaluation of the intensity of ground shaking near the causative fault . However, to provide an interim basis for establishing minimum aseismic design, an attempt has ' been made to correlate ground motion parameters , namely peak velocity and acceleration, to reasonable estimates of Modified Mercalli Intensity based upon the 1933 Long Beach earthquake. This data is presented in Table V. Values to be used in design will depend upon local soil conditions and the importance factor of the structure. It is expected that as additional records of ground motion near the causative fault become available in the future, a narrower range of peak ground acceleration can be established. Adft 48 . 4. 2. 6 Liquefaction M A ground stability analysis should be required as part of obtaining a building permit for developments located within the areas designated as having MODERATE and HIGH liquefaction potential. Such an analysis should also be submitted in the event that shallow groundwater (20 feet ' or less) is encountered in other areas underlain by recent or older alluvial deposits . This requirement would ensure that professional geotechnical consideration is given to the potential problems of liquefaction, ground lurching and , differential compaction. The scope of the investigation might range from a professional opinion based upon local experience, to field and laboratory studies as determined by the professional consultant and the size and importance of the project. - 4 . 2. 7 Tsunamis and Seiches The tsunami hazard is considered to be VERY LOW for the , higher elevations within Bolsa Chica Mesa and Huntington Beach Mesa and for other areas within the City limits located more than one mile from the coast. The low areas within one mile of the coast are considered to have a LOW-TO-MODERATE tsunamic hazard depending on tidal condi- tions. Seismically induced seiching is expected to be limited to Huntington Harbor and the various small ponds located throughout the City. Our analysis indicates that it is highly unlikely that any of these ponds or any portions , of Huntington Harbor will oscillate in resonant response to ground shaking except for higher modes of oscillation. The maximum wave amplitude associated with higher modes of ' oscillation will probably be less than 0 . 5 feet. Therefore seismically induced seiching should not represent a major constraint to development within the City provided suffi- cient setback and/or freeboard are incorporated into the design of waterfront structures . 4. 2. 8 Peat and Organic Soil Deposits r The approximate locations of major deposits of peat and organic soil have been identified. It is recommended that the peat map be revised and updated by the City as additional information becomes available from other sources e.g. , consultant 's soil reports , Orange County Planning Department. These deposits represent areas where long- term and large settlements may occur and where, during a major earthquake, potential liquefaction of subsoil and 1 r 49. , ground shaking may be anticipated. A thorough geotech- nical investigation should be performed for any develop- ment or structure to be located within or near these areas . 4 . 2. 9 Expansive Soils i Expansive clay soils which are widespread throughout the City can cause serious damage to lightly loaded structures , pavements , driveways , sidewalks , canal linings , etc. , due to volumetric changes associated with increases or decrease in moisture content . Soil engineers can identify potential - ly expansive clay soils by means of laboratory tests . Therefore, it is important that private geotechnical consultants be employed to evaluate the problem and make proper design recommendations for individual structures . 4 . 2. 10 Slope Stability Slope stability problems are not considered to be a significant constraint or planning concern within the City. In the event of strong ground shaking, there is a low but finite possibility that a number of relatively small landslides could occur in the areas of steeper slopes bordering the mesas . 1 4. 2. 11 Subsidence Subsidence due to man_caused activities has been recognized within the City of Huntington Beach. No damage or safety hazard is known to be associated with this phenomenon to date. Reportedly, there is no indication that subsidence, in connection with secondary oil recovery techniques in ' the Huntington Beach Oil Field, has reactivated any faults or stimulated increased levels of seismicity. Neither are these effects anticipated to occur in the future. 4. 2 . 12 Upgrading the Technical Data Base The need for detailed geologic investigations in the fault hazard zones has been previously discussed. The City should ensure that the active faults are investigated in each of the differing surficial earth units and that the information is gained in enough detail and depth to permit extrapolation throughout the City. i S0 . i Geophysicists at the University of Southern California, in cooperation with oil companies and municipalities , ' have established a seismic monitoring network across the Newport- Inglewood structural zone. It is centered in the Long Beach and Inglewood areas and has the potential of providing much useful information for land planners . It is suggested that the City of Huntington Beach inves- tigate the possibility of entering the network on a cooperative basis . 4. 2. 13 Updating and Periodic Maintenance of the Seismic Safety Element This inventory of seismic and other geotechnical consider- ations has of necessity been both broad and generalized. The element should be updated as significant new geotech- nical information becomes available , as the State-of-the- Art with regard to seismic considerations advances , and , as social values and definitions of "acceptable risk" change. S1 . N 1 (-D U � LO ca .;5 co 1 it II� I I rr �r Ir �■r rr rr err s it r rr r +r Ir rr rr rr �rl rr 1 SECTION 5. 0 THE; SEISMIC - SAFETY ELEMENT As discussed below, the State requires each city and county to develop a Seismic Element and a Safety Element in the interest of public health, safety, and welfare. The required content of these mandated General Plan elements overlaps to a considerable degree, however; and in the interests of a comprehensive approach to the problem of community security, they will be combined into a joint Seismic-Safety Element for the City. 5. 1 Safety Legislation 5.1. 1 Seismic Safety Element ' In 1971, Section 65302 (fl of the California Government Code made Seismic Safety the sixth mandated element of the General Plan and required "an identification and appraisal of seismic hazards such as susceptibility to surface ruptures from faulting, to ground shaking, to ground failures, or to effects of seismically induced waves such as tsunamis and seiches". Additionally, the law specifies that the element include "an appraisal of mudslides, landslides, and slope stability as necessary geologic hazards that must be considered simultaneously with other hazards such as possible surface ruptures from faulting, ground shaking, ground failure and seismically induced waves". 52 5. 1. 2 Public Safety Element Also in 1971, a Safety Element "for protection of commu- nity from fires and geologic hazards" was added to the ' General Plan by Section 65302.1 of` the California Government Code. Tile law stipulates that the element shall include "features necessary for such protection as evacuation routes, peak load water supply requirements, , minimum road widths, clearances around structures, and geologic hazard mapping in areas of known geologic hazards". t 5. 1. 3 Alquist - Priolo Geologic Hazards Zones Act Probably the most significant legislation relating land 1 use with seismic safety, this act orders the State Geologist to prepare maps by December 31, 1973, showing t "special studies zones" along active earthquake faults which will be provided to all cities and counties having jurisdiction over land within these zones. Additionally the statute requires the State Mining and Geology Board to develop criteria for evaluating development within these zones. The act further stipulates that every structure intended for human occupancy must get approval from the appropriate city or county; and approval cannot be granted if the local government finds that an'rundue hazard" would be created. (ThE act specifically states that cities and counties may adopt stricter , policies and criteria than those established by the State. ) The special studies zones to be mapped include "all potentially and recently active traces of the San Andreas, Calaveras, Hayward, and San Jacinto Faults, and such other faults or segments thereof, as he deems sufficiently active and well-defined as to constitute a potential hazard to structures from surface faulting or fault creep". Though Huntington Beach is not presently included in any , "special studies zone", additional zones may be delineated in the future which encorapass the Newport-Inglewood Fault through the City. At such time the following criteria would be enforced for any development project within the zone boundaries: A. No structure for human occupancy shall be permitted , to be placed across the trace of an active fault. Furthermore, the area within fifty C501 feet of an active fault shall be assumed to be underlain by active branches of that fault unless and until proven otherwise by an appropriate geologic investi- gation and submission of a report by a geologist registered in the State of California. , 53 B. Applications for all real estate developments and structures for human occupancy shall be accompanied ' by a geologic report prepared by a geologist regis- tered in the State of California, and directed to the problem of potential surface fault displacement through the site, unless such studies are waived pursuant to Section 2623. C. One Cl) copy of all such geologic reports shall be placed on open file with the State Geologist. D. Requirements for geologic reports may be satisfied for a single 1 or 2 family residence if, in the ' judgment of technically qualified City and County personnel, sufficient information is available from previous studies in the same area. ' E. Technically qualified personnel within or retained by each City or County must evaluate the geologic and engineering reports required herein and advise ' the body having jurisdiction and authority. F. Cities and Counties may establish policies and ' criteria which are more restrictive than those established herein. In particular, the Board believes that comprehensive geologic and engineering studies should be required for any major development ' Ce.g. high-rise buildings). or "essential" structure Ce.g. hospitalsZ whether or not it is located within a special studies zone. 5.1. 4 Other Legislation ' Seismic design requirements were first incorporated into the Uniform Building Code after the disastrous 1933 Long Beach earthquake, and some important refinements were suggested after the February 9 , 1971 San Fernando earthquake. Of particular significance are the following: School Construction (SB 479). - requires site evaluation of the probability for earthquake damage from causes such as sudden or slow slippage along a fault within a site, landsliding, differential compaction, ground cracking, liquefaction, tsunamis and seiche waves. Section 15002. 1 of the Education Code was amended by SB 689 so that "No school building shall be constructed or situated on the trace of an active geological fault. . .active is defined as one along which surface rupture can be reasonafily expected to occur within the life of the building". (Adopted 1971) 1 � 54 Hospital Construction (SB 519) - requires that engineering and geologic data be reviewed by a civil engineer, struc- tural engineer, certified engineering geologist and licensed architect. . .makes it a felony to knowingly make false statements in reports. . .establishes State earthquake resistance standards on new construction, reconstruction or alterations. (Adopted 1972) Subdivision Ma2 Act (SB 158 Rodda). - modifies the sub- division requirements of the Rea Estate Commission to require detailed geologic report for tentative tracts of more than five parcels. As proposed, geologic reports will be required where geologic hazards are known or when slopes are steeper than 5:1 ratio. (.Adopted 1972). ' 5.2 CIR Guidelines The California Council on Intergovernmental Relations offers addi- tional definition to state law in its General Plan guidelines published in September, 1973. CIR suggests that the Seismic Element ' include: A. A general policy statement that: , 1. Recognizes seismic hazards and their possible effect on the community. 2. Identifies general goals for reducing seismic risk. ' 3. Specifies the level or nature of acceptable risk to life and property (see safety element guidelines for the concept of "acceptable risk") . , 4. Specifies seismic safety objectives for land use. 5. Specifies objectives for reducing seismic hazard as related to existing and new structures. , B. Identification, delineation and evaluation of natural seismic hazards. C. Consideration of existing structural hazards. Generally, existing substandard structures of all kinds (including substandard dams and public utility facilitiesZ pose the greatest hazard to a community. D. Evaluation of disaster planning program. For near-term earthquakes, the most immediately useful thing that a community can do is to plan and prepare to respond to and recover from an earthquake as quickly and effectively as possible, given the existing condition of the area. The seismic safety element can provide guidance in disaster planning. , 55 , E. Determination of specific land use standards related to level of hazard and risk. ' The guidelines also present a suggested methodology: A. Initial organization 1. Focus on formulating and adopting interim policy based on very general evaluation of earth science information ' readily available. 2. Evaluate adequacy of existing information in relation to the identified range and severity of problems. ' 3. Define specific nature and magnitude of work program needed to complete the element in a second stage. B. Identification of natural seismic hazards 1. General structural geology and geologic history. 2. Location of all active or potentially active faults, with ' evaluation regarding past displacement and probability of future movement. 3. Evaluation of slope stability, soils subject to liquefac- tion and differential subsidence. 4. Assessment of potential for the occurrence and severity of damaging ground shaking and amplifying effects of unconsolidated materials. ' 5. Identification of areas subject to seiches and tsunamis. 6. Maps identifying location of the above characteristics. C. Identification and evaluation of present land use and circula- tion patterns should be recognized in the formulation of seismic safety-land use policies. D. Identification and evaluation of structural hazards relating ' structural characteristics, type of occupancy and geologic characteristics in order to formulate policies and programs to reduce structural hazard. E. Formulation of seismic safety policies and recommendations. F. Formulation of an implementation program. CIR guidelines outline a Safety Element as containing: A. General policy statement that: 1. Recognizes safety hazards. 2. Identifies goals for reducing hazards. 3. Specifies the level of acceptable risk. 4. Specifies objectives to be attained in reducing safety hazards as related to existing and new structures. Adft 56 5 . Sets -iriorities for the abatement of safety hazards, ' recognizing the variable frequency and occurrence of hazardous events . , B. A map showing the location and extent of known geologic hazards. C. Standards and general criteria for land use and circulation , relating to: 1. Fire prevention and control 2. Geologic hazards D. Consideration may be given to the crime prevention aspects of , land use development such as planning for "defensible space". Additionally, a sample methodology is presented: Methodology A. Identification, mapping and evaluation of existing and potential , hazards, both as to severity and frequency of occurrence. Analysis of hazardous land use relationships. B. With maximum citizen input "acceptable risk" should be deter- ' mined. In making this determination, it should be kept in mind that any attempt to develop the appropriate planning response to potential hazard involves a judgment, either ' explicit or implicit, of how much risk is acceptable. There is no such thing as a perfectly hazard-free environment. Natural and man-made hazards of some kind and degree are always present. However, efforts can be productively undertaken to try to mitigate the consequences of known hazards. In the context of the Safety Element, the problem of risk is , one of public policy and the appropriate allocation of public resources to mitigate hazards. The central question is, "how safe is safe enough?" The planner' s responsibility is to provide a framework in which a communitywide, as opposed to an individual, response to the question can be meaningful. The first of several essential steps is the recognition of the presence of a hazard. Much of the planning of the past , has proceeded without enough knowledge of the natural forces at play in a given area. Once a problem has been recognized, considerable effort is , required to evaluate its likely severity, frequency, and the characteristics of the area involved. This step should take into account the benefit/cost ratio of reducing hazard, ' acknowledging the intangibles involved, and comparing it with that of other projects. The factors of voluntary and involun- tary exposure to risk must be considered in reaching a decision. , 57 ' C. Define nature and magnitude of effort required to correct or mitigate hazards. ' D. Define general nature of regulations and programs needed to prevent or mitigate the effects of hazards in the developed and natural environments. E. Exchange information and advice with fire, police and public works departments, other agencies, and specialty personnel in ' the formulation of the element. As required by state law, all elements are to be completed one year after publication of CIR guidelines; that is, September, 1974. 5. 3 Methodology ' This Geotechnical Inputs document is a background report for the Seismic E ement and only a beginning step in development of a comprehensive joint Seismic-Safety Element of the General Plan. The following paragraphs briefly outline the approach adopted to insure that the final seismic-safety program is a realistic and workable one that effectively minimizes risk to life and property. ' 5. 3. 1 Interdisciplinary Approach. P Y PP ' The subject of seismic and public safety is a highly complicated one. In like manner, development of comprehensive seismic and safety plans requires not only 1 the skills of the planner but many technical specialists, as well. To insure that the Element is prepared with an in-depth understanding of the natural hazards that confront the community, the City will rely on a five- member interdisciplinary team to supervise all safety planning activities. Representing Planning, Building and Safety, Public Works, Fire, and Civil Defense ' Departments, the team will consist of two registered civil engineers, a fire marshall, a civil defense coordinator, and a planner. Coordinated by the Planning Department, the team will be responsible for reviewing and/or conducting the research, site investigation, inspection, plan formulation and ordinance proposals necessary to complete the Seismic-Safety Element. 5. 3.2 Background Studies In addition to general research activities, two special studies will be conducted as background reports for the Seismic-Safety Element. This GeotechnicaI Inputs 1 58 document is one such report; the other is a Flood Plain Study which will examine the nature and potential of flooding in the Santa Ana River Flood Plain, identify , existing and proposed control mea:-ures, and identify land use hazards. These two studies will form the data base for plan formulation. 5.3. 3 The Element Phase Two will consist of formulating the joint Seismic- Safety Element in conformance with General Plan law (Section 5.1) and CIR guidelines (,Section 5 .2) . Finally, the team will develop long-range and short-term implemen- tation programs designed to minimize risk, upgrade hazardous conditions, and insure proper development in the future. Some implementation techniques to be , considered include: inspection programs, renewal, seismic hazard management zones, disaster contingency plans, etc. 1 -F.-I JF 1 59 ■� 0 i U r � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � ' APPENDIX A CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH SEISMIC SAFETY ELEMENT GLOSSARY OF TERMS ALLUVIUM ' A general term for all sediment such as sand and gravel deposited by streams; (adjective: alluvial) . ANTICLINE Bedrock that has been folded in such a way that the beds (strata) are convex upward. May be less than an inch or several miles ' in extent. BEDROCK ' Firm or coherent rock material that underlies the soil or "overburden" ; divided geologically into 3 classes: igneous, sedimentary, and metamorphic. ' DEFORMATION A change in the form of a body of rock by mechanical means, i.e. , folding or faulting. DIFFERENTIAL COMPACTION ' Non-uniform consolidation of loose, saturated soils due to earthquake induced ground shaking. ' EARTHQUAKE Ground motion resultant from the relative movement of two blocks ' of the earth's crust along a fracture surface (i.e. , fault) . See FAULT, SURFACE RUPTURE. EPICENTER The point on the earth' s surface directly over where the focus or point of origin of the quake occurred. FAULT ' A fracture or fracture zone along which there has been movement (slippage) of two sides relative to one another and parallel to the fracture. Based on seismic activity, faults can be divided into three categories: 60 (1) active faults can be associated with historic seismic ' activity, (2) potentially active faults have not. been associated with , historic seismic activity, but give evidence of geologically recent activity, and (3) inactive faults do not show evidence of activity within , approximately the last one million years (i.e. , the beginning of the Pleistocene) . ' FORMATION To a geologist, this is a rock body which can be recognized, named and mapped, e.g. , San Pedro Formation, etc. GEOTECHNICAL Pertaining to geologic-soils engineering studies, features, conditions or events. GROUND RUPTURE ' See SURFACE RUPTURE. ' HYPCENTER In an earthquake, the point of initial. rock rupture or slippage; , always a point within the earth. IGNEOUS ' The class of rocks formed by cooling and crystallization from a molten state; includes volcanic erupted molten rock and ' subsurface intruded molten rock. INTENSITY A qualitative measure of the destructiveness of an earthquake; ' a number scale, e.g. , Mercalli. LIQUEFACTION The sudden, large decrease of shearing resistance of a cohesionless soil caused by collapse of the soil structure, produced by seismic shaking or small shear strains, associated with sudden but temporary increase of water pressure in the soil voids. I nip 61 LURCHING ' Inelastic deformation of the ground surface due to a loss of strength in underlying strata due to earthquake induced ground shaking. ' MAGNITUDE A quantitative measure of the total energy release of a quake; a logarithmic number scale, e.g. , Richter. RECURRENCE INTERVAL ' The average length of time between earthquake events of a specified magnitude. SATURATED A rock or soil is saturated with respect to water if all its voids are filled with water. SEDIMENTARY ROCK ' The class of rocks made up of transported and deposited rock and mineral particles (sediment) and of chemical substances derived from weathering. SEICHING Stationary oscillations of enclosed or partly enclosed bodies of water caused by an earthquake, landslide, or a sudden change in atmospheric and wind pressure. ' SEISMIC Of or related to earthquake shaking. SETTLEMENT The downward movement of a soil or of the structure which it ' supports, resulting from a reduction in the voids in the underlying strata. SILTSTONE ' A sedimentary rock of cemented, fine-grained particles intermediate in size between sand and clay (silt) . ' STRATIFICATION A structure of sedimentary rocks produced by deposition in layers (beds) . AdWk 62 SUBSIDENCE The relatively slow, gradual sinking of a large area in a vertical direction with little or no horizontal movement. SURFACE RUPTURE During an earthquake, the permanent displacement (or offset) of the earth' s surface along a fault plane. Ground breakage at the earth's surface. TECTONIC Pertaining to rock structure resulting from deformation of the earth's crust. TSUNAMI Seismic sea wave produced by a submarine earthquake or volcanic eruption. Ash, 63 1 APPENDIX B SELECTED REFERENCES ' CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Albee, A. L. & Smith, J. L. , 1966, Earthquake characteristics and fault activity : in Engineering Geology of southern California; ' Association of Engineering Geologists . Andreasen, G. E. , et al , 1964, Aeromagnetic map of the Long Beach- Santa Ana area, Los Angeles and Orange County, California: ' U. S. Geol . Survey Geophysical Investigation Map GP464. Bandy, 0. L. $ Marincovich, L. Jr. , 1973, Rates of late Cenozoic ' uplift, Baldwin Hills , Los Angeles , California: Science , vol. 181 , No. 4100 . Barrows, A. G. , 1973, Earthquakes along the Newport-Inglewood struc- tural zone : in California Geology, vol . 26 , No. 3. Denioff, Hugo , 1938, The determination of the extent of faulting with ' application to the Long Beach earthquake: Seis. Soc. of America Bull. vol . 28, no. 2 . Brown, Glenn A. & Associates , 1971, Preliminary hydrogeologic ' investigation of Bolsa Gap : for Signal Properties , Inc. California Dept. of Water Resources , 1966, Santa Ana Gap salinity ' barrier, Orange County: DWR Bull. 147-1. , 1964, Crustal strain and fault movement investigation: DWR Bull. 116-2 ., - 1968, Sea water intrusion Bolsa Sunset area, Orange County: DWR Bull. No. 63-2 . 1967, Progress report on groundwater geology of the coastal plain of Orange County. ' California Division of Mines and Geology, 1962, Long Beach map sheet: 1 : 250,000. ' , 1954, Geology of southern California: CDMG Bull. 170, Chapter II and map sheets 32 , 34. 1972 , Geologic map of California, southern half: (open file) , compiled by C. W. Jennings , 1: 750,000. 64 1 1943, Geologic formations and economic dCVC1oI)111CI1t of the , oil and gas fields of California : CDMG Bull . 118. California Division of Mines and Geology, Woodward-Lundgren and Associates , 1971 , Urban geology master plan for California; a method for setting priorities : California Division of Mines and Geology. , California Division of Oil and Gas , 1970, Production statistics , 1970 : California oil fields , vol. 56 , no. 2 . Carls , J. M. , 1949 , Recent developments in the tar sands of the Townlot area, Huntington Beach oil field: D.O. G. vol. 3S, #1 . Carriel , James T. , 1942 , Huntington Beach oil field; oil field portions : D.O. G. vol . 28, # 1 . Coast and Geodetic Survey, n.d. Tsunami - the story of the seismic ' sea wave warning system: U. S. Department of Commerce . Corwin, C. H. , 1946 , West Newport oil field.: D.O. G. vol. 32 , # 2. , Cox, D. C. , 1964 , Tsunami forecasting: Technical report prepared for Office of Naval Research under contract number NONR-3748 ' (03) , Hawaii Institute of Geophysics , University of Hawaii. Crandall, Leroy, $ Associates , 1964, Report of preliminary soil investigation proposed development , Pacific Coast Highway , and Warner Avenue, Orange County, California: for Bolsa Properties . D'Arnall, Captain D. G. , 1973, Huntington Beach Department of Harbors , and Beaches , personal communication. Emery, K. 0. , 1960 , The sea off southern California: John Wiley f, , Sons , Inc. , New York, 366p. Esteva, L. and Rosenblueth, E. , 1964, Espectros de temblores a ' distancias moderadas y grades : Boletin, Sociedad Mexicana de Ingenieria Sismica, V. 2 , No. 1. Fairbridge, R. W. , 1968, Beach erosion and coastal protection: Coastal classification in the Encyclopedia of Geomorphology, Reinhold Book Corporation, New York. Hamilton, D. H. and Meehan, R. L. , 1971 , Ground rupture in the , Baldwin Hills : Science, Vol. 172 , Number 3981 . Harding, T. P. , 1973, Newport-Inglewood trend, California; an example ' of wrenching style of deformation: American Association of Petroleum Geologists , vol. 57, pp 97-116 . 65 ' Hazenbush, G. C. & Allen, D. R. , 1958 , Huntington Beach oil field: D.O. G. vol . 28 , # 1 . ' Hill , Mason L. , 1971, Newport- Inglewood zone and mesozoic subduction , California: Geol . Soc. American, vol . 82 , pp 2957-2962 . ' Hunter, A. L. & Allen, D. R. , 1956, Recent developments in West Newport oil field : D.O.G. vol . 42 , # 2. ' Jahns , R. H. , Hill, M. L. , et al , 1971, Geologic structure of the continental shelf off San Onofre; regional relationships and influence on seismicity: Stanford University Board of Technical Review. ' Kew, William S. , 1923, Geologic evidence bearing on the Ingelwood earthquake of June 21, 1920 : Seis . Soc. of America Bull. ' vol . 13. Lawmaster, H. V. & Company, Inc. , 1973, Seismicity study, Tract 7495 , Huntington Beach, California: for Signal Landmark Company. Ledingham, G. W. , 1973, California Division of Oil & Gas , August 27 , 1973, personal communication. ' Leighton-Yen & Associates , 1973, Seiches in Vail Lake, Rancho California: prepared for Kaiser-Aetna. L. A. District, Corps of Engineers, 1971, Preliminary flood insurance study, Huntington Beach, California: for Federal Insurance Administration. ' Matthiesen, et al , 1972, Criteria for the evaluation of the safety of nuclear power stations during earthquakes : School of ' Engineering and Applied Science, University of California, Los Angeles , California. McCulloh, Thane H. , Simple bouguer gravity and generalized geologic map of the Northwest part of the Los Angeles basin: U. S. G.S. Geophysical Investigation GP149. ' Miller, R. E. , 1966, Land subsidence in southern California: in Engineering Geology of southern California Association of Engineering Geologists . ' Murray-Aaron, Eugene R. , 1947, Tideland pools of Huntington Beach oil field: D.O. G. vol. 33, # 1. ' Neumann, F. , 1954, Earthquake intensity and related ground movement, University of Washington Press , Seattle, (1954) . 1 66 1 Newmark, N. M. J. and W. J. Hall , 1969 , Seismic design criteria for ' nuclear facilities : 4th WCEE, Santiago , Chile . Page, et al , 1972 , Ground motion values for use in the seismic design , of the Trans-Alaska pipeline system: Geol. Surv. Circ. 672 . Poland, J. F. , 1947, Summary statement of groundwater conditions and ' saline ccntamination along the coast of Orange County, California: Orange County Water District. Poland, J. F. , 1959, Hydrology of the Long Beach-Santa Ana area, , California: USGS water supply, 1971. , Piper, A. M. , 1956, Groundwater geology of the coastal zone , Long Beach-Santa Ana area, California: USGS water supply paper 1109 . Raichler, F. , 1972 , Discussion of tsunami-responses of San Pedro ' Bay and Shelf, California: Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers , (WW1) . Richter, C. F. , 1958, Elementary seismology : W. If. Freeman f, Company, San Francisco. Ross , Grant A. 1968 , Case studies of soil stability problems result- , ing from earthquakes : thesis Univ. of California at Berkeley, unpublished Ph.D thesis . Schnabel, P. B . and Seed, H. B. , 1972 , Acceleration in rock for ' earthquakes in the Western United States : Report No. EERC 72-2 , Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of ' California, Berkeley. Schoellhamer, J. E. & Woodford, A. 0. , 1951 , Los Angeles Basin: ' USGS OM 117 . Seed, H. G. , Idriss , A. M. , and Kiefer, F. W. , 1969 , Characteristics of rock motions during earthquakes : ASCE Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundations , Div. , SMS. Seed, H. B . .. Idriss , A. M. , 1971 , Simplified procedure for evaluation ' of soil liquefaction potential : Proceedings of ASCE , Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division. , 1967 , Analysis of soil liquefaction - Niigata earthquake: ' Proceedings of ASCE, Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division. Seed, ff. B . and Lee, K. , 1966, Liquefaction of saturated sands ' during cyclic loading: Proceedings of ASCE, Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division. 67 ' Shepard, F. P . , MacDonald, G. A. and Cox, D. C. , 1950, The tsunami of April 1, 1946 : Bull . Scripps Institution of Oceanography ' of the University of California, La Jolla, Calif. , vol . 5, no . 6, pp. 391-528. University of Calif. Press , Berkeley and Los Angeles . ' Soil Conservation Survey, 1919, Soil survey of the Anaheim area, California: U. S. Dept. of Agriculture . Taber, Stephen, 1920 , The Inglewood earthquake in southern California June 21, 1920 : Seis . Soc. of American Bull. vol. 10. Troxel et al , 1938 , Floods or March 1938 , southern California : USGS water supply paper 844. Townley, S. D. and Allen, M. W. , 1939, Descriptive catalog of earth- quakes of the Pacific Coast of the United States 1769-1928: Seis . Soc. Amer. Bull. vol . 29 , no. 1 . U. S. Army Corps of Engineers , 1959 , Beach erosion control report on ' cooperative study of Orange County, California. , and Dames & Moore, 1971 , National shoreline study - California ' regional inventory. Wentworth, C. M. et al , 1970, Preliminary geologic environmental map of the Greater Los Angeles area, California: A.E .C. TID-25363, t1 : 2 5 0 ,0 0 0. Wiegel, R. L. , 1964, Tsunamis , storm surges and harbor oscillations : ' Oceanographic Engineering, Prentice-Hall, Inc. Englewood Cliffs , New Jersey. 1970, Tsunamis : in Earthquake Engineering, Prentice-Hall, Inc. , Englewood Cliffs , New Jersey. Wilson, B. W. & Torum, A. , 1968, The tsunami of the Alaskan earth- quake, 1964 ; engineering evaluation: U. S. Army Corps of Engineers , Coastal Research Center, Tech. Memorandum No. 25. ' Wood, H. 0. , and Heck, N. H. , 1966, Earthquake history of the United States , Part II , stronger earthquakes of California and western Nevada: U. S. Dept. of Commerce, E.S.S.A. ' Yerkes , R. F. , 1965, Geology of the Los Angeles Basin - an intro- duction: USGS Prof. Paper 420-A. ' 68 1 APPENDIX C ' AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS ' Year Flight Number Scale Agency 1928 C-300 1" = 1500' Fairchild C-135 1" = 1500' Fairchild ' 1932 2389 1" = 1000' Fairchild 1938 5029 1" = 2500 ' Fairchild 1947 11730 1" = 600' Fairchild 69 33 is I 1 :: LAND USE ELEMENT ADVANCE PLANNING � PROGRAM y � ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY I ' I O� 9n U M LIFOR� COUNTY OF ORANGE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS I � Roger R. Stanton Chairman First District L Harriett M. Wieder 1992 Gaddi H. Vasquez Second District Third District � r ' I ! Don R. Roth Thomas F. Riley Fourth District Fifth District COMPONENT II ADVANCE PLANNING PROGRAM LAND USE ELEMENT COUNTY OF ORANGE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY ADVANCE PLANNING DIVISION June 9, 1982 (GENERAL PLAN MODERNIZATION) rHoard of Supervisors Resolution No. 82-892 REVISED: 02/18/83 Resolution No. 82-893/LU 82-1 82-1396/LU 82-2 82-1774/LU 82-3 07/20/83 Resolution No. 83-804/LU 83-1 05/28/86 Resolution No. 86 714/LU 86-1 12/09/87 Resolution No. 87-1632/LU 87-2 12/05/90 Resolution No. 90-1500/LU 90-4 02/26/91 Resolution No. 91-183/LU 91-1 11/12/91 Resolution No. 91-1345/LU 91-3 12/10/91 Resolution No. 91-1439/LU 91-4 06/09/92 Resolution No. 92-645/LU 92-1 MA:tk/2102609501214 TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter One: Introduction A. Overview LU-1-1 B. Purpose of the Element LU-1-I C. Related Planning Programs LU-1-1 1. Orange County Preferred-85 (OCP-85) Demographic Projections LU-1-1 2. State Planning Programs LU-1-3 D. Relationship to Other Elements LU-1-3 Chapter Two: Current Conditions and Future Demand A. Introduction LU-2-1 B. Inventory of Current and Future Conditions LU-2-1 1. Data Sources LU-2-1 2. County Growth Trends LII-2-1 3. General Plan Land Use Categories LU-2-5 C. Analysis of Current Conditions and Future Demand LU-2-15 1. Infrastructure Analysis LII-2-15 2. Fiscal Resources Analysis LII-2-16 3. Environmental Resources Analysis LU-2-17 Chapter Three: Future Objectives and Policies A. Introduction LU-3-1 B. Objectives and Assumptions LU-3-1 C. Land Use Categories LII-3-4 Chapter Four: Planning Constraints and Deficiencies A. Overview LII-4-1 B. Environmental Constraints LII-4-1 C. Fiscal Constraints and Deficiencies LU-4-3 D. Economic and Market Constraints LU-4-3 E. Governmental Constraints LU-4-3 Chapter Five: Implementation Policies A. Omrer vi ew LU-5-1 B. Major Land Use Implementation Policies LU-5-1 I. Balanced Land Use LII-5-1 2. Phased Development LU-5-2 3. Housing Densities LU-5-2 4. Land Use/Transportation Integration LU-5-2 °.. Commercial and Industrial Centers/ Transportation Access LU-5-2 6. New Development Compatibility LU-5-3 7- Creative Design Concepts LU-5-3 13. Enhancement of Environment LU-5-3 9. Employment Development LU-5-3 10. Child Care Improvement LU-5-4 -i- LIST OF TABLES, CHARTS AND MAPS Tables 2-1 Orange County Demographic Projections LU-2-2 2-2 Projected Population Growth Trends LU-2-6 2-3 Projected Housing Growth Trends LU-2-8 2-4 Projected Employment Growth Trends LU-2-10 2-5 Aggregated Land Use Categories LII-2-12 2-6 Potential Housing Supply LU-2-13 4-1 Environmental Constraints LU-4-2 4-2 Major Public Service Deficiencies LII-4-4 E-1 Community Profile Subcategories by LUE Category LII-E-1 Charts 2-1 Orange County Socio-Economic Projections LII-2-3 Maps 1-1 Regional Statistical Areas LII-1-2 2-2 Population LU-2-7 2-3 Housing Units LII-2-9 2-4 Employment LII-2-11 4-1 Governmental Constraints LU-4-10 G-1 Orange County General Plan: Land Use LU-G-1 Element Map MBM:jcPA16-1 -iii- 7350 iCHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION A. Overview The Land Use Element (LUE) , one of eight elements of the restructured General Plan, contains official County policies on the location and character of land uses necessary for orderly growth and development. The eight elements provide the mid-range (15- to 20-year) portion of the planning program and focus on objectives and policies at the Regional Statistical Area (RSA) level (see Map 1-1) . All elements have the same horizon year (2010) and growth assumptions to ensure internal consistency. The LUE identifies policies and programs in other County General Plan elements which affect land use and provide guidance for future land use planning studies for the unincorporated portion of the county. iThis LUE text is divided into five chapters. The first chapter provides an overview of the purpose and scope of the LUE. Chapter Two consists of an inventory of existing land use conditions and related physical characteristics of the unincorporated area. In Chapter Three, the objectives and land use plan are presented. Projected deficiencies and constraints on achievement of the objectives stated in Chapter Three are outlined in Chapter Four. Chapter Five presents implementation policies which address these deficiencies and constraints, and provides guidelines for evaluation of development projects. Implementation programs, reference materials and supporting data for the text are contained in the Appendix. B. Purpose of the Element The Land Use Element describes objectives, policies and land use patterns for all unincorporated territory in both narrative and graphic terms and establishes development criteria and standards, including population density and building intensity. Land use categories are used to depict the general distribution, location, and extent of public and private uses of land. In accomplishing this primary purpose, the Land Use Element fulfills the requirements of Section 65302(a) of the California Government Code, which establishes it as a mandated element of the General Plan. Through a combination of objectives, policies and programs, the LUE has two additional purposes. First, many of the goals stated in Component I of the General Plan can be achieved through the application of land use policies. These land use policies provide a basis for the evaluation of physical development and growth trends in order to achieve the General Plan goals. Second, these policies determine land use capacities and the appropriate level of public services and infrastructure necessary to support these capacities. C. Related Planning Programs 1. Orange County Preferred-85 (OCP-85) Orange County Preferred-85 contains housing and population policy projections used by the Orange County Transportation Commission, Orange County Transit District, and the County of Orange for all long-range planning and budgeting activities. LU-1-1 MAP 1-1 \VOOO� 1-B r � i 4_4-E 43-C 35 Y \ ! S Oran a County Regional Statistical Areas Regional Statistical Areas (RSAs) are the geographic units used for the development of these policy projections. These projections are disaggregated to Community Analysis Areas (CAAs) for the purpose of performing Development Monitoring Program (D.MP) and Areawide Fiscal Impact System (AFIS) analyses. DMP and AFIS analyses are conducted by the County Administrative Office in order to determine the impact of existing and projected development on infrastructure facilities and fiscal resources. The CAA projections are then disaggregated by EMA to transporation analysis zones (TAZs) for use in transportation planning. OCP-85 is the County's official input to the SCAG Regional Growth Forecast Policy, which is implemented through SCAG's regional planning activities, project review, and coordination with city, county, state and federal governments. The adopted growth forecast is utilized in the development of the 208 slater Quality Plan, the Air Quality Management Program, and the Regional Transportation Plan which are mandated by federal and state law. Therefore, land use planning efforts by the County are significantly influenced by OCP-85 projections. 2. State Planning Programs While many state agency plans and decisions may impact Orange County planning activities, the California Coastal Commission and State Department of Transportation (CalTrans) wield special influence upon land use planning programs. The California Coastal Commission enforces the State Coastal Act in Orange County's coastal zone. The Coastal Commission regulates proposed developments and coordinates preparation of local coastal programs for land within the coastal zone in order to achieve the resource protection goals of the Coastal Act. CalTrans is the state agency responsible for planning and programming state highway projects; consequently, its decisions influence both growth trends and land use patterns in Orange County. County land use programs are coordinated with these state planning efforts. D. Relationship to Other Elements A major goal of the Land Use Element is to achieve internal consistency among all elements of the General Plan as required by state law. Although the Land Use Element provides the basis for land use decisions, it does not replace or supersede any of the other General Plan elements. Instead, the LUE complements the other elements by incorporating and implementing their land use concerns and recommendations. The LUE supports the Resources Element's open space and natural resource plans through the designation of an Open Space land use category. The Transportation, Recreation, Safety, and Housing elements are implemented by incorporating their land use recommendations into policies and programs. The LUE is also consistent with the Noise Element in that the land use plan �) reflects noise level concerns. Therfore, the LUE, at the time of its adoption, is the most current expression of County land use policy and is internally consistent with the other General Plan elements. 1I MBM:mhPA16-2 LU-1-3 7350 CHAPTER TWO: CURRENT CONDITIONS AND FUTURE DEMAND A. Introduction This chapter will identify current conditions and the manner in which future growth is expected to be influenced by the policies of the Land Use Element. The chapter is divided into two sections. The fj:rst presents a detailed inventory of current conditions and projected levels of population, housing and employment. The second section presents an analysis of infrastructure, fiscal resources and environmental resources for both current and projected future conditions. B. Inventory of Current and Future Conditions 1. Data Sources For the purposes of the LUE, 1980 was selected as the baseline for data collection and analysis. The prime advantage of using 1980 as the base year is the availability of Census data, which serve as benchmarks for population, housing, and income trends. In addition, the primary source of land use data -- the Orange County Land Cover Survey -- was compiled in 1980. This survey was conducted by the Environmental Systems Research Institute in cooperation with the County and Southern California Edison. The horizon year of the County's General Plan is 2010. All projections and analyses of physical and socio-economic conditions in the county are keyed to this 30-year time frame. Table 2-1 on the following page contains a summary of population, housing and employment trends expected to occur during the study period. These projections are broken down by Regional Statistical Area (RSA) . Chart 2-1 graphically illustrates the relationships between RSAs for these three variables. The source of the demographic projections is the Orange County Preferred (OCP) forecast. The most recent iteration known as Orange County Preferred-1985 (OCP-85) was adopted by the Board of Supervisors on February 19, 1985. In addition to its use by County agencies, OCP-85 is the County's official input to the SCAG Regional Growth Forecast Policy. The OCP projections can be amended in the following ways: 1) concurrent with the processing of a project that is inconsistent with the projections; 2) through annual review as a part of the Development Monitoring Program; or 3) as part of the two-to three-year SCAG Regional Development Guide update process. 2. County Growth Trends During the past 20 years the focal point of Orange County's growth has shifted -gradually southward. In the 1950s and 160s the majority of new development occurred in the northern areas of the county such as Anaheim, Fullerton, Orange, Westminster and Fountain Valley. During the 1970s, as vacant land became more scarce in these northern areas, the center of growth shifted to the south with the .rise of new communities ' like Irv .ne, Mission Viejo, and Laguna Niguel. For analytical purposes, LU-2-1 TABLE 2-1 ORANGE COUNTY DEMOGRAPHIC PROJECTIONS POPULATION HOUSING EMPLOYMENT RSA 19808/ 2010Y 1980a/ 2010h/ 1980a/ 2010Y 35-J 156,248 165,400 52,454 59,800 55,200 86,400 36-A 168,782 202,300 64,578 80,900 100,600 125,600 37-H 338,682 389,200 124,875 145,700 146,000 212,000 38-I 321,137 378,900 119,038 150,900 90,300 133,500 39-F 170,644 257,400 74,920 112,500 146,800 237,200 40-D 134,696 279,800 66,072 134,600 32,600 109,900 41-B 116,686 245,900 39,276 86,200 54,900 94,200 42-G 377,316 488,800 130,103 167,400 211,600 336,100 C 43-C 95,954 242,300 32,885 93,500 17,400 62,800 N ^' 44-E 52,564 181,100 17,313 69,200 60,000 172,800 COUNTY TOTAL 1,932,709 2,831,100 721,514 1,100,700 915,400 1,570,500 Sources: a/ 1980 Census County of Orange: OCP-85 Projections RME:ltPA40-8(1) November 13, 1985 6087 2010 1980 460 440 420, 400-- 380— 360-- 340-- 320-- 28060 -- 2 -- 240-- ,i; 200-- ISO-- 160 !7 140-- 7 120-- aow 60 r10 20 Ile RSAG 315—J 36—A 87—H 38--1 39—F 40—D 41-6 42-0 43—C 44—E POP.PopukGm DU Dwdbv Lkits EW E00"nort (NUMBERS IN 1000 9) Orange County Socio CHART - Economic Projections OCP-85 LU-2-3 analytical purposes, North County is generally considered to be the area north and west of the Costa Mesa Freeway (State Highway 55) and contains RSAs 35-J, 36-A, 37-H, 38-I, 41-B, and 42-G. South County is represented by RSAs 39-F, 40-D, 43-C and 44-8. Table 2-2 and Map 2-2 compare the projected population growth trends in the north and south portions of the county. During the 30-year study period, about 56 percent of the county's net population growth is projected to occur in the southern RSAs. Although the rate of growth in North County is declining, this area will still contain the majority of the county's population throughout the study period. In 1980, 77 percent of the county's 1,932,709 people lived in the North. By 2010, it is expected that this figure will fall to 66 percent. The difference in growth between North and South becomes more apparent when the internal growth rates of the two areas are compared. Between 1980 and 2010, the population of the northern portion of the county is expected to increase by 391,649 or 26 percent. South County will add 506,742 persons during the same period; this represents an increase of 112 percent, however. The projected increase in the county's housing stock reflects the population trend identified above (see Table 2-3 and Map 2-3) . Due to a projected decline in average household size from 2.68 to 2.57 persons per dwelling unit countywide, the number of new units expected to be 1 built between 1980 and 2010 represents a slightly higher percentage increase than that for the population itself. Consequently, while the county's population is projected to rise by 46 percent (898,391 persons) during the period, the housing stock is expected to increase by 52 percent (379,186 units) over the same interval. The projected spatial distribution of new residential construction is skewed slightly toward South County. Fifty-eight percent of the projected 379,186 new units built in the county between 1980 and 2010 are expected to be located in the southern area. Although the north portion of the county is growing much less rapidly than the south on a percentage basis, by 2010 nearly two-thirds (63 percent) of all housing units will still be found in the northern RSA's. County employment patterns are very similar to the population and housing distributions described above (see Table 2-4 and Map 2-4) . As of 1980-,- 72 percent of the county's 915,400 jobs were located in North County. This is comparable to the population distribution identified in Table 2-2. By 2010, a moderate southward shift in the employment distribution is projected to occur. The magnitude of this shift is similar to the anticipated shift in population and housing. South County is projected to receive about 50 percent of the new jobs created between 1980 and 2010. Again, this figure is similar to the projected differential growth in population and housing. Overall, the county's employment base is projected to grow faster than population, with a 72 percent gain between 1980 and 2010. This compares to a projected population growth of 46 percent during the same period. LU-2-4 1 3. Genera]. Plan Land Use Categories Table 2-5 summarizes the distribution of land use designations for unincorperated areas within each of the county's ten RSAs. The General Plan identifies nine broad categories of land use: Rural Residential, Suburban Residential, Urban Residential, Community Commercial, Regional Commercial, Employment, Public Facilities, Open Space and Urban Activity Centers. As Table 2-5 indicates, approximately two-thirds (64.5 percent) of the unincorporated territory in the county is designated Open Space. This represents approximately 164,500 acres, much of which is within Cleveland National Forest. Land currently designated Open Space also includes areas of special scenic, ecological, or cultural significance, greenbelts, agricultural lands, recreational facilities, and reserve areas. While some of these areas are intended to remain permanently in their current state, others are considered temporary classifications until they are ready for development. Areas designated Suburban Residential represent about 25 percent of the county's unincorporated land, the largest category other than Open Space. Development within these areas is intended to include a wide variety of residential product types, ranginc from low-density estates on ones-half to two-acre lots, to higher-density dwellings such as patio homes, townhouses, condominiums and apartments at densities up to 18 units per acre. One of the primary purposes of this wide latitude within the Suburban Residential designation is to encourage flexibility and creativity in the development process, which will allow projects to be adapted to the special physical and economic conditions of particular sites. Suburban Residential areas are contained in all RSAs, although most are found in 40-D (South Coast) , 41-B (Canyon) , 42-G (Santa Ana) and 43-C (Trabuco). The Rural Residential designation applies to about five percent of the county's unincorporated land, the vast majority of which is found in RSA 43-C (Trabuco) . Due to environmental or other constraints, these areas are not suited to traditional urban development. Single-family homes on lots of at least two acres may be permitted, however, if special pre- cautions are taken to ensure that the development will not adversely affect the area. The Urban Residential category applies to infill parcels in areas such as Tustin, Midway City and Dana Point, as well as town center areas in newer: communities such as Mission Viejo. This designation is intended to permit high-density (18+ units per acre) condominiums and apartments in appropriate locations. Most of the suitable locations for this type of development are found within the various cities, however, and only 910 acres (0.4 percent of the total unincorporated area) are designated Urban Residential. The General Plan contains two categories of commercial land use. Community Commercial areas are intended to provide a wide range of facilities for retail trade and convenience goods, such as supermarkets, restaurants, movie theaters and banks. Just under one percent of the unincorporated area is designated Community Commercial, most of which is LU-2-5 TABLE 2-2 PROJECTED POPULATION GROWTH TRENDS NORTH COUNTY VS. SOUTH COUNTY 1980 - 2010 North Countya/ South Countyl County Total 1980 2010 Change 1980 2010 Change 1980 2010 Change Total Population 1,478,851 1,870,500 +26% 453,858 960,600 +112% 1,932,709 2,831,100 +46% Pct. of Total 77% 66% -11% 23% 34% +11% 100% 100% - Population r Growth - - 391,649 - - 506,742 - - 898,391 C N Pct. of Growth - - 44% - - 56% - - 100% Average Household Size 2.79 2.71 - 0.08 2.37 2.34 -0.03 2.68 2.57 -0.11 Notes: a/ Includes RSAS 35-J, 36-A, 37-H, 38-I, 41-B and 42-G y Includes RSAs 39-F, 40-D, 43-C and 44-E Sources: 1980 Census County of Orange: OCP-85 Projections Orange County EMA/Advance Planning Division _ November 13 PA40 8(2) , 1985 6087 2010 4 1-2% /\ s / Nis a2 p 6- /mom /1 /\ ® 44-E $ 43 C a7 | ■ - | all 3 w POPULATION SOURCE: Orange county M A P Wa . 2-2 " M "0 4M M mow " 'i m an M � M xw m TABLE 2-3 PROJECTED HOUSING GROWTH TRENDS NORTH COUNTY vs. SOUTH COUNTY 1980 - 2010 North Countya/ South Count yb/ County Total 1980 2010 Change 1980 2010 Change 1980 2010 Change Total Units 530,324 690,900 +30% 191,190 409,800 +114% 721,514 1,100,700 +53% Pct. of Total 74% 63% -11% 26% 37% +11% 100% 100% - r Growth - - 160,576 - - 218,610 - - 379,186 C N Pct. of Growth - - 42% - - 58% - - 100% Notes: a/ Includes RSA: 35-J, 36-A, 37-H, 38-I, 41-B and 42-G b/ Includes RSAs 39-F, 40-D, 43-C and 44-E Sources: 1980 Census County of Orange: OCP-05 Projections Orange County EMA/Advance Planning Division PA40-8(3) November 13, 1985 6108 2010 ,=R vnlloo.ow C. D..*..*0 9 MOCK.49.940 QVIII&LING UNITS 36- 44-E Efl 43-C 7-H 42-0 35-J 39-F 40-0 N. NI HOUSING UNITS SOURCE: Orange County MAP on Qom--85 2- L 31 TABLE 2-4 PROTECTED EMPLOYMENT GROWTH TRENDS NORTH COUNTY vs. SOUTH COUNTY 1980 - 2010 North Countya/ South County!?/ County Total 1980 2010 Change 1980 2010 _Change 1980 2010 Change Total Employment 658,600 987,800 +50% 256,800 582,700 +127% 915,400 1,570,500 +72% Pct. of Total Employment 72% 63% -9% 28% 37% +98 100% 100% - r- Growth - - 329,200 - - 325,900 - - 655,100 C N Pct. of Growth - - 50% - - 50% - - 100% Notes: a/ Includes RSAs 35-J, 36-A, 37-H, 38-I, 41-B and 42-G b/ Includes RSAs 39-F, 40-D, 43-C and 44-E Sources: Orange County EMA/Advance Planning Division County of Orange OCP-85 PA40-8(4) November 13, 1985 6087 2010 EflSoso 41—B *too@ XQODD 60000 44—E 1 OLOC'•6 It: 6.080 J081 43—C 3 35—J 3 8 .1 40' EMPLOYMENT SOURCE: Orange County MAP 2 U-4 �r �r � �s rr air r� rr �r rr rr r �r err �r rr it r ar TABLE 2-5 AGGREGATED LAND USE CATEGORIES ' Acreage by RSA LAND USE RSA COUNTY $ UNINC. CATEGORY 35-1 36-A 37-H 38-I 39-F 40-D 41-B 42-G 43-C 44-E TOTAL AREA RURAL RES' (lA) 0 0 0 0 80 287 1,093 0 11,169 686 13,315 5.2 SUBURBAN RES (1B) 1,299 1,529 957 275 2,296 21,530 5,620 5,889 23,828 40 63,263 24.9 URBAN RES (1C) 0 0 0 191 238 247 0 33 201 0 910 0.4 COMMUNITY COMM (2A) 14 0 0 35 131 1,174 61 16 899 15 2,345 0.9 REGIONAL COM (2B) 0 0 0 0 0 164 0 0 250 0 414 0.2 EMPLOYMENT (3) 0 145 84 21 67 1,293 104 31 1,531 125 3,401 1.3 PUB FACILITIES (4) 0 0 0 0 448 221 210 8 711 3,779 5,377 2.1 OPEN SPACE (5) 0 0 218 2,328 2,632 13,159 29,605 1,801 91,678 22,566 163,987 64.5 URBAN ACT. CTR (6) 0 0 0 0 0 86 0 0 1,297 0 1,383 0.5 TOTAL UNINC AREA 1,313 1,674 1,259 2,850 5,892 38,161 36,693 7,778 131,564 27,211 254,395 100 PERCENT UNINC 8.0 7.2 4.2 8.0 15 67.1 55.3 20.2 97.2 64.3 52.5 TOTAL INCORP AREA 15,019 21,707 28,912 32,967 33,488 18,675 29,659 30,768 3,727 15,107 230,029 RSA TOTAL AREA 16,332 23,381 30,171 35,817 39,380 56,836 66,352 38,546 135,291 42,318 484,424 SOURCE: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON/ORANGE COUNTY LAND COVER SURVEY (1980) REVISED 7/87 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS THROUGH LU 87-1 CITY ANNEXATIONS THROUGH 7/87 MBM:rmPA16-8 LU-2-12 8011 TABLE 2-6 FOTMMar, HOUSING SUPPLY Unincorporated Area by RSA LAND USE CATEGORY 35-J 36-A 37-H 38-I 39-F 40-D 41-B 42-G 43-C 44-E a* TOTAL TOTAL ACRES 0 0 0 0 80 287 1,093 0 11,169 686 13,315 RURAL RES (1A) POTENTIAL UNITS 0 0 0 0 20 49 284 0 2,454 178 2,985 TOTAL ACRES 1,299 1,529 957 275 2,296 21,530 5,620 5,889 23,828 40 63,263 SUBURB RES (1B) POTENTIAL UNITS 7,135 3,545 5,757 1,477 9,597 103,882 9,856 16,673 92,321 184 250,427 TOTAL ACRES 0 0 0 191 238 247 0 33 201 0 910 URBAN RES QC) POTENTIAL UNITS 0 0 0 5,718 6,648 7,410 0 949 5,975 0 26,700 TOTAL ACRES 0 0 0 0 0 86 0 0 1,004 0 1,090 URBAN ACTIVITY CENTER (6) b* POTENTIAL UNITS 0 0 0 0 0 437 0 0 2,402 0 2,839 TOTAL ACRES 1,299 1,529 957 466 2,614 22,150 6,713 5,922 36,202 726 78,578 TOTAL POTENTIAL UNITS 7,135 3,545 5,757 7,195 16,265 1110776 10,140 17,622 103,152 362 282,95 LU-2-13 LAND USE CATEGORY 35-J 36-A 37-II 38-I 39-F 40-D 41-D 42-G 43-C 44-E a* TOTAL TOTAL ACRES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OCP-05 (2010) UNINCORP POTENTIAL UNITS 4,827 3,604 3,724 6,984 5,758 91,735 16,534 15,959 88,526 27,269 264,920 TOTAL ACRES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PROJECTED UNUSED CAPACITY (2010) POTENTIAL UNITS 2,308 (-) 59 2,033 211 10,507 20,043 (-)6,394 1,663 14,626 (-)26,907 18,031 SOURCES: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON/ORANGE COUNTY LAND COVER SURVEY (1980) GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS THROUGH LU 67-1 REVISED: 7/87 CITY ANNEXATIONS THROUGH 7/87 a* The large discrepancy between potential housing supply and OCP-85 projections in RSA 44-E is due to differences in the land use designations of the City of Irvine and the County. According to the County General Plan, a large part of this RSA which is in the Irvine Sphere of Influence Is assigned to the Open Space category. The OCP-85 projections are based on Irvine's Sphere of Influence plans, which call for residential development in much of this area. b* The Urban Activity Center category combines residential land uses with commercial and employment land uses. The exact acreage committed to residential land uses will be determined at a subsequent level of planning. MOM:emwPA16-6 7356 LU-2-14 located in RSA 40-D (South Coast) and RSA 43-C. (Trabuco) . The distribution of Community Commercial property is roughly proportional to the amount of developable unincorporated land (i.e., land which is not designated Open Space) in each RSA. Regional Commercial areas are designated for major high-intensity facilities that require accessible, centralized locations to serve an entire region or subregion. Only 414 acres (0.2 percent of the unincorporated area) are designated Regional Commercial. All of this land is found in RSAs 40-D (South Coast) and 43-C (Trabuco) . Laguna Hills Mall and Mission Viejo Mall are the major existing facilities contained in these areas. Areas designated Employment account for about one percent of the county's total unincorporated area. Like Community Commercial, they are distributed roughly proportional to each RSA's potential urbanized area that is under County jurisdiction. The Public Facilities category is intended for government buildings, police and fire stations, airports, schools and other institutions. It represents about two percent of the unincorporated territory. About two-thirds of this property is located in RSA 44-E (EL Toro) due primarily to the presence of both the Tustin and El Toro Marine Bases. The Urban Activity Center category is intended to integrate residential, commercial, employment, civic, cultural, and educational facilities into mixed-use centers, providing a centralized focus for the surrounding community. Urban Activity Centers provide a diversity of housing, commercial, and employment opportunities, and facilitate a more efficient use of existing and future transportation systems, the conservation of energy resources, and the provision of affordable housing. About 900 acres of unincorporated areas are designated for Urban Activity Centers. The largest center (805 acres) is located within the Plano Trabuco area (RSA 43-C, Trabuco) . C. Analysis of Current Conditions and Future Demand This section provides an assessment of the current and future land use demands upon existing county resources. Specifically, the impact of these land use demands upon infrastructure, fiscal, and environmental resources have been analyzed in order to identify potential conflicts. 1. Infrastructure Analysis A comparison of the development commitment of the LUE to existing and planned public service capacities was conducted in the "Assessment Report on the Land Use Element and Infrastructure Balance", prepared by the Advance Planning Division in November, 1981. The Assessment Report analyzed five key public services -- water, waste- water, schools, roads, and fire protection -- by utilizing the data and assumptions contained in the LUE, OCP-III, and the Development Monitoring Program (DMP) . A public service capacity matrix was prepared and a rating system applied for each CAA in order to evaluate each service provider. LU-2-15 A more detailed discussion of the Assessment Report and its methodology 1 is provided in Appendix D. With two exceptions, the overall balance between projected development and infrastructure is generally adequate on a systemwide basis until 1990. The two exceptions -- highways and schools -- already exhibit local and regional imbalances. The regional transportation system, particularly highways serving northwest to southeast travel, will increasingly experience severe deterioration in service. After 1990, minor imbalances in water and wastewater service and fire protection appear systemwide. Even though the deterioration of service levels may not be significant on a countywide level, severe imbalances are exhibited within many communities. The primary vehicles for addressing community-specific imbalances are the implementation policies and programs contained in Chapters Five and Six of this volume. Child care has also arisen as an issue exhibiting major local and regional imbalances. Child care imbalances occur between the need for and provision of adequate and affordable facilities. With a significant increase in women in the labor force, the rising numbers of single- parent households, the rise in dual-income families, and the increase in the number of children (infants through school-aged) , the supply of child care has not kept pace with the accelerating demand. Orange County has the second greatest child population in the state, and the County Administrative Office estimates it will increase 17% over the next decade. Child care improvement policies and programs in Chapter Five of this volume address measures which not only help to alleviate current pressures but also address the future demands. It should be noted that although portions of this element highlight opportunities for increased County participation, it is acknowledged that local schools, private agencies and non-profit entities play the primary role in the provision of child care facilities and services. 2. Fiscal Resources Analysis An estimation of the net public agency costs and revenues that will result from projected development in the unincorporated area through the year 2000 is presented in the Areawide Fiscal Impact System (AFIS) report. This report provides the analysis necessary to determine the impacts of existing and proposed land use trends on a systemwide level. The scope of AFIS is different from the infrastructure analysis described above since it considers a wide array of public service requirements and associated costs and revenues for projected development. The AFIS report identifies significant long-term adverse fiscal impacts for the unincorporated area. According to the report, the General Fund and many of the special districts essential to new development will experience severe cost/revenue imbalances in the future. Of particular concern are the Road Fund and school districts. Projected school district revenues may be enough to cover operations and maintenance expenditures, but capital facilities requirements cannot be met. In the case of the Road Fund, the major capital construction cost of serving existing and future development creates a cumulative funding deficit. LU-2-16 1 3. Environmental Resource Analysis Envirornxental resources comprise the final area of analysis of current and future land use demands. Environmental resources range from non- renewable and renewable resource lands to natural hazards, and provide the parameters for future land development in unincorporated areas of the county. Much of the analysis of environmental resources has been compiled or will be prepared as a part of the Master Environmental Assessment (MEA) program conducted by EMA. One of the purposes of the MEA is to compile and catalog environmental information in order to identify development threshold levels for areas with various environmental constraints. A discussion of the impact of environmental constraints on the achievement of LUE objectives is presented in Chapter Four of this document. The most significant environmental constraints have been mapped for each area in the Community Profiles (Component III) , including slope, flood, geologic hazards, and biological/cultural/scientific resources. CL:1tPAIE.-3(a) LU-2-17 8217 1 CHAPTER THREE: FUTURE OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES A. Introduction This chapter presents the future objectives and policies of the Land Use Element. The chapter is divided into two sections. The first presents the objectives and assumptions established for the achievement of the 2010 horizon year projections. The second section describes the Land Use Element Map and definitions of the land use categories depicted on the map. The map itself is contained in Appendix G. The policy projections for 2010 have been presented and analyzed in the previous chapter. These projections represent one aspect of the objectives of the Land Use Element. Each Regional Statistical Area has a level of growth identified. This chapter will present the assumptions associated with the achievement of that level of development. The land use category descriptions identify the framework of the LUE map and potential areas for development. Market forces will determine which areas develop first and which remain undeveloped or under developed by the 2010 horizon year. However, the policy projections and the Land Use map will be the tools for project evaluation and consistency determination to ensure that development coincides with the policies of the Land Use Element. B. Objectives and Assumptions As used in this report, an assumption is a statement regarding a condition, event or trend that, based on present knowledge and judgment, seems likely to occur. The 2010 horizon year was selected for the Land Use Element because the greatest amount of information is available for that year. Future local government actions and policies may require changes to these assumptions and subsequently the projections themselves. The assumptions presented in this section were prepared for and are consistent with Orange County Preferred-85 (OCP-85) growth projections. Countywide assumptions are presented below while RSA-level assumptions may be found in Appendix C (included herein by reference in full) . Use of Land o The countywide and RSA-level projections do not exceed that which would be allowable under the cities' and County's general plans, their elements, and related identified city and County land use and development policies. o The final portions of the available land in the County will achieve first generation buildout sometime after the year 2020, varying somewhat by geographic area. o Significant residential redevelopment will occur in the northwestern portion of the County throughout the period of these projections. o Significant intensification of employment activity will occur along major transportation corridors throughout the period of these projections. LU-3-1 o There will be steady private sector recycling from single-family to multi-family uses in sections of the County throughout the period of these projections. o There will be an increase in overall development requirements to be ' satisfied as a condition of land use approvals, but with greater use of incentives and cost-sharing techniques. o There will be a steady amount of developable land available through non- renewal. of agricultural preserve contracts. Demograph'Lcs t o The po??ulation of California will continue to increase to approximately 37 million by 2020, while the SLAG region will reach 17.1 million by 2000. o The level of fertility will represent an average of 1.9 births per woman during her lifetime. o Total net migration into California will maintain an annual average level of 167,000 persons through the year 2010. o Net migration into Orange County will average 15,200 annually through 1990, dropping to an average of 15,100 between 1991 and 1995, then 14,300 between 1996 and 2000 and 13,900 annually after the year 2000. o The :Mate Department of Finance's (DOF) Baseline 83 population projection is consistent with the countywide population projection. o Between 1980 and 2010, the County will grow at a simple average annual rate of 1.7 percent, or an average of approximately 30,000 per year from , both natural increase and in-migration. o The persons per dwelling unit will decrease from a 1980 county-wide figure of 2.68 to an average of 2.57 county-wide by the year 2010, with a subarea range from 2.08 to 2.92. o The median income in the County will continue to be above that of the State and the nat ion. o The median age in the County will rise from 29.48 in 1980 to 40.55 in 2010. o An increasing proportion of in-migration will be due to the growth of the nonwhite and Hispanic populations. o International migration will account for a growing proportion of our net migration. o Due to the increasing number of foreign born, the persons-per-dwelling- unit in some areas of the County will increase. LU-3-2 Public Services and Facilities o The availability of the essential physical public services and facilities infrastructure will not generally impair population growth, but may slow development temporarily in newly developing areas. o El Toro Marine Corps Air Station, the Tustin Helicopter Facility, the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station and Los Alamitos Reserve Air Station will remain in Government ownership and use until at least throughout the period of these projections. o No new regional airport facilities will be built during the period of these projections. o All backbone system routes identified on the Master Plan of Arterial Highways will be built concurrent with, or in advance of, development either through developer dedication, road fee programs, or state/federal ihighway funding. Economic Base o There will be no prolonged national or regional depression but there may be recurring recessions. o There will be a continued market of homebuyers of an appropriate income range to sustain demand for housing in Orange County. o Federal housing and transportation programs will continue to facilitate migration into the region. o The future household income distribution will continue to be similar to that currently observed for the period of these projections. o Housing costs will increase more rapidly than the Consumer Price Index but low- and moderate-income housing opportunities will continue. Employment o The labor force participation rate for the County will increase throughout the period of these projections. o Job growth in Orange County will proceed at a faster rate than in the United States, California, and the Los Angeles Basin up to the year 2000. o Jobs in Orange County will grow at the national rate after the year 2000. o The Los Angeles Basin will account for approximately 50 percent of California's employment growth. o Most of the projected growth in jobs in Orange County will be in industries whose principle output is a variety of service activities with moderate growth in the production sectors. o Total County employment will grow at a simple average annual rate of 2.8 percent to 2000 and 0.9 percent between 2000 and 2010. LU-3-3 I o Countywide, there will be a balance of jobs to the labor force. ' Child Care _enters o The Orange County child population will increase 17% over the next decade (between 1985 and 1995) . o Provision of child care centers will continue to be a joint effort between private firms and Federal, State and local agencies. o Development of child care centers will be influenced by availability of the following: 1) start-up capital; 2) low cost land; 3) affordable new facilities or adequate leasable space; and 4) affordable liability insurance. For RSA-Revel assumptions refer to Appendix C. C. Land Use Categories ' The land use categories described below and depicted on the Land Use Element Map in Appendix G provide the broad guidance directing the development of Orange County. A table depicting the correspondence between the LUE and the Community Profile categories is contained in Appendix E. Child care facilities are permitted in any land use category but shall be subject -to review for appropriateness. Child care centers, as defined by Health and Safety Code Section 1596.76, must obtain a license from the State Department of Social Services before beginning operations. Additional State licensing requirements (Title 22 of the California Administrative Code, Division 12 and other various sections) concern facility design and facility operation. Present County practices enhance the provision of child care facilities through increased coordination between State regulations, County policy documents, and local land use concerns. For child care centers which serve more than six children, the County can exercise discretionary authority through site development plan review. The purpose of this review is to address local concerns and any restrictions or conditions which may apply to specific land use categories. Child care facilities will have the same land use/noise compatibility requirements as preschools which will assure outdoor living areas will not be permitted in the 65 or above CNEL. Residential The Residential categories identify those areas suitable for residential development. The Residential areas are divided into categories on the basis of density, compatibility with the natural terrain, and conformance with the county's residential growth projections. Housing types ranging from rural, large-lot estates in outlying areas to high-density residential units in appropriate urban locales are encouraged. "Development density" is defined as the number of dwelling units permitted per dross acre.* "Development intensity" is described as land area per unit (APU' , either on an acreage or square-footage basis. The broad residential categories include allowances for local and community open space, local schools, child care facilities, neighborhood commercial centers and other L•U-3-4 facilities needed for neighborhood services. Development intensity in excess of the normal maximum of the category may be accomplished through the application of the Density Bonus Guidelines. rThe residential categories are intended for application to all areas so designated on the Land Use Element Map, with one exception. Where Planned Community Districts have been adopted but are not reflected in detail at the General Plan level (such as portions of Laguna Niguel and Mission Viejo) , the overall density, area per unit guidelines and character represented on the Land Use Element Map are assumed to reflect the Planned Community District regulations. 1A Rural Residential This category is applied to areas in which limited residential use is compatible with the natural character of the terrain. Development under this category will require special consideration due to topography and other factors. Designation DU/AC APU lA 0.025 - 0.5 2 acres - 40 acres *Note: "Gross acreage" is defined as the total acreage within a project which is devoted to principal uses including, but not limited to, building sites, local streets, driveways, private recreation areas, ordinance- required local park land, additional publicly- and privately-owned open space within project areas, minor easements serving the project, and customary uses and structures accessory to residential development. IB Suburban Residential These areas are characterized by a wide range of housing types, from estates on large lots to attached dwelling units (townhomes, condominiums and clustered arrangements) . This category permits the greatest flexibility for residential development. Additional density guidance is provided by the Community Profiles. Designation DU/AC, APU IB 0.5 - 18.0 1,800 sq. ft. - 2 acres 1C Urban Residential This category is applied to areas where intensive residential development is compatible with surrounding urban development. Development within this category is characterized by intensive residential uses such as apartments, condominiums, townhomes and clustered residential units. ' Designation DU/AC APU 1C 18.0 and above 1,800 sq. ft. and less 1 LU-3-5 Commercial ' Commercial land uses are depicted conceptually on the Land Use Element Map. The designated areas relate to commercial opportunities rather than to specific development sites. Generally, commercial development occurs in centers sited along arterial highways or at intersections of arterial highways and serves a specified threshold population. The Community Profiles provide more specific location characteristics. The Land Use Element Map depicts community and regional, but not neighborhood/convenience, commercial locations. Community Commercial opportunities are indicated on the map either because they already exist or have substantial commitment at general locales. Regional Commercial uses designated by the Land Use Element represent existing uses. Neighborhood/convenience commercial sites are not depicted on the map but are assumed to be consistent with Suburban Residential areas, subject to the Neighbonccod Commercial Guidelines contained herein. , 2A Community Commercial* This category designates land for commercial development which provides a wide range of facilities for convenience goods and retail trade including tourist recreation businesses, and community services (i.e., child care facilities. Generally, community commercial development is limited in scope to approximately 10 to 40 acres, and is intended to serve a market area exceeding 20,000 persons. Supermarkets, restaurants, movie theaters and banks are typical tenants of a community commercial center . 2B Regional Commercial* This category identifies major , high-intensity commercial activities requiring centralized locations in order to serve large urban pop- ulations at the regional or subregional level. Regional commercial centers generally range between 75 and 125 acres in size and serve a market area in excess of 100,000 persons. Normally, tenants within a recional center include major department stores and specialty shops. Child care facilities will be permitted, if appropriate. Guidelines: Neighborhood Commercial The fcllowing guidelines are to be used in evaluating development plans that contain neighborhood commercial proposals: I. To encourage the development of commercial activities in centers with u-iified planning, design and facilities (such as parking, ingress and egress) . 2. To locate commercial development at intersections of primary and secondary streets wherever possible; when local commercial development rust be located adjacent to major intersections, access should be from the lesser of the two arterials. Lu-3-6 3. To locate commercial development so that wherever possible it is centrally located within its service area. 4. To locate commercial sites at an optimal distance from regional and community commercial centers. 5 To generally locate neighborhood commercial centers one mile apart. 6. To set a general standard of one acre of commercial development per 1,000 people in the service area. Because there are no absolute criteria for neighborhood commercial acreage needed to adequately service a given number of people, this standard should be tempered by the character of each particular area. 7. To set a general standard of three to ten acres for neighborhood commercial developments. 8. To require the developer of a commercial center to provide a statistical demand analysis of the market service area at the time of the zoning request in order to assist in determining its adequacy and appropriateness. 9. To regularly review and evaluate excessive undeveloped commercial zoning for its appropriateness and ability to serve the county. Employment 3 Employment This category identifies areas intended for use by employment generators, usually light and service industries or professional- administrative office uses. These activities are characterized by few nuisance or hazard problems. It is intended that the locations of individual employment facilities be compatible with one another and with surrounding areas. Employment generators and commercial uses should locate together in well-defined urban activity centers. Child care facilities will be permitted, if appropriate. Public Facilities 4 Public Facilities This category identifies major facilities built and maintained for public use. Included are civic buildings, airports, junior colleges, military installations, correctional institutions, hospitals, solid waste facilities, water facilities, and sewer facilities. Child care facilities will be permitted, if appropriate. Lu-3-7 (LS) Solid Waste Facilities - Landfill Sites This overlay category identifies existing and planned solid waste ' facilities. When the (LS) Solid Waste Facility - Landfill Site overlay is applied to a Land Use Category the overlay indicates that the current and near-term use of the land shall be limited to landfill operations ' and accessory uses (e.g. borrow site areas, buffer areas, access roads) until the completion of landfill site operations and closure of the landfill facility. *Note: Commercial facilities are designated by circles on the Land Use map. Open Space 5 Open SF)ace This c:itegor y is intended to reflect and enhance the Resources and ' Recreation Elements of the General Plan. This category identifies lands of notable scenic and natural attraction, and areas of ecological, cultural, historical and recreational significance. In addition, lands containing non-renewable and renewable resources will be designated Open Space on the LUE Map. Examples of such lands include extractive mineral sites, petroleum resource areas, prime agricultural soils, and water resource areas. Provision is also made under the Open Space category for less-intense employment uses in conjunction with large open space areas shown on the Commrmity Profiles as Research/Open Space Parks. Employment facilities on large building sites would be permitted when they are consistent with the open space character of the area. The intent is to create opportunities for low-intensity high technology, industrial, research and development, office, and educational uses and child care facilities which do not require a commitment of significant , urban infrastructure. Generally, building sites within this category should be large, with the area covered by structures and parking not exceeding 20% in order to blend development with the natural sur:roundings. Innovative design solutions are encouraged to incorporate buildings and parking into the natural features of the site as well as to maximize the efficient use of energy. Until such time as natural resources are mapped and categorized in the Resources Element, natural resource lands will be identified by the Natural Resources (5.3) category on the Community Profiles (Ct:xnponent III) . Of these areas shown as Open Space on the LUE Map, certain portions are within city spheres of influence for which cities have adopted plans with urban uses. The Open Space designation is meant as an indication of the current and near-term use of the land, most of which is zoned agricultural and subject to agricultural preserve agreements. It is not necessarily an indication of a long-term commitment to open space uses. LU-3-8 Long-range projections of socio-economic factors, therefore, reflect anticipated urbanization consistent with applicable city plans. ' Urban Activity Centers 6 Urban Activity Centers This category identifies locations intended for high-intensity mixed-use development. Appropriate land uses include, but are not limited to, residential, commercial, office, industrial park, civic, cultural] educational facilities, and child care facilities. This category is intended to facilitate a more efficient use of existing and future transportation systems, conserve energy resources, and develop residential densities which enhance the ability to provide affordable housing. Urban Activity Centers are characterized by a diversity of housing opportunities including owner-occupied, rental, and affordable units with an emphasis on higher-density development; the vertical and hori- zontal mixing of retail, office and residential uses; the development of mid-rise structures accommodating both residential and employment activities; and the inclusion of cultural, civic, educational and urban recreational uses promoting both daytime and evening activities. Urban Activity Centers are located adjacent to major transportation corridors and are accessible to public transit facilities. A goal of this category is to foster around-the-clock activity by encouraging the mixing of activities thereby reducing the impacts on the transportation system. The development of an Urban Activity Center is a long-term process (probably in excess of 20 years) due to its complexity and its size. Interim uses may, therefore, be appropriate. It will also be necessary to apply special development regulations, tailored to each center, to ensure that the ultimate development pattern is consistent with the intent of the category. i CL:1tPA16-32 LU-3-9 8217 CHAPTER FOUR: PLANNING CONSTRAINTS AND DEFICIENCIES , A. Overview This section identifies existing and potential constraints upon achievement , of the objectives presented in the previous chapter. While these constraints do not constitute absolute barriers, they may inhibit the timely achievement of the objectives. These constraints have been categorized below into -four categories: environmental, governmental, fiscal, and economic and market constraints. B. Environmental Constraints Based on the Master Environmental Assessment (MEA) , five major environmental conditions which constrain development are presented below. Table 4-1 describes the extent to which these environmental constraints affect undeveloped land in Orange County. o Noise: The major sources of significant noise in Orange County are ' aircraft and 'highway vehicles. While both can usually be mitigated to acceptable levels indoors, aircraft noise cannot be mitigated outdoors because! of its overhead source. State law and County policy prohibit residential development and similar uses in high-noise (+ 65 CNEL) areas near El Toro Marine Corps Air Station and John Wayne Airport. Noise in nonresidential developments must be attenuated to protect users in these areas. Near major streets and highways, noise must also be attenuated. Thus, high-noise conditions may preclude certain uses in some areas and may increase development costs. o Flood hazard: Portions of the county are lccated in floodplain areas of varying degrees of risk. In many cases development can occur in these areas through proper site planning, but costs may be high. There are, however, some areas where development is precluded because of extreme flood. potential. o Fire hazard: The foothill areas of Orange County are considered moderate to high fire hazard areas. Future development in these areas must minimize potential fire hazards and adequate fire protection must be maintained. Both these actions may raise development costs but will not preclude development. o Geologic hazards: Extreme slope and potential seismic hazards constrain development in certain parts of the county. While both conditions seldom preclude development, they may increase the cost of construction. o Natural and cultural resources: The presence of natural or cultural , resources on vacant land may influence its future use. For example, critical habitat areas or archeological sates may require preservation or sensitive planning. Such conditions may ?preclude development or increase the: cost of construction. LU-4-1 rr �r rr rr rr rr rr r� rr rr r ■r �r �r rr r rr r �r TAOLB 4-1 EMYINDIM ITAL CONSTU►MM my ILSA (Aeresga to (Merest Tan) SIOIOCICAL/ It 0► CULTURAL/ t or SLOPE (GREATER It 0/ ! 0/ t 0► = Or MA CWJW)C (111LMI ITTIS SCIVITIFIC WD"ITTED TW 301) IEIC"ITT/D ►1AOD IINC"ITTLD TOTAL UN001MITT[0 OOltt(1) tl11000IITTIM "-P no 1.6 1,110 1.1 160 0.9 0 .0 I.S" 9.6 21340(2) 15.3 A" 1.06e 2.6 1.610 19.0 2.160 1.3 100 1.9 12.610 30.0 1.0I0(1) 6.6 61-0 2.300 5.3 4,40 10.2 9.330 21.6 910 2.1 11.020 We •-• 42-6 2r too 1.9 so 1.5 160 4.9 - A3-C 3.030 0.• 21.670 61.9 3.600 6.3 2.020 3.0 30.320 50.0 3.30e(2) 3.3 4i-2 1.050 7.5 S.31e 21.1 1.910 0.1 1.110 0.0 11.140 43.2 ll.310(1) N.1 N TOTAL 0.S20 6.2 66.300 23.6 20.160 10.1 S.160 2.• g0.g20� 41.1 19.260 9.0 mum 1 (1) Mwise cautralmt ererlge other smviromAentel coaatralmto sea is mot edit"lstod so part of total acresge. (2) NW and John Munn Alrtort. screw Included are equal to or greeter them 65 CKM INDUM I Southarm Caltlemis Uisom - County of Orange. land Cover 0nrve/. County of Orange. "Aster raw/ronmentel AAesomment (IMEA). AAvemce Planning Dlvl•lon. 11M. Count/ of Otengs. • Total McemmItted he. for malmeorrorsted area 16 196.580 acres. C. Fiscal Constraints and Deficiencies Based on the Development Monitoring Program, Areawide Fiscal Impact System and General Plan Modernization Program (Phase II) reports, the public service cos-cs of future development are not balanced with revenues and ' planning. arable 4-2 summarizes the extent of these deficiencies for key public services. o Public services: The loss of revenue resulting from Proposition 13 and other factors, and rising costs due to growth and inflation will continue to burden public service providers. If current trends continue, public service levels will deteriorate and new development may be delayed or , precluded. o Increased development fees and requirements: Increased fees on new developments and the shift of responsibility for infrastructure provision to developers will increase construction costs and may reduce levels of production. o Infrastructure adequacy: While this issue will be the focus of future growth management efforts, it must be considered a constraint at this time. While infrastructure imbalances will be minimized in the future through development phasing and other mechanisms, these methods may impede the fulfillment of the objectives. D. Economic and Market Constraints The objectives established by this element are based upon economic conditions similar to those experienced in the 1960's and 1970's. Recently, financial market conditions have resulted in major changes in short-term development expectations. if these conditions persist in the long term, they will represent constraints to the attainment of the objectives. o Land availability: Land availability significantly impacts future growth levels. If land costs increase dramatically or if adequate amounts of land cannot be brought to the market, development will be constrained. ' o Real estate and development financing: The financial markets are experiencing difficult times. A steady supply of credit to finance new construction is critical to the policy plan objectives. E. Governmental Constraints o Competing priorities: Competing public needs can result in conflicting priorities and programs. Conflicts such as open space preservation and housing production could constrain efforts to achieve the objectives if they remain unresolved. o Inter governmental conflicts: State and federal agency actions or requirements and land ownership by these agencies constitute constraints to development (see Map 4-1) . Existing examples include the state Coastal Commission and Cleveland National Forest, while state policies regarding prime agricultural land preservation and mineral resource protection may function as future constraints. , JD:gvPAl(J-3 LU-4-3 , 3/25/83 TABLE M2 ' WOR PUBLIC SERVICE DEFICIENCIES Count de Deficiencies Service number of CAA's with Inadeqquate System bevels of Service in 2000 N) Local (2) Regional (3) Water 8 10 Wastewater 10 12 Schools - (Total) 24 63 ' - Elementary 13 21 - Intermediate S 21 - Righ 6 21 Highway 12 28 ' Fire S 14 Footnotes: (1) Based on a service rating of 4. S. or 6 (deficient service level) in the Assessment Report or the LUE and Infrastructure Balance; GPM Phase II. A total of 28 CAA's (plus a portion of one CAA) and S RSA's were analyzed. (2) Local - Based upon growth projected within CAA. (3) Regional - Based upon growth projected within entire service area. ' SOURCE: M Phase II Assessment Report. LU-4-4 Table A-2 Continued t lWOR PUBLIC SERVICE ' DEFICIENCIES RSA 39-F ' Service Humber of CAA's with Inadequate ' System Levels of Service in 2000 0) (2) (3) 1 Local Regional Hater e d Wastewater Schools - (Total) 2 6 - Elementary 2 2 - Intermediate 2 - R1 gh. 2 ' Highway 2 3 Fire 0 2 Footnotes: (1) Eased on a service rating of 4, S. or 6 (deficient , service level) in the Assessment Report on the LUE and Infrastructure Balance; GPM Phase II. A total of 2 CAA's and a portion of one were analysed. , (2) Local - Bused on growth projected within CAA. (3) Regional - Based on growth projected within service area. SOURCE: GPM Phase II Assexww nt Report , LU-4- ' s ....ter _ ..... _ - Table 4-2 (Continued) MAJOR PUBLIC SERVICE DEFICIENCIES RSA 40-D Service Number of CAA's with Inadequate System Levels of Service in 2000 0) Local (2) Regional (3) Water A ! ' Wastevater 2 S Schools - (Total) 8 21 Elementary 4 7 - Intermediate 2 7 - High 2 7 H1 ghwa y 6 9 Fire / 1 Footnotes: ' (1) Based an a service rating of 4, S, or 6 (deficient service level) in the Assessment Report on the LUE ' and Infrastructure Balance; GPM Phase II. A total of 9 CAA's were analyzed. (2) Local - Based on growth projected within CAA. (3) Regional - Based on growth projected within entire - service area. SOURCE: GPM Phase II Assessment Report. LU-4-6 Table 6-2 (Continued) !W OR MLI C SERV I CE , DEFICIENCIES RSA 41-1 Se"?1ce Humber of CAA's with Inadequate SysI:em Levels of Service in 2000 0) Local (2) Regional (3) ' Water 4 6 l Vastewsiter 4 3 ' Schools - (Total) 6 6 - Elementary 2 2 - Intermediate 2 2 - High 2 2 ' Highway 3 6 Fire 4 6 , Footnotes: (1) Zased on a service rating of 4. S. or 6 (deficient , service level) in the Assessment Report on the LUE and Infrastructure balance; GPM Phase II. A total of E CAA's were analysed. (2) Local - Based upon growth projected within a CAA. (3) Regional - listed upon growth projected within entire , service area. SOURCE: GPM Phase II Assessment Report. , LU-&-7 Ob Table 4-2 (Continued) ' MAJOR PUBLIC SERVICL DEFICIENCIES ' RSA 43-C ' Service Number of CAA's with Inadequate System levels of Service in 2000(1) Local (2) Regional (3) ' Water 3 4 Wastewater 3 4 Schools - (Total) 6 16 - Elementary 4 6 - Intermediate 1 6 - High 1 6 Highway a S Fire 0 e Footnotes: (1) Eased on a service ration of 4, S, or 6 (deficient service level) in the Assessment Report on the LUE and Infrastructure Balance; GPM Phase II. A total of 6 CAA'a were analyzed. (2) Local - Based on growth projected within CAA. (3) Regional - Based on growth projected within entire service area. ' SOURCE: GPM Phase II Assessment Report. Lit-4-8 Table 4-2 (Continued) , IWOR MU C SERVICE DEFICIENCIES , RSA 44-E 1 service Sunbez of CAA's with Inadequate system Levels of Service in 20000) ' Local (2) Regional (3) Water 1 A Wastewater 1 Schools - (Total) 2 12 - Elementary 1 4 - Intermediate 0 4 - High 1 4 Highway 1 S Fire 1 S Footnotes: , (1) ;Lased on a service rating of 4. S. or 6 (deficient service level) in the Assessment Report on the LUE and Infrastructure balance; CPH Phase II. A total of S CAA's were analysed. (2) Local - based on growth projected within CAA. , (3) Regional - Based on growth projected within entire service area. SOURCE: GM Phase II Assessment Report 1 LU-4-9 rr rr rr r rr rr rr ri rr r ■r rr �r r� rr rr rr rr rr -; OVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS THE LAND AREA UNDER FEDERAL AND STATE OWNERSHIP AND CONTROL M j N� ilp� LEGEND qD nA1!►AM* MANl�� sme NAP 4-1 CHAPTER FIVE: 'IMPLEMENTATION POLICIES ' A. Overview Section B describes eight major land use policies that guide implementation of the Land. Use Element. The intent of these policies is two-fold: first, to eliminate obstacles to achieving the LUE objectives; and second, to ' minimize deficiencies which may result from fulfilling the policy projection,;. The Community Profiles (Component III of the Advance Planning Program) ' ensure the implementation of the policies of the General Plan. They will be used as follows: o The Cormmunity Profile area is the unit of analysis which will be used ' for evaluating infrastructure capabilities as they apply to individual project approvals. o The Planning Agency (which includes the Zoning Administrator, the Director of EMA, the Subdivision Committee and the Planning Commission) and the Board of Supervisors will evaluate and consider the Community ' Profiles and compendium of policies in making planning decisions. o Prior to approval, all project proposals must be found consistent with the 0)mmunity Profiles by the decision-making authority. In cases where inconsistencies exist, they shall be resolved and the Community Profiles amended concurrently with the processing of discretionary approvals. These policies are effectuated through the programs contained in Appendix A. ' Section C describes two LUE interpretive policies which guide administration of the LUE map and land use categories. B. Major Lind Use Element Implementation Policies The eight major land use policies set forth in. this section apply to all geographic areas of the unincorporated- portion of the county. They are adopted. for the purpose of guiding the planning and development of those areas for both the short-term and long-term future. ' Each policy has been stated in a single sentence. A policy can be referred to by its short title. A statement of purpose for each policy is given to aid in its interpretation. Policies contained in other General Plan elements that further Land Use Element policies are described in Appendix F. 1. Balanced Land Use ' To plan urban land uses with a balance of residential, industrial, oDmmercial and public land uses. The purpose of the Balanced Land Use Policy is to ensure that communities at all levels are developed in a manner whereby residential, industrial, commercial and public land uses are proportionally balanced. ' :'his balance is intended to aid in developing a sense of community by distributing the various land uses and employment base more evenly LU-5-1 ' throughout the county, lessening the transportation load and positively affecting air quality. This policy does not require completely self- contained communities. ' 2. Phased Development ' To phase development consistent with the adequacy of public services and facilities within the capacity defined by the General Plan. The purpose of the Phased Development Policy is to ensure that development coincides with the adequacy of public services and facilities, especially where the public health, safety and welfare are concerned. Proper phasing of new development within the designated ' General Plan capacity through the provision of public services and facilities development is necessary to ensure that new development will not overload the existing facilities or be allowed to be completed without adequate facilities. Phasing should be a basic minimum ' requirement for land use intensification. 3. Housing Densities To provide a variety of residential densities that permit a mix of housing opportunities affordable to the county's labor force. ' The purpose of the Housing Densities Policy is to provide a wide range of housing densities within the unincorporated county that will permit a mix of housing opportunities, including both rental and ownership housing. The mix of densities is intended to make it possible to develop housing which is affordable to the county's labor force and offer those who work here a reasonable choice of living accommodations. ' 4. Land Use/Transportation Integration To plan an integrated land use and transportation system that accommodates travel demand. The purpose of the Land Use/Transportation Integration Policy is to ensure that transportation planning is assimilated into the land use planning process. The transportation system should support the land use plan as a whole, and individual circulation links should be in balance with localized land uses in order to provide an adequate transportation system for the county. when local or regional imbalances occur, development should be deferred until appropriate improvements to the circulation system can be provided or adequate project mitigation measures can be developed (e.g., public transit, employee housing programs) . 5. Commercial and Industrial Centers/Transportation Access To locate major commercial and industrial centers in areas that are easily accessible to existing or planned major transportation facilities. ' LU-5-2 The purpose of the Commercial and Industrial Centers/Transportation Access F,olicy is to ensure that major commercial and industrial centers are convenient and accessible to existing or planned major transportation facilities. These centers act as traffic attractors. ' Accessibility should be enhanced by intensive corridors and increased public transit. 6. New Development Compatibility , To require new development to be compatible with adjacent areas. The purpose of the New Development Compatibility Policy is to ensure , that new development is compatible with adjacent areas and that it provides either a land use buffer or transition with such areas. Sensitive treatment is required where one urban use transitions to ' another and where an urban use is introduced into an essentially undeveloped area. 7. Creative Design Concepts ' To encourage innovative concepts that contribute to the solution of land use problems. The plarpose of the Creative Design Concepts Policy is to encourage the use of innovative planning ideas that give variety to the character of ' development and solve certain site development problems. New design concepts can facilitate environmentally-sensitive development and the econcimic and efficient provision of services and facilities. 8. Enhancement of Environment To guide development so that the quality of the physical environment is ' enhanced. The purpose of the Enhancement of Environment Policy is to ensure that all land use activities seek to enhance the physical environment, including the air, water, sound levels, landscape, and plant and animal life:. This policy does not mean that environmental enhancement pre- clucles development. It recognizes the need to improve both the manmade ' and natural environments. Where aspects of the natural environment are deemed to be truly significant, this policy requires measures be taken to preserve these aspects. ' 9. Em bent Development To encourage development of employment land uses to achieve balanced phasing of development. The purpose of the Employment Development Policy is to accelerate development of employment uses in unincorporated Orange County. The unincorporated County areas that are designated for employment uses have not developed as rapidly as its residential areas. Implementation of accelerated employment development is essential to achieving balanced land use and resolving the inefficient usage of the transportation LU-5-3 ' ' system. Increased employment (trip attractions) in RSAs 40-D and 43-C will help reduce impacts on regional facilities, as well as, distribute local trips more evenly on the local network. The Development ' Monitoring Program (DMP) and associated Annual Monitoring Reports (AMRs) identify the phasing of development and infrastructure needs on an annual basis. Development of employment land uses within RSAs 40-D and ' 43-C should continue to be monitored through the DMP and AMR process to determine if the employment to dwelling units ratio is improving. 10. Child Care Improvement ' To encourage and facilitate provision of child care facilities to address the growing county demand. The purpose of the Child Care Improvement Policy is to develop measures which will encourage establishment of child care facilities within Orange County. Due to changing demographic trends, there exists a ' countywide shortfall, in filling child care demand which is expected to increase significantly over the next decade. ' In order to address this current short fall, it is necessary to examine three components of child care needs. Infant care refers to child care for children 0-2 years old; Pre-school care is primarily for children 2-5 years old; and Extended Day care is for school age children after and/or before normal school hours. Provision of sites for the first two types of child care should be encouraged in concentrated employment areas for ease of access for working parents (however, some communities ' may have sufficient demand in residential areas); Extended Day care facilities are more appropriate near residential areas and school facilities. Implementation of a Child Care Improvement Policy is essential to achieve a balance between supply and demand of the various types of child care facilities. Supply and demand for child care services should be monitored through the Annual Monitoring Report process (see Appendix D) . ' C. Land Use Element Interpretive Policies The two interpretive policies set forth in this section are intended to eliminate the need for site-specific Land Use Element amendments. Component ' III Community Profiles, specific plans, and zoning regulations will provide the necessary level of detail for defining precise land use category boundaries and transition areas. 1. Transitional Use Policy Transitional uses which are not specifically permitted by LUE land use ' categories may still be deemed appropriate under certain circumstances and, therefore, may not require LUE amendments. The following are examples of circumstances under which transitional uses may be ' considered for specific sites: ' LU-5-4 w w APPEND IX A LAND USE ELEMENT IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMS ' This section establishes seven land use programs that directly implement Land Use Element policies. These programs are necessary to effectuate the intent and purpose of the LUE policies. Future development in the county will be ' reviewed for compliance with the LUE policies through the following programs. 1. Growth Management Program ' a. Policy mandate: 1) Phased Development Policy, and 2) Land Use/Transportation Integration Policy. ' b. Program implementation schedule: Commence with LUE adoption. c. Responsible agency: Jointly CAD (UMAC) and EMA (Advance Planning Division). ' d. Discussion: This program implements the Phased Development and Land Use/Transportation Integration policies of the LUE through a require- ment that developers of major projects submit annual reports projecting deficiencies in infrastructure and stating mitigation measures. All major development proposals will be reviewed on the basis of the infrastructure analysis contained in their annual ' monitoring reports. Projects which would create infrastructure imbalances or deteriorate service capabilities will be recommended for modification or deferred until services are adequate. e. Necessary action: In order to minimize any future infrastructure im- balances, a two-phase implementation program will be established as follows: ' Phase I: Institute annual monitoring report (AMR) requirements for all major development projects and develop guidelines for their preparation and review. The projects subject to this requirement inc Jude: o All developments presently required to submit an AMR as a condition of approval. All future LUE amendments. o All major revisions to planned communities with more than 100 acres and/or 25 percent vacant land remaining. All zone changes and other applications for residential projects cumulatively larger than 100 units, or commercial/employment projects of 100,000 square feet or more. Projects for which the applicant has demonstrated a balance between public services and the proposed development, and for which conditions ' LU-A-1 4. Community Planning , a. Policy mandate: New Development Compatibility Policy. ' b. Program implementation schedule: On-going program. c. Responsible agency: EMA (Project Planning) . d. Discussion: The Community Planning Program provides more detailed planning and specific guidance at the community level that formalizes , County policy uniquely appropriate to certain areas through the preparation of specific plans, redevelopment plans, rehabilitation plans, local coastal plans, planned community zoning and/or neighborhood plans. ' e. Necessary action: None is necessary at this time. Community Planning is an Existing EMA function. ' S. Environmental Review Process a. Policy mandate: Enhancement of the Environment Policy. ' b. Program implementation schedule: On-going program. c. Responsible agency: EMA (Environmental Analysis Division) . , d. DiscuSsion: This program minimizes environmental impacts of deveL�pment through the County's environmental review procedure. This program implements state and federal environmental protection laws in Orange County. e. Necessary action: Completion of Master Environmental Assessment ' Program for its full integration into the Advance Planning Program. 6. Annual Land Use Element Review a. Policy mandate: Creative Design Concepts Policy; Employment Centers/Transportation Access Policy. b. Program implementation schedule: On-going program. c. Responsible agency: MIA (Advance Planning Division) . ' d. Discussion: This program provides a review of the policies, land use categories, and programs of the Land Use Element on an annual basis to ' make modifications in light of the previous year's experience and to facilitate innovative planning concepts. e. Necessary action: Identify minor or major changes to the Land Use , Element that will rectify inequities, clarify ambiguities, speed pro- cessing and otherwise refine and improve the element on an annual basis. ' LU-A-3 This program also provides coordination between the County and school districts and/or private agencies which provide child care services. School district/private agency services include before and after school programs located at local schools. ' e. Necessary Action: New developments will participate in the Child Care Improvement Program through conditions placed on projects in the unincorporated South County area. Appropriate coordination will also ' be encouraged between the County, school districts, ccmm unity programs and developers. An assessment of the supply and demand for child care facilities should be monitored through the Annual Monitoring Report process (see Appendix D) . 1 1 1 1 CL:ltPA16-30 LU-A-5 ' 8217 � � � � i A � � � � � � � � � � � � � H W W ' APPENDIX B GENERAL PLAN IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMS 1. General Plan Consistency Program a. Mandate: Government Code Section 65499 et. seq. ' b. Program implementation schedule: On-going program. c. Responsible agency: EMA (Advance Planning Division) . ' d. Discussion: This program satisfies the state law requirement that private and public projects must be consistent with local governments' general plans in order to be approved. All public works projects, ' development projects, permits, capital improvement plans and other private and public agency proposals are reviewed for consistency. The consistency review process will be conducted in accordance with the ' General Plan Consistency Manual prepared by EMA. e. Necessary action: Preparation and distribution of General Plan Consistency Manual and subsequent updates and revisions. 2. Intergovernmental Coordination and Public Participation ' a. Mandate: Government Code Sections 65304 and 65400. b. Program implementation schedule: on-going program. c. Responsible agency: MMA (Advance Planning Division) . d. Discussion: This program facilitates both intra- and intergovernmental coordination and citizen participation in order to promote a greater understanding of the County's General Plan. Appropriate governmental agencies, organizations and citizens are ' provided an opportunity to review documents and provide input during the General Plan revision and amendment process. e. Necessary action: Intergovernmental coordination and public ' participation are existing components of the EMA planning program. Intergovernmental and inteagovernmental coordination will be improved through increased cooperation and contact with federal, state, regional and local agencies which influence LUE implementation. For a more detailed discussion of intergovernmental and intragovernmental coordination please see Appendix F. 3. Community Development Policy Coordination a. Mandate: Government Code Section 65300.5. ' b. Program implementation schedule: Commence with LUE adoption. c. Responsible agency: EMA (Advance Planning Division) . ' LU-B-1 U F-1 W a APPENDIX C RSA ASSUMPTIONS Note: These RSA-level assumptions are based upon the adopted Orange County Preferred-85 (OCP-85) projections. Countywide assumptions are discussed ' in Chapter III. RSA 35-J (Buena Park) Use of Land ' o By 1985 this RSA will have very little land left for first generation development. o Significant public sector redevelopment will not occur in this RSA until after the year 2000. o There will be steady private sector recycling of land from single-family to multi-family use in the older sections of this RSA. o First-generation buildout of this RSA will occur before 1990. Demographics o Between 1980 and 2010 this RSA will grow at a simple average annual rate of slightly less than 0.2 percent. o The persons per dwelling unit will decrease from 2.98 in 1980 to 2.77 in 2010 in this RSA. Public Services and Facilities o Major recreation facilities in this RSA will continue to be provided by the private sector. o The essential physical public services and facilities infrastructure will be 1 • sufficient to meet demands within this RSA. o Los Alamitos Reserve Air Station will remain in government ownership and use. Economic Base o The industrial and commercial base in this RSA will increase. Employment ' o Total employment will increase from 55,067 in 1980 to 86,500 in 2010. o Employment will be concentrated in existing employment activity areas. (Buena Park industrial areas, along Highway 39, Knott's Berry Farm area, the Ratella corridor, and Cypress adjacent to Los Alamitos Reserve Air Station.) LU-C-1 RSA 37-H (Anaheim) (cont.) Demographics o Between 1980 and 2010 this RSA will grow at a simple average annual rate of slightly less than 3.5 percent. o The persons pe.- dwelling unit will decrease from 2.71 in 1980 to 2.67 in 2010. , Public Services and Facilities o Major recreation facilities in this RSA will continue to be provided by the r private sector. o The essential physical public services and facilities infrastructure will be ' sufficient to meet demands within this RSA. Economic Base o The favorable tourist-commercial base of this RSA will continue. o Significant industrial development in the Garden Grove area will be completed , by 1985. o There will be continued industrial and commercial growth in the Anaheim area. Employment o Total employment will increase from 143,321 in 1980 to 212,000 in 2010. o Employment will be concentrated in existing employment activity areas. o Significant intensification will occur in the Anaheim Stadium area, and along State Colleges Boulevard, the Disneyland area, and the Central Business Districts of Anaheim and Garden Grove. RSA 38-I (North Coast) Use of Land ' o The final portions of this RSA will achieve first-generation residential buildout after the year 2000. o There will be limited available land for development during the lifetime of the oil fields. o Major redevelopment will begin in this RSA before the year 2010. o Conversion to more intensive land uses will continually occur. Demographics o Between 1981) and 2010 this RSA will grow at a simple average annual rate of about 0.6 p?rcent. LU-C-3 RSA 39-F (Central Coast) (cont.) o The persons per dwelling unit will increase slightly from 2.28 in 1980, to 2.29 in 2010. Public Services and Facilities o John Wayne Airport will remain as the principle civilian airport in the County. o The essential physical public services and facilities infrastructure will be sufficient to meet demands within this RSA. o This RSA will maintain a substantial number of recreational facilities. o Initial operation of the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor will occur prior to 1995. Economic Base o This RSA will continue to have a strong commercial and industrial base. Employment o Total employment will increase from 146,415 in 1980 to 237,200 in 2010. o Employment will be concentrated in existing activity areas as well as future employment areas along the coast and lands adjacent to the San Diego Freeway in east Irvine. o Significant intensification will occur by South Coast Plaza, Harbor Boulevard area, Newport Boulevard area, John Wayne Airport and Newport Center. RSA 40-D (South Coast) Use of Land o This RSA will have a significant amount of land available for development throughout the period of these projections. o Major redevelopment will not occur in this RSA until after the projection years. o First-generation buildout of this RSA will not occur until after the projection years. o Much of the land potentially available for development in this RSA is characterized by rough terrain, geologic constraints or environmental ' sensitivity. Demographics o Between 1980 and 2010 this RSA will grow at a simple average annual rate of 3.6 percent. LU-C-5 RSA 41-B (Canyon) (cont.) Public Services and Facilities o This RSA will continue to have a substantial amount of land devoted to recreational .Eacilities. o The essential physical public services and facilities infrastructures will be sufficient to meet demands within this RSA, but development may be temporarily impeded in newly developing areas. o The initial phases of the Eastern corridor will be operational within the projection period. Economic Base o The commercial and industrial base of this RSA will riot keep pace with population growth. i Employment o Total employment will increase from 54,974 in 1980 to 94,200 in 2010. o Employment will be concentrated in existing employment activity areas. o Significant intensification will occur along Imperial Highway in Brea and along the Riverside Freeway in Anaheim. RSA 42-G (Santa Ana) Use of Land o This RSA has relatively few large parcels of land remaining for development. o Significant redevelopment of this RSA will occur throughout the projection years. o The final portions of this RSA will achieve first-generation residential buildout by the year 2000. o Conversion to more intensive land uses will continually occur through recycling. Demographics o Between 198fi and 2010, this RSA will grow at a simple average annual rate of 1.0 percent. o The persons per dwelling unit will increase slightly from 2.90 in 1980, to , 2.92 in 2010. Public Services and Facilities o This RSA will continue to have relatively few recreational facilities. LU-C-7 RSA 43-C (Trabuco) Economic Base o This RSA will experience a strengthening of its industrial base. o The generally favorable commercial base of the RSA will improve over time. Employment o Total employment will increase from 21,204 in 1980 to 62,800 in 2010. o Significant intensification of employment will occur along the Foothill corridor in Whiting Ranch and adjacent employment areas, and in Plano ' Trabuco. The Mission Viejo Mall area will also intensify. RSA 44-E (El Toro) Use of Land o Substantial portions of this RSA are available for development. o As development continues in this RSA, the land available for development will be characterized by rough terrain. o Significant redevelopment will not occur in this RSA until well after the year 2010. o First-generation buildout of this RSA will not occur until after the period of these projections. Demographics o Between 1980 and 2010 this RSA will grow at a simple average annual rate of slightly more than 8 percent. o The persons per dwelling unit in this RSA will decrease from 3.04 in 1980 to 2.62 in 2010. Public Services and Facilities o E1 Toro Marine Corps Air Station and the Tustin Helicopter Facility will remain in government ownership and use during the period of these projections. o The essential public services and facilities infrastructure will be ' generally sufficient to meet demands within this RSA, but development may be temporarily impeded in newly developing area. o The initial phases of the Eastern and Foothill corridors will be operational within the projection years. Economic Base ' o This RSA will continue to have a strong industrial base. LU-C-9 rr r rr r rr m rr = = m m m m m it m m rr m W a APPENDIX D ' GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM GUIDELINES ' A. Background The Growth Management Program implements the Phased Development and Land Use/Transportation Integration policies of the LUE by requiring proponents of major land use projects to submit annual reports which project future development activity, identify public service (infrastructure) deficiencies, and provide mitigation measures. These reports, called annual monitoring reports (AMRs) , have been required of major land use projects since 1979. The following guidelines provide uniform procedures for AMR preparation, describe a standard report format, and clarify the relationship between AMRs and growth management objectives. B. Annual Monitoring Reports 1. Overview The annual monitoring reports (AMRs) will evaluate the balance between proposed development and public service capacities. Projects which 1 would result in the deterioration of service levels may be modified or deferred by the Board of Supervisors until adequate service levels can be provided. In addition to serving as a growth management program, AMRs serve several related purposes. Specifically, they monitor: o Cumulative impacts of South County development; o Compliance with the adopted 1995 SEOCCS population ceiling of 711,000; o Compliance with adopted public service policies requiring specific actions or additional agreements or plans; o On-going compatibility between project implementation and fiscal impact report assumptions. 2. Projects Subject to AMR Requirements ' All land use projects which create or have the potential of creating infrastructure imbalances will be subject to the AMR requirement. These include: o All developments presently required to submit annual monitoring reports as a condition of approval; ' o All future major LUE amendments; All major revisions to planned communities with more than 100 acres and/or 25 percent vacant land remaining; o All zone changes and other projects for residential projects cumulatively larger than 100 units, or commercial/employment projects of 100,000 square feet or more. LU-D-1 ll ' II. Background AMRs should include brief descriptions of: ' ° :?roject history ° Board of Supervisors approval(s) ° Authority for report requirement III. Data Presentation This section of each AMR should present specific data requested for the project, consistent with specified data needs developed by the and the Environmental Management Agency County Administrative Office . The data should be organized into the following key categories or data groups: ° Population ° Housing , ° Employment ° Land Use ° Resource Conservation ° Public Services and Facilities ° Other Issues , Specific data items will be negotiated on a case-by-case basis to fii: the unique characteristics of each project. Generally, the da+a should present the current status of existing development plus one-year, three-year, and buildout development projections. IV. Significant Findings This section should discuss significant positive and negative trends regarding the achievement of each project's plan ' expectations and adopted policy. The order of discussion should generally follow the order of the purposes listed in Section I above, and should include, if appropriate, an analysis of: ° Positive or negative achievements toward the balanced community concept, including affordable housing and employment opportunities; ° The balance between growth and public services and facilities; ° Policy compliance and implementation; LU-D-3 w °� a rr rr r■f r ar ar rr r rr rs wr rr r r� s rr rr ��rr �r 11 APPENDIX E Table E-1 COM;SPONDENCE BETWEEN COMMUNITY PROFILE AND LUE CATEGORIES LUE Category Community Profile Subcategories lA Rural Residential 1.1 Rural Residential (0.025-0.5 du/acre) (0.025-0.5 du/acre) 1B Suburban Residential 1.2 Low Density (0.5-18.0 du/acre) (0.5-2.0 du/acre) 1.21 Low Density (0.5-1.0 du/acre) 1.22 Low Density (1.0-2.0 du/acre) 1.3 Medium Low Density (2.0--3.5 du/acre) 1.31 Medium Low Density (2.0-2.5 du/acre) 1.32 Medium Low Density (2.5-3.0 du/acre) 1.33 Medium Low Density (3.0-3.5 du/acre) 1.4 Medium Density ' (3.5-6.5 du/acre) 1.41 Medium Density (3.5-5.0 du/acre) 1.42 Medium Density (5.0-6.5 du/acre) ' 1.5 Medium High Density (6.5-18.0 du/acre) 1.51 Medium High Density (6.5-12.5 du/acre) 1.52 Medium High Density , (12.5-18.0 du/acre) LU-E-1 w q1-1 W a APPENDIX F 1'INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION A. OVERVIEW The Intergovernmental Coordination Program facilitates cooperative planning efforts with federal, state, regional, and Orange County agencies which are involved in LUE implementation or influence LUE implementation by their actions. Section B identifies federal, state, regional, and countywide agencies involved in the General Plan Program and describes their respective responsibilities. ' B. INTERAGENCY COORDINATION 1. Federal Agencies a. Cleveland National Forest: (1) Cooperative resource management i (2) Recreation planning b. Army Corps of Engineers: (1) Flood control facilities (2) Major public works projects c. Federal Aviation Administration: ' (1;, Airport/land use compatibility d. Department of Housing and Urban Development: (1) Development and infrastructure financing ' (2) Coordination of socio-economic data related to housing e. El. Toro Marine Corps Air Station: (I.) Airport/land use compatibility (2) Interface with County noise control and abatement programs f. Fish and Wildlife Service: (1) Biological resource management g. Environmental Protection Agency: (1) Environmental review process :2) Air quality, hazardous waste, and water quality programs LII-F-1 ' 1 ' ' (8) California Air Resources Board: (a) State air pollution control agency responsible for implementation of federal air pollution acts ' c. State Lands Commission: ' (1) Manages and regulates all state-owned lands. d. California Energy Commission (1) Responsible for development and conservation of California's energy resources (2) Power plant siting activities e. Department of Transportation (CalTrans) ; Division of Highways: (1) Transportation planning (2) Development of state highways (3) Transportation funding and programming f. Department of Housing and Community Development: (1) Preparation of criteria and guidelines for the Housing Element of the General Plan (2) Statewide housing and community development planning assistance 3. Regional Agencies a. Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) : ' (1) Regional air quality, transportation, and housing plans ' (2) Regional growth forecast policy (3) Coordination of regional water quality (208) and energy planning efforts (4) Transportation improvement plans ' (5) Clearinghouse for federally-funded projects b. South Coast Air Quality Management District: (1) Air quality management activities ' LII-F-3 • C •I d. Project Planning Division: (1) Local coastal programs (2) Community and specific plans ' (3) Recreation Element: recreational trail and corridor planning 2. County Administrative Office a. Urban Monitoring and Analysis Center: (1) Growth Management Program (2) Development Monitoring Program (3) Resources Element: (a) Water Resources Component ' (4) Areawide Fiscal Impact System b. Forecast and Analysis Center: ' (1) Land use and demographic studies ' (2) Population, employment, and housing data JD:rmdPA16-9 LU-F-5 3/25/83 , Y 1 H W a �' i RESIDENTIAL i RURAL RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITIES 1A (.025 - .5 DU /AC) (COMPONENT III CATEGORY -1.1) SUBURAN RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITIES 1B (.5 -18 DU /AC) (COMPONENT III CATEGORIES/1.2 -1.52) < YORM \\ ' URBAN RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITIES LINDA �T , u I 1Ci (18 AND ABOVE DU /AC) •. \. j ��� �_ (COMPONENT III CATEGORIES/1.6 -1.62) gG�' �✓' "�' \ u Is BREA 'w yew --.� 41-8 - ' COMMERCIAL o - t: ` / ? `a `: /\� CLEVELAND COMMUNITY COMMERICAL 0 (COMPONENT III CATEGORY/2.1) IL O REGIONAL COMMERICAL { u 1 NATIONAL I (COMPONENT III CATEGORY/2.2) Is LA\ '► l PLACErrrlA 43—C ! Y _ �� •� Y1. , i r�• u J, EMPLOYMENT \� u VI LA / I :• ur \ I EMPLOYMENT r'w� M 3 (COMPONENT III CATEGORIES III/3.1-3.2) FULLERTON P R , " • 4 ;\ ✓� } �� r �! n 4 - • . u u FOREST va�� '• �- �/`. PUBLIC FACILITIES l�,-� J��''�• .` �,r\ i t �al..�� u" / ) 4 PUBLIC FACILITIES E (COMPONENT III CATEGORIES/4.1) i i j �/ 'i it \ _ u S , � u ( c LANDFILL SITE `L`�` u '• , ` �• O (� `` ) (AN OVERLAY DESIGNATION) ANAHE IM, r ;, ,.�.'� ' ' ,�. ` w � OPEN SPACE ' i ` \ r \✓ P; ^• u u I1F ` + R 5 OPEN SPACE � 4 1 \ 3 (COMPONENT III CATEGORIES/5.1 -5.4) Is F0 11ISSIO )J o , URBAN ACTIVITY CENTER \ URBAN ACTIVITY CENTER . 43 ^ 6 (COMPONENT III CATEGORY/6.1)— 111 s �� G�RDEN Y� � �•-� < \ GROVE/ \ d SPHERES Dr MWENcr i' SA17TA ' 1 ! , ' ' .• rwa I• M.n.o aw..a r wn.. Is '�, • � � s QJNA � � � 4..uH. M GOl• IRVINE .•. . m a4Hoa o.w[ n w.mnr r.m 4.uG H LOS x : I 1 �� RA le°"SIATISICAL a`u RwES i91TNSTER.'.0 \ 43-C aciaw STATTION ST1Gl uHu 4; 1 I IDENTIi1CATgM ,sv� / �� \ )` '� \ LAN NAN �� �' CLEVeuND ruTawu «�— DU NTAIh7 �� \\ i CAPIS a I t 4 39—F s+ roan,BOUNDARY 11, ' p NI L v O:. ! G �'' r as ax,i ' , Lcs ANena m sw eEwweaa m SEAL ME t BEACH y NTINBEA Htrx m GTON s �� NLWPO T , 4 D _ i SAIQ\C1gEMENTE ( •4C.r \� i 0'= LAGUNA �� �� i I �\\ Y: f��/T /\ u A �, =;�� /- ( �`,( < ' � u .l .' +' / u • � BE.CH VICINITY �1� !I. cr.� \� Dt1NPOINT ii^�r S`• � �. `~�,v, MAP `` sw arts m I bpi mnn twi M w•r wOo•ar A M W 1•l OOOII IO fMlIOY 11M �H+H rwn O M pWd G'LO� NOTE:The map includes uninrnlporated areas within city ma,nN.n uoom..W wmm w,�:••.��,�. �wrc Garmo a . .�wH r•.00nm w mna spheres-of-influence for¢hick these sties have �� w M�m�...�d •.o.•�• A .M lM 1�GOOD�.O.�.�• adopted General Plans.Pl,:aae refer to city plane ..,•t.w.Hociw.,.,,,..Hxr G,•nm wvwo. for long-term landuses. i ORANGE COUNTY GENERAL PLAN' COMPONENT I1 � LAND USE ELEMENT CURRENT ROUGH AMENDMENT 93-1 III I I I