HomeMy WebLinkAboutZone Change 88-18 - Inland side of Pacific Coast Highway bet (14) +
xCCE►vEU.
ROBERT LON DON MOORE, J R
18090 Beach Boulevard, #6 tit►N�`•t+l ' ! ,
Huntin^,ton Beach, California L `l •ll �� 3
` 92648 Ju
I July 23 1993
I
Mayor Grace Winn hell
and City Council Members
City of Huntington Beach
CoJAC6
2003 Main Street �`�'�•�-'1 `'� �
Huntington Beach, California -�� '~ ��•��r •-
Attn : Connie Brock%"y
'�. City Clerk
For Public Comments -
City Council Agenda 8/02/9-2
Re: Resubmittal of Proposed Zone Change
H. K. LCP "White Hole" area to
California Coastal Coinmiasion
Mayes Winchell and
City Council ides. .heirs:
At the request of Councilman Victor Leipzig , direction has been
given by City Council to the Huntington Beach planning staff to
prepare for requbmittal to the California Coastal Commission rezoning
for properties located on the inland side of Pacific Coast Highway
between Beach Boulevard and the Same. Ana River.
This action was taken at the City Council meeting on ;;,me 21 ,
1993 , and is in reference to the aroa of deferred certification
of the CJty' s Local Coastal Program commonly known as the "Wh1te �
Hole" .
The City Council has gone to great lengths to commionion the work
of the General plan Advisory Committee ( "GPAC") to matte an in -depth
study of the City ' s outdated General Plan, and to provide recommendar-
tlons for a complete update of land uses for tho entire City. As
you are aware, the GPAC is now in the final stages of this work
after conducting an exhaustive examination of existing land uses ,
including these in the "White Holel: area, and carefully considering
many alternatives for its reeoLaendations in respect to the General
Plan update.
The GPAC and ita members are to be commended for their dedication
and suastantial efforts to provide land use planning for a completely
gpda4►ted General Plar ..
4; Under the circumstances# the proposal to reconsider zoning for
+' the controversial '"White Hole" area at this time would effectively
chart-circuit and frustrate the work of GPAC. The proposal in
at best, wikwise al.nd premature . At worst, it is an undiaguised
attempt to make an end-run around the comprehensive and careful
work of the GPAC.
Mayor Grace Winchell
Huntington Beach City Council
July 231 1993 - Page lVo
Given this situation, the Ci.ty ' s response to the following is
requested:
1 . As noted above , the City Council has directrd the
GPAC to conduct a comprehensive study of the City ' s land uses
and to recommend appropriate land uses for the General P;,an
update. A Great_deal of time , effort and resources have aeei?
invested in the Committee s work, _ and it would not alepear Lo
6 be appropriate or necessary to S10 forwared with an _l and usi_:
or zoning decisions for the "White Hole" until the GPAC work
is complete . The public has not been informed of any reason
to treat the "White Hole" area separately at this time .
What reason (At can the City give for accelerr!ting a general
re-zoning of the "White Mole" area before the completion of
work on the General Plan update?
2 . What zoning is proposed for renubmittal to the
Coastal Commission in respect to each of the properties located �
within the "White Tole" area?
1 . How are these Zoning categories ories differunt from
those .rejected by the City Council on duly 6 , 1992?1
4 . Under the propos-Rd zoning, what specific uses will
be provided so that private land owners may be have the opportunity
to make reasonable economic use of their properties?
5 . If the proposed zoning will allow only these uses
permitted under the "Conservation" designation, what, .if anything,
supports the possibility that this zoning Will allow realistically
viable economic ubz of private property which is so zoned?
6. The "Coastal Conbervation' overlay zone► proposed
and approved by the Coastal Commission for approximately 7
acres previously designated for "Visitor-Serving Commercial"
uses in the Lang Use plan for the LCP included the following:
02 . Development on Geograph.icali.y Contiguo"s parcels
Under Common Ownership
"9422. 2. 1 An applf.;.�able to parcels described as
Assessors parcel Numbers 148--011-01 , 146-011-02 ,
114-150-20 , 114-150-51 , 114-150-53 , 114-150-58 ,
and 114-150-551 development for any parcel, or
portion. thereof, shall be permitted only pursuant
to an overall development plan for all above
parcels, if at said time of application, the
parcels are geographically contiguous and under
commn ownership. As part of any such application
1� LCP Amendment No. 90-2 JZone Change No. 88-18) .
}
Mayor Grace Winchell
Huntington Beach Cite Coullci 1.
July 23 , 1993 - Page Three
the applicant shall include topographic , vegetative ,
h} drolcgic and soils information, prepared by a
qualified professional and reviewed and concurred
in by the Departrnont of Fish and Game , which
. '�ntifies the extent of any existing wetlands
oz, the property. Conservation easements , dedicat.iens
or other iderMified similar mechaniai.zrs shall be
a required over all wetland areas as a condition of
development , to assure permanent pxotection against
development and consistent with sections 9422 . 5 -
9422 . 7 . . . . No further subdivision of ars_- parcel shall
be permitted which would have the effect of dividing
off environmentally sensitive habitat from other
portions of such parcels .for which urban uses are
permitted in the City ' s Coastal Eler,,�nf until such
time as the permanent protection on any wetland is
assured . "
i
During previous public hearings before the City and Coastal.
Commission both the State of California (Caltrana) and the adjacenc
M private landowner (Mills Lard & Water Company) have pointed out
that the conditions contained in the above-referenced zoning pro-
posal are rnldwful because :
(a) Such zoning is inconsistent with the "Visitor-
Serving Commercial" uses approved approve-I by
the City and the Coastal. Ccu:smission for the 7t
acres without the restrictive conditions
imposed by the proposed overstay;
(19 Stich zoning fails to meet standards for exactions
prescribed by state statute and the "nexus"
requirement articulated in the Nollan case ; and,
(c) Such zoning overlay is discriminatory anu uncon-
stitutional because no other zimilarly situated
property is so restricted.
If the City intends to adopt the foregoing zoning overlay
proposed by the Coastal Commission, on what basis does the City
Justify the restrictive conditions imposed on the 7f acres previously
designated for "Visitor-Serving Commercial" uses?
7 . if the City intends to preserve lands in the "White
Role" area as open space, or for habitat or wetlands preservation
for the benefit of the local region, or for they benefit of state-
wide preservation of wetlands , what eonsidaration has been given
to the purchase of this property,, including Any sources of fuAding?
r w
Mayor Grace Wi.ncrQ.tl
Huntington Beach City Council
J Uly 23 , 1993 •- Page Four
8 . Please Identify and provide copies of reports , studies,
mema%anda, communications , and data which relate to the City ' s
conaijeration of the impac:'.s which the proposed zoning will have
on:
( 1) Taxes dnd otter revenues that will be lost
clue to zoning restriction- which prevent
developrren'z in the "White . -)le" area;
( 2) r'he lose of new jobs and other economic and social.
benefits to the City which, in the absence of
such zoning, could be promoted by commercial
and other development in the "White Hole" area;
3) Potential liability of tha City to private lard-
owners resulting from the proposed zoning .
9 . Please provide copies of Legal opinions and input
considered or relied upon by the City since the "Legal opinion on
Coastal Conservation Zoning" prepared for the City Council by �
Katherine F. Stone , Margaret A. Sohagi and hichard R. Terzian in
1969 , which address any of the issuas involved in the proposed
rezoning of the "Whit. Hole" area.
10. Please identify and provide copies of any studies
of the "White Hole" area which the City has received or become
aware of since 1983 that address the potential value of any of
the parcels within the area as "wetlands" .
11 . Please identify and provide copies of any studies or
reports which have been made in respect to the feasibility of
restoring any of. the "White Note" parcels to viable functioning
wetlands as the term "feasible" is defined in the Coastal Act. '
12. What changes, if any, have occurred since Jui-, 6 , j
1992 which make necessary the resubmittr..1 of the zoning propuzed
for the "White Hole" area at this time? In responding to this
question, please identify and provide, copies of the reports , studies ,
memoranda, communications, and data which the City Council or staff
have considered which support the decision to resubmit the proposed
zoning for the "Nhite Hole" area to the Coastal Commission.
13. 1 Please provide the names of any groups or individuals �
who have approached the City Council or any of its members,
either at Council meetings or informally, to requeat or lobby
for the action now being proposed for the resubmittal of zoning
for the "White Hole" area to the Coastal Commission.
2/ public Resources Code, Section 30109 .
' 1
Mayr.r Grace Winchall
Huntington Beach City Counci. '
July 23 , 1993 Pane Five
Your courtesy and assistance in pro�l i d i.iiq responses to each of
these concwrn►s at an early convenience will be very much appreci-
ated ,
Your further courtesy in providing copies of the requested studies ,
reports, and other data which support your responses will be greatly
apureci.ated and will assi3t in providing an understanding of the
City ' a perspective and reasons ::or resubmitting the zoning pro-
posed for the "White bole" area to the Coastal Commission at this
time .
�- Si cerely /"'REj
ROBLRZ LONDON R.
RLMjr/kh
CC : Michael Ubexuaga,
City Aftlbniatratoi
Gail Clifford Esq.
Runtingtor Boac?i +,i ty Attorney
Michael Adams,
Dept. of Commu:t i.t.1 Development
Jack Bowland, Cis n :'q.7"lT an
and GPA'C membr_. s,%
State of t'31ifoe- i-
Caitrars Dist. 1.2 R/W
David K- imer- , Rsq.
Caltrans Les :Q. Division
:z-
r'
i
+ri7Y '
w
REQUEST., FOR CITY GOUNGIl ACTION
Data October
"+,lhmitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Submitted by:
Paul Conk , City Administrator
`
I
Prepared by: MiChael Adams , 0i rector , Community beve opment
ZONE CHANGE NO , 08-1.8 (APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION ' ;I
Subject:: WITHDRAWAL) CY`'Y f�Ot1r1G'IL
P
A P?R+(1 i� y C
' �
19A
consistent with, Counril Policy? ( ) Yes ( ) New Policy or Exc Mn .
� ----- �_..._�.___�_...____�.-- ------ ._. ��C�fe-eve/ •Lt
Siatement of ',slue, Recotnn,enclation, Analysis, I-undinrl Source, Alterna i �.
Zone Change No , 88•- 18 was originally continued frotn the March 200
1989 City Council meeting in order to allow for a joint opinion
exploring the legal issues raised by the zone change and provide the
City with listing of alternative planning solutions , A legal
opinion on coastal conservation zoning has been prepared .
=QM&NDATIO�
Staff recommends that L. . City Council take the following actions :
� D >E: Staff reconunends that the City j
Council take the following actions :
Fite, —Jp (1) rr.iRefer Zone Change 88--18 back eo the Planningg
de+ l 4_ I Comssion for action and recommendation ; ,cin
r' r� (2 Authorize the formation of a wetlands Coali.twiono
AeA�/lid r � study alternat ' a land uses ; the coalition shall kid;&r. ,
��aitw�orr�~� include Members ;
a , Property owners (Edison , CalTrans , Mills Land
and Water , Pica re111 )'f0p. 41em A e. Flo,&O Cohito I This-trtc, t)
�A(;f /Qp�r►ovr�l Asotma ed b . Friends of the Wetlands representative �
c . Huntington Beach Conservancy repre entative
�e,,r � d . Administration r.epzesentative . r�ol. d��a.�sr •
�A'lilldl��"
es City Attorney representative
f . Community Development repres'entative
g . ' ' City Council members H,1�3.. b -01kSft I)'Adr Ark rtirnr art
� t ) � 1 y
---W(8 ) Direct staff to work with the coalition to prepare
a land use plan and explore various land planning
-It technics such as specific plans and Transfer
Development lights programs .
1)) 4,
MA : SH : lab
'" J
RCA 1016/89
Ilia em
ati 'M
REEQUE T FOR C{TY COUNGI ACTION
' Date _ - -- _ _ Oc�r.be r ALL,
"qbmitteci to,
Honorable Mayor and Cr. '_y Couaci 1
Paul rook , City Administrator -� �--
I
1 . Refer zone Chance 88-18 back to the Planning Commission for
action and recommendation ;
a
2 . Authorize thr: formation of a wetlands coalition to study I
alternative land uses ; the coalition shfali include eleven
membe z s :
a / Property owners ( Edison , CalTrans , Mills Lana and Plater ,
Picarelli ) -
b , Friends of the wetlands repr,-hsentat'ive
c / Huntington beach Conservancy representative
d . Administration representative
6 . City Attorney repre-senta.tive
f . Community Development rispresentative
g . ( 2) City Council members
3 . Direct staff to work with the coalition 'to prepare a land use
plan and explore various land planning technics such as
y . specific plans and Transfer Development R.ightV programs .
, i � i f
_ 1 l"
.r Request or Council Action defied arch 20 , b9
MA: S H: 18 b
RCA 10/d/89 3814d)
r f' ';fOK': - - r,xti,yir•�iYaid+,e t .',.y, '3G.,« ..� ,hi;
Mob
M E M O R A VI D UIA
FREILICH, STONE, LZITNER & C"LISLE
'6i ' 1, A,4 t un, Make Adams
. FROM Katherine E. Stony: , Margaret A. Schagi.
C;Uk3.grvqV:. liuntingtorl Duch Wetlands
D7hTE: September. :26, 1399
vC:
a
1 . Authorize format ion of wetlands Coalition ;
2 . Adopt the 'Coastal Conservation zoning; /
i�r'L�`G•1r,�'`'LQ�
3 . Adopt administrative claimz for takings and
wetland designation; /
4 . Adopt framework for TDR program;
5 . Adapt intention to prepare specific plan;
6 . Hire wetlands consultant (Mike MoLavghlin to
facilitate coalition) ; and
7 . continue retention of Richard R . Terz ian,
Xatherine E. Stone and Margaret A. Soha►gi on an
hourly basis .
KE t/lil;i AbAM.MF M:C9
a
1
Mob
i
v
REQUES �I 1 C,►I"1"Y COUNCIL'1Js111 IL N `�'Ii N
Date .__..._._ October l,?,`._.12.9 g
Honorable Mayor Rnd City CoL11-4cil - APPROVED �Y op-v— 'COUNCIL
Submitted to:
Submitted by;
Paul Cnok , City t.dininistrato:: �� � !.� : ��• `)
Michael Adams , Director ., Communitr Developme .t
rod by: n,
Pr
Clry
ZONE CHANGE No. 8 8-18 (APPEAL OF is=MNG— � �N' N
Saab jest: Wl THDRA'W14L)
CIV
Conshtent with Council policy? ( ) yes ( ) New Police or Exception
Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions, AtTachments:
SUTMKI OF I HUE
Zone Change No . 88-18 was originally continued from the March 20,
1989 City Council meeting in order to allow for a joint opinion
exploring the legal issues raised by the zone changei and provide the
City with listing of alternative planning solutions . A legal
opinion on Coastal conservation zoning has been prepared .
Staff recommends that the City Council take the following actions :
1 . Refer zone Change 88-18 back to the Planning Commission for
action and recommendation;
2 . Authorize the formation of a wetlands coalition to study
alternative land uses ; the coalition shall include, eleven
members :
a . Property, owners (Edison, CalTrans , Mills Land and Water ,
Picarelli)
b. Friends of the Wetlands representative
c. Huntington E-!)ach Conservancy representative
d. Administrat.on representative
e. City Attorney representative. Community Development representative
g . (2) City Council members
3 . Direct staff to work with the coalition to zrepare a land use
plan and explore various land planning techi lcas such as
specific plane and Trannfer Development Rights programs .
Request or Council Action ate d arch 209 89 000 ;L-0e
MA; SH: lab
RCA 10/6/89 T-03814d)
Flown
62VI U+fmrai4t+_A . .- — -. —
' ,(�c�l r�rt:-a' •�.�.Elrtir!•�s�r�-z�iv
MESSAGL TO THE MEMBERS GI' THE HUNTINCTON BI:At"ll CITY COUNCIL ,
CCU11 1.1 ;1et: r.f nS of yeptc. -:ber 16 , 198S
GOOD EVENING , HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL . MY NAME IS
CUiTIS, I REPRESENT DAISY FICCERILL7 AND TITLE ENERGY9 THE COMPANY THAT HAS
MRS . PICCERILLI'$ PROPERTY IN ESCROW . BASED ON THE. ADVICE OF YOUR CITY
ATTORNEY THE PLANNING COMMISSION WITHDRY.W ZONE CHANGE NO , ES-18 ;MORE THAN
HALF A YEAR AGO . !1N APPEAL TO THE COMMISSION'S ACTION AND TO YOUR CITY
ATTORNEY'S COUNSEL WAS INITIATED BY COUNCILMAN GREEN AND EVENTHOUG11 YOU
NOW HAVE THE RESULTS OF THAT AFPEALt IT APPEARS THIS CITY COUNCIL WILL
CONTXNUE TO POSTPONE A DECISION ON THIS PROPERTY.
I
WE HAVE THREE REQUESTS THIS EVFNING :
I . (REQUEST NUMBER ONE) THAT YOUR VOTE PROCESS CONSIDER SEPARATELY MILLS
LAND A WATER COMPANY'S PROPERTY AND DAISY PICCERILLI`S PROPERTY .
MAYOR BANNISTER HAS ACKNOWLEDGED :'EAT HE WILL ABSTAIN FROM VOTE
CONCERNING HILLS LAND AND WAi'ER BECAUSE OF WHAT HE VIEWS AS CONFLICT
OF INTEREST• MAYOR BANNISTER DOES NOT SELL INSURANCE TO DAISY
PICCERILLI . THIS ISSUE IS THE MOST IMPORTANT MATTER TO CORE BEFORE
THE COUNCIL IN THE PASIT .20 YEARS . PICCERILLI AND TITLE NEEDS THE
INPUT OF ALL COUNCILMEN ON THIS ISSUE.
Z. (REQUEST NUMSZR TWO) IMMEDIATE ACTION ! DISCHARGE THE APPEAL. THIS
PROJECT HAS 3229 ONDSE STUDY FOR EIGHT YEARS BY ALL REGULATOitY
ACXNCIBS AND THEIR RECOMMINDATIONS WEBS MADE PUBLIC IN MAY 1986 . NO
ACTION *AS SIrN EpDORSCG BY CITY COUNCIL . AND INDEED THIS APPIAL,
VNICE VAS INSTIGATED BY COUNCILMAN CIZZN9 HAS INCREASED THE
POSSIRILYTI' 0* INNiDIAT'6 AND NULTIPLB LITIGATIONS IT PICCIIILLI AND
TITLI INNtGT AOAINS? THE CITT OF HUNTINSTON BEACH FOR CONTINUING TO
1
� x
y.
IGNORE HER LANDOWI ' RIGHTS . MRS . PICCERILL. )ONTINUES 73 RE DENIED
HIR APPLICAT'_OMS FOR DEVELOPMENTO AND THE PROPERTY TAXES GO ON . THE
i
CITY AND PtTEN QRE9N APPEAR TO BE PR0CRA%TTNATING IN HOPES THAT ZITHI.R
DEATH OR DEi'AULT OF TAXES WILL REMOVE THE NECESSITY OF DEALING: WITH
NRS . PTCCEKILLI
3 . ( RED UEST Ny"gL'R THREE) REVERSE THE ENWIRONMEIITAL REVIEW COMMI'iTEE-S
VINDINGN THAT FOC.)SES ON UR,S. PP.OPERTY, WHICH HAS ALREADY
SUFFERED SHEINKAGE FROM CONDENWATION ACTIONS OF THE STATES CALTRANS ,
i
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISCN, AND ThE FLOOD CONTROL . , VAJOR POKTIONS OF
NXIGHBORING PROPERTIES WHICH WERE ALSO HUNTINGTON BEACH VETLAND; (AS
j DEEMED BY FISB AND GAME DEPARTMENT.) H VE RECEIVED THE CITY' S BLESSING
I
FOR DIVELOPMENT 07 RES,IDENTIALi LIGHT' INDFISTRIAL , AHD MIXED USE
DEVELOPMENT EMBRACING HOTELS A1Tbi RECREATIONAL FACILITIES . IT IS
'UNDERSTANDABLE WHY MAS , PICCERILLI BELIZV85 THERE IS A. k OLUST` Z PLAN �
SPANNING FORTY YEARS TO COMPLETELY DEPRIVE IEa OF FAIR MARKET VALUZ
FOR HER PROPEkTT. SHE HAS PERMANtNTLY LOST USE OF AND REVENUE FRCM 52
OF BAR Ill ACRES AS OF TONITE.
IT IS NOT NECISSARY FOR COUNCILMAN PETER GRLEN TO SUBJECT!` THIS COUNCIL AND i
I
TRI CITY OF HUNTINGTON BAACH TO LITIGATION ON MATTERS THAT ULTYMATLLX ARZ lI�
TSS LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY of COASTAL COrlHISSION AND FIST ANJ GAME
DAP'ARTNZNTS .
Y THANK TOO ti")R TOUR ATTXXT1011 , AND IF YOU HAVR QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS
XATTIR I AN WILLING TO ANSVRK T811l.
wrrr
r
R ES FOR UTY COUN011- ACTION
EQU
May 15 1989
fi�ahmiit,fd to: 148 431�Mayor and City Council Members
�T
}'au -i. E . Cook., C:; ty Aondnist:►►•ato r
f �arrajt�er! t,�:
�raparad t�Iike Adamei, Uiri:cLox of Community Uevelcpr;u n�
ZONE CHANGE NO. 611-18 (CONTINUANCE)
I
}i_L LL'1/-/1jJ
Consistent with Council Policy? [ ] Yes [ ) Now Policy or Exception
Stnemernt of Itwea, Rscomn%ndatiun, Analysis, Funding Source, Aite.-native Astions, Attachments: �Q
on tiarch 20 , 19890 the (:i.".y Council continued the public raearin , on
Sons CI inge 88-18 (Non-Certified Coastal Area on inland side of
Paefic Coast Highway between Teach Boulevard and the Santa Ana
j River) for 60 days it, order to obtain a second legal opinion . An
I, additional continuance until August 21 , 2989 is necessary to obtain
tho legal. opinion.
Staff recommends that the City Council c^nt:inue Zone Change No .
88--18 to August 21, 1989 so that a legal opinion can be obtaiiiecl by
an independant law firm.
XIS
On May 1, 1989 the City Council authorized retention of Richard
Tarzian of Adaim, Duque and Hazaltine , and Katherine Stone of
Frei;._ck, Stogie, L,eitner and Carlisle to provide the City with a
joint opinion and alternative solutions regarding the Huntington
Nraach wetlands . They tisane indicated that they will require a rar=od
of time until August 21, 1989 to prepare that information. Staff,
therelfore, recormiends that Zone Changn No. 88-16 be continued to
August 21 , 19e9 ,
0r YMM1
No funds reuai red
11 �. A=x '
The City Council m4y continue Zone Charge 68 -13 to another date as
they deem appropriate . '
MAIMS : lab
126510d)
.I
MGM
`QUE S FOR l;i T Y COUNCIL. �.CTION
Data �. '<riarrh 7.t7, 1989 _...____......_ _.M..
Ilonoy-atjlz Mayor and Cit; t:ouncil
Paiil ri. Cunic CityAdministratc�t�`� V
Submitted by:
Pt eNar,-i by Mike; Adain(i, Director of Comrriunity Devs..lr,)r Atl
ZONE CHANGF NO. 98--ir (APPEAL OF FLANNING COMMISSION'S
Subject: WITHDRAWAL)
0-0
r,onsistimrit with t•.:nurcil Policy? Yes t ) Now Policy or Exception
Stacenanf.i.:( Issue, HeMttnmimnclation,-Anblysk, Funding Source, Alternative a,.tions, Attachments j
DACKraRMlVla INFOi3..MAT.N:
Transmitted `or your consideration is an appeal by Counei)man Grp:^n of the Planning
Cunimission's withdrawal of Zone Cha7,%e No. 88-18. T re zo►te change �,;auld affect
eXroxima tely 232 acres on the infi nd side of Pacific Coast Highway be-Moen Beach
Boulevard and the Santa Ana River, in order to -ch;eve consistency with tNa: adopted Lind
Usc Plan.
01". MOTION BY SLATES AND SECOND BY WILLIAMS, THE PLANNING COMMIS.SI
VOTED TO ACCEPT THE WITHDRAsNAL OF ...JNE CHANGE NO. 83-18 FROM
FURTHER PROCESSING. Tho motion passed by the following vote:
AYES: States, 'Williams, Alourgutgnon, Kirk bind, N-UnUntfoid
NGFS: Ortega, Letpwlg
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None `
Saff RewinR►eadation: *
Staff rtrcommends that the City C ouncil uphold the Planning C:or, miss;an's withdrawal of
Zone Change No. 88-18 and erect staff to prtp;ire a new land use plan for the
non-•certlfled tstal area.
AMMG:
On June 2, 198S, the City Coun;,i1 adopte! a Land Us,e Mar for the non-certified coastal
zm ! area along 1Pecific Const Highway, between 1OL ch Boulevard and the Swita Ana
River. On April 130 087, the California Coastal Coq,rtti vslon certified the La, U e P1an
as submittal by the City. The Lard 10'�-.e:.Plan, as cert1.fied, designztes approxlmatel.Y 7.0
acres an Vfdtor Servir:g :.ommerclai, 1�; 'Adren as Coil,%rvazion, 82 acres as Industrial
EtteW Pm duction and 17.0 acres as Industrial Energy. PrWuction/Conse-.vation. 1'he
p:w'pmre of tta wne change Is to apply appropilate zoning designatlaija to the properties
!n ordW to achieve Consistency with the ',an,'. Use designations anti to complete
certifi a►tian of the Local C'.-�aital Froplam for th* City.
no
o1i Octol,( r 'i" 19f.8-
A I that-at time, I o:,Tw IV C-I 11.1t it h 2 L-ot IV it It.,cc I to tt latl.r d a I
that the Iego! r ,,.oilo (::nIld ho On Dec�-_-rnher 6, 1988,
the City Aox,�-ijc �T to
11 'N.i t 1,�1 i.,i,� th�, Pather tl,(Ili
eiccej.lt 0h, Coir 710: co-10111.1,2d thu . 10,111 to a Ftllco, _,(.:�sicn oil
()I, !)oI to 111C zone Ch'inge. At thal
l"ehruary 'l, HSI,, 10 "C'
lilt., P!;111i1ijIg
Attorney, a(N,is in 'he--ti t I i It t 11v cli'll I =.-,01)stitllte JA WHV,'7 p,irsu:irit to the,
ifth AinevdTni iu io :he UnItC.t.1 C0Il';1'1l-,ti0lI. jjjI,.jj!,j (ail that opinioti, dig! lllanning
Jos().
W.)!'. fo t, "v"t i on t !1-11-:1'.;,' tilt- 70 ilC,' 11 f!?_` 011 1.4-W II:I V.v '?.
III COM-5idel'it')? thiS 700C Cii.�7 Coulicil Inust d':, saille 1WO 61.11)o1iiiI6,
Viewl'ollas Wh.ch W-re, discus.-.ed when the Local Coast,.-1 flan for the jtudy area was
prepared in lWi , 19332 -nd 1986. Tjjt! CA
C�jljfornl- Departi-nent of Fish and Game has
identified 125 acres Of the Study area as restorable wetlands. Und.: designation, the
Ceastal Act of 1976 NY-111 not allow' t!ji.) ImI1 to i)e The Dl-;. the Coastal
.e�
'..�_!-ISei,V;iT1C.V and ;Ile' Co,-u;tal 1.,ave rep,!atedly advist.d tho L iv of this fact.
The City's initial ;.: i at cel-tification of its LCP .,,ere actually rn-jected in 1981 and
It,ej Ju, Io fiaill,Vf' its adequately prritect these areas. in 1986, the City Council
coneurred with the -)FG and the Constal Commission and adopted a land use plan for the
-irea which pr%)tac ted tf-e dk-.:;!gnais-r1 we and areas.
The Conse.1-vation designated areas of 010- study area, howc:v(T, principally owned by
two private parties: Mills Land an(l. Water', aui6 Daisy Piccirelli. These property owners
have argued thet Conservation z1:oriir.;, on their property dc,nies them an economic use of
their land, and coiv-,titutes a taHtig under the U.S. Consti itition. They have a'so stated
that the dollar 81MOLItItS offeret-4 to them by the Coastal C-_�riservancy in tf:e past have been
insufficient to compensate them for their property. Staff iias heard that, according to the
Los Angeles Port Authority, the current market value for restorable wetlands IS
ADPrOldr,IZLely $30,000 per acre. Tne Conservancy's past offers were reportedly below
that figure. Additionally, when the Coastal Man for tilt-_' study -irea was adopLed in 1980,
7.0 act-es were designated for Visitor-Serving Con,-ititicrc I;,I- The Intent of the desigiation
was to provide ;.!ills and Piccirelli wittj -a 1.)iece of propel-.i on which they could realize an
economic retinii. 'they iiave lneflcw ed that this amount of ;and will not adequately
compensate then. for their property either.
iJpon the advice of the City A ttorney's Office ice which had raisrd concerns regarding the
legality of the zone change, staff has recommended that the Planning Commission's
withdrawal of the zo-ie change he upheld and that staff be directed to prepare a new Ifillo
use plan for the at- za. Perhaps some new information or Ideas can be found t.-!at will lead
ter a successful alternative land use scenario that will allow economic development along
wish restoration.
On the other hand, if the legal corceras did not exist and if the zone change could be
considered strictly In terms of coastal land use issues, staff would fully support rezoning
in coaslatency with the adopted land use plan. This option is therefore provided as an
alterrittive action for the Council's consideration. In order to take this action, however,
the Council would need to refer the zone change back to the Planni-ng Commission for an
initial public hearing and recommendation. This would be necessary since the Planning
Comminion has not actually acted on the zone change yet, other than to withdraw it from
,00nsideration.
In order for the Council to assess the Issues, stiff has provided the following
supporting Inficrtnation:
1. Planning Commission staff rep.)rt dated February 7, 1989. This report
provides a parcel by parcel explanation of the zone change request, as well as
historical background,
RCA - Z"* Cwnp No. 88-19 -2- (2 1 88d)
I
1+
r ' Y
I..
2. Co 4s;al Commission f'indini,s for al:pwe ,al uf the i 936 Land Use Plan
(Ad(_�pted ley the r'oCI-ital i.*wmnissior, c:lr! April 23, 1987),
j 3. Non-C i,:-Aifferi Coastal Arca study d%tev 'fvl,ay 1986. This is the rtt port which
analyze_,d a rango of l,irui uses for the so.idy area and which was adopted to
inc:ludc 12S acres cat' Coasml Cot�-. rY,-)tiov In June 1986 by the City Council.
t; ( ? 11"i;i Council it rneetiti g ado�:ing they
4. Itianutc,s t r�rn the June � City �ot�n �, i ,-,
Non �.Certif ir,d Coast-A-: 1 Arcil 1-mid Use P1=trt.
i
S. A package, of corr+e!- ,cndence received by the 'City from various agencies
dtiring tht: 1986 pt:lj.iic hu�irin5 proc cc;s f'or th, LC . T.tc; c orrc_,pon It nci
underscores tha rezquirernents of the Coast;;l Act to preserve wetland areas.
6. Article 4 of the Coastal Act recluirin8 the preservation of wetland areas.
7. Article 942 of ttte Hunthugtot1. re�+cii 7onint Code (Cotistal Conse ivration
5istrict
8. Legal Opinion fro n City Attorney Gail Putton dated i=c,bru ary 6, 1981J. ThN j
opinion advises the Plimnint; C'ornrni,�sion thrit Zones Chang, No. 88-18 may
constitute a taking.
9. Letter from DI-C. c?�I ted Fe:hri.►ary 22, 19.49 regard;ng Yone Change No. 88-18.
No .funds required
AY.T£i�NATiVEION.
They Cl.'y Council r:i overturn thu Planning Commission's wi 'hdrawal of Zone Clizuige No.
89-18 and direct th Plannit;Y Commission to schedule a publics hearing of the zone change
;at it's earliest. t;om.�,)ience.
I. Area Map
2. Zone Charge Ordinance
3.,. Request for Legal Services dated �epteinber 12, 1988
4. Legal Opinion from Gail Hutton da ted February 6, 1999
5. tenter from dated February 22, 1989
6. Piminin8 Commission staff report dated February 7, 19R9
7. Non-Certified Coastal Area study dated May 1986
8. Minutes from .June 2, 1986 City Council meetl,ag
9. Article 4 of Coastal Act
10. Article 942 of Huntington Be.ach Zoning Cade (Coastal C'amservatlon. District)
11. Miscellaneous Correspondence Receivprl during 1986
PEC:MA:HS:jr
I
RCA - Zona Change No. 88-18 -3- (2188Q
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
CITy f' 0UNGIL C0MMUNICA', 10N
u ;: cv ciFrk E. ,R,ECNa CONNIE AROCKWAY, 1 1 ,. �
C;oi.iricilinan
6104JECZONF CHANGE NO. 98-18 T ~ehruary 14, 1989
6
I herein appeal the Planning Commission's decisior: to withdraw Zone Charge Application
No. BB-ig frorre further- procesd ng.
Please have this item alacewl on the March Dth counell agenda, and have staff jwepaL'e
backgrouml materials on past decisions of the City, County, State: and Federa; agencies
concerning the area located on the inland side of the Pacific :oast Highway, between
Beach Boulevard and the Santa Aria Ri, er.
PG:bb
cc: Paul Cook, Cl+y Administrator
City Council
ti
r•
�w
Cif
tp
f'
f.
V'
I
5
1
1
1
~ CITY OF HUNTINCTON HACH
- Whft• r .V Atletrrry
RFQUF`4T Fon LEGAL SF:RVI:., 'fi canary uty Shift
rr MK laidenrod nwparfotorator
n ta l
rK.w�GT{xM RIInC'H
!?�rSy.,.�...,__._.._.�....._..., Roqu(tlr! Okilldr (SY.... 01p+arttnmlt -
rl : ICU At11-1. 'it !) i C'l: ''.Ut' ;.i•l.ii, llltl t. .1 i)L:VI`. (_Cl()iil011
INSTRUCTIONS, Nis requo4t in the t4ty Altorrlev'i Cificd as snon as l ;hto. Pdrit or tviv facts iiecessary for City Attorney. Out-
line briefly reasons for the request. Attach All informatics and exhibits rwrtindttt to th stil)iect.
Type of t$y'ttll Servic-e Requesind:
Ovdiriance Other
Rewaiutlan [ j Bonds _... .. ._.._.--- .--.._..__.__.. �.
� 1 C,c�rrtrarit/Ar�raarrratlt 1. 1 C�Fir►itm _.,._.,.._ .._.,....�......
All exhihiti gust be ettecliet:l,or this refqutnt will be returnrd to ycu.
Exhibits A.Uched ', a• �l "ill` J+'<� .1i3lll:i: 4U: uJi1�= (:ilr4(1;•.it;) �1t1 �i) -• 1 •�
..;] ,lt) � ,ll'v �.�7l::rL:l ) t,l):;Ilil :•:9.ii,t)II ii(J�.):'C.�VI'u .IIC' �.I1. ,C: ;lo ..l` Liltltl ;: � hliltll
!; iili)lii ,t:�l! ;��� •ill: �. f .C1
.a.• �. ,li;lll':C1 tJ:'1J �_niEtll:t.'. �)!'Ut't.1,3 ..•:.; .'.Ul1C: ::ilrlll��l..'.: .;(Irl ,. 1Ji.l.,l ;): _:r ; �: ;lt. �,Cii! {.Ylr^
i 1 gat' _A i..l' ;lC0iL ;.:1k,tI COIICLJI'i11J1314 W ,il :1CL iJs'cV 1.��11.7.1�' Cll)llt'tJ'�f:C�
1'lt;�l:it? 3'C'V LC;{�� l.(li: J+'ii 11r.117C+� ci11'.'i it;)!):'�►VCs ;. J CU!'i(i. 1'i1 ; y i t.C!ni
fo ,'- a )3,1:).L ..0 +1.'.ili' ,il�; 41� i. L,11 il�� l►iilllll Lllry �.lJ.il,ili �` l4lil .
';1)' yU t +1;.F Vt:• :111; t1Ul.: .5 .
+fG' :ll:'il 3j.)j1t'l?', �( l)I'411llili)C;t: i:U C) +� LC:litt'Llo, of +liy :i(_aff .
AA : ',%'L : jl•
l
N Ow Ceueeil Aw6oe, 11 No't for Courtell tt MON,dit w'1 etenlpltrtton dm signature:
Aptttiie dwdhu
c Well"OWN
pw Iwo
4 1
1
�'4 ne fir° CW HUMINQ BEACH
INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION
aaK CA01
Honorable chairman Ken Bourgui gr :1 Gai. I Hut.t()n
TO and memberr of The i?ia,ning rom City Attorney
coramisnion
'iul HCt Change of Inning Within Lhe [late Fc-bruary 5 , 1989
City of. Huntington Beach to
CC-CZ-FP 1
( Coastal Conservation ,dit hin the
Coastal Zone within, a Flood :'le,in)
At your study session tonight we will be discussing Zone
Change 88--18 which is a zone change to property lar-ated on
Pacific Coast Hichway from Beach Boulevard to the Santa Ana
River . The proposal is to change the zone to Coastal
Conservatot-y . This wcul.d make tine zoning consistent with our
State Coastal Commission directed and approved Local. Coastal
Plan .
Question :
Does zoning property as Coastal Conservation within the
Coastal Zane constitute in cause of action for a taking
F
ursuant: to the Fifth Amendment t o the United States
onatitution?
Answer :
Yeas .
Analysis :
The Fifth Amendment states "private property (shall not ) be
takers for public uue without just compensation" . ownership
and use of property are rights under our constitution and not
privileges given by the government, however , the City has the
duty under its police power to regulate the uoe of land for
the public purpose of health and eafety .. Health and safety
have been very broadly construed and under this police power
zoning lawns are authorized . 2
107 S.CT. 1378 ( 1987 )
2Rualid v. hmbler Rea+a_ tlr Co . , 272 U. S . 365 ( 1926 )
Aorl a
f
Planning CommiEs.ion
rebruary 6 , 1989
Page w
Zoning powers are not absolutely witheut control and whether
zoning law2 Can constitute a r. egolat.ory taking within Ghe
meatning of the Fifth Amendment: was clearly determined in First
Engligh a an e:lical cl
Lheran Church v. Los �ele5 _counu
The court went as ^zsV to T EEi—.rF-E at. a temporary taking ;.,y
dt 'L�;y w-j.- a taking . Ttir., law dc-t:ermini.no what is a
regulatory taking is still developing but: it is clear that if
the regulation bars substantially all economic use there i.s a
taking. In describing e:concmic ure the courts talk in terms
of *the reqult-ttion interfering with they rea:onahlry ,
investment.-bac;, ed :xpeet.ations of the owner of the property
interest, " and other relevant factors, which indicate that
justice and fairness require that the public and not the
private property owner, pax for the public used .
Conclusion
Zale pxoposed zoning to Coastal. Conservation within a fl.ocd �
plain; 'C-CZ-•F'P 2 , to conform to our approved Local Coastal
Plan will deprivo the owners of: reasonable econami use of the
property and the city will be Liable for just compensation
pursuant tc the Fifth Amendment of the United States
Conati.tutrion . An inverse condemnation, Judgmert for damages
for this taking will be extensive . We. have he:atd thatt a
evelopper has art option to pu�• r.hase one of the ,roperti.es for
600 , OOU an acre . As thereare appr'oximat ely 1�5 acres being
zoned for Coastal Conservation , the potential exposu!-c-, to the
City it, $75 , OOO , OOO for the land . In addition , pursuant to
California Code of Civil Procedure S 1.036 titled " inverse i
Condemnation Pro:eeding" would allow the landowners to recover
reasonable costs (of. suit ) disbursements, and expenses,
including reasonable attorney fees , appraisAl , and engineering
fees actually incurred because of such proceedings . Since the
First English Church case, the landowner is also allowed to
receive interest on the value of the land from the time it is
daemed the taking occurred until the government pays him tor
i he land .
Recommendation:
We would strongly recommend that the planning Commission
determine appropriate zoning for this property which will give
the owners a viable economic use of the property ar. •. recommend
rit n a Coal v. Mahan 260 U. s . M ( 1922 ) s Penn
Central-Trans ortation Company v . New York City 438 U .S. 104
ns V. C t Tiburon �44 U .S.�1 ( 1960 ) : First
n s Evengenical Lutheran C uxch V. Los ..I. �
An eles Couttt� M
.CT. 3 .
r\
dr.
1 '
O .
planning Commission
February 6 , 1989
Page 3
tr) council an ameodment to tht 1,C15 to effect: this use . zs
shom1d be followed immediatie ly with a zone change which
conforms to the amended LCP .
The allegation that the coastal. C,r,mmiss-.on wi.1.1. not approve
any ether zoning for thi::4 prope, Ly i:; not: r ►levar►t Lo the
City ' s liability .
GAI L HUTTON
City Attorney
cc: Mayer Wes 8aitni ster
Mayor Pro Tern Tom Mayo
Councilman Peter. Green
Councilman .'ohn Erskine
Councilman W,i.rn Silva
un an
Cuuncilwoman Grace Winchell
Councilman Don MacA.iliater
City Administrator Paul. Cook
i)irect co r of Community D-�Veloprr►ent y Mj `ce Adams
, r
I'
Alm r
STA1l'dr CAtOCRNIA•.-THE IIEW"CIS AGENCY GECAW DKKMtIIAN, e,rdrrcrr+oe
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
Lonc;) (.A 001102
F';.hrtla s � ''' 10839
RE" CEIVED
FE01 "2 !
City of Hunt: ;rv.jton Beach DF.PAr,7,rArNT OF
Plannin-i
2 0 0 0 M,a i.n t: 1, t
Huntington Heach , ("A 1)264Fi
Re : Puk-d .i c: 11c! a a-i n;t r1s► 'ono change 8 - l (1
Non•-Certi riecl Ar(72ri )
Dear ("rrmmi ss ion Mf'r1r1aE'.,r-o -b
The Department of 1.'*i .sh and Game ( Depa.rt-me tit ) recornryr�nds th.i t the
city of (funt'ington Beach ( C:i.t_y ) Leto _-r:(t with Lhe Proposal t_c, 01'10
the remaining "liunt ingt•on Fioach Wetlands " unr-ler a ,cortservat: i.on "
designation . lr,,cat'.ion of Lhe project site is Hie
Non -Cert .i.fi.erl c o,.i:yt-aj Area locrc-ated on ILhf- inland side of
Pacific Coap-L 1) irjhwtY between Beach Boulevard and the Santa Arta
River .
The Depa rt:.rit,�-n t: has long s4rppr)rt:e.rl ( I, LDrecserva t ion of: the entire
wetlands complex . Basod on the 1986 () . LS . Fish and Wildlife
Service ( USPIVS ) census , 10 percent of tt:e Orange county pollulaticn
of Belding ' 3 savannt-th sparr-ow re,-,ides i.rs the flunt:ington Beach
Wetlands . The Heldinq ' .i savannah sparrow is a stager-listed
endangered species which riest s in pickleweeJ area sa_tch as the
wetlands . Orange County ' -, wetlands- contain ,.tt) Percent of the
state popr.t.l t- :i.on of thc:ze rare birds .
Development of wet- land are-As is be corning increasin�jly more
di.ffictalt slur► t'.rl the pull i.r. .interrist: :.and awareness of: the- �
sreagulatory ,framework of agencies- much as the U . S . Array CCIrps of
Engineers , the U . S . Environment
Prot-fiction Agency , and the U . S .
Fish and Wildlife Service . It is the Department ' s policy that
there ,should he no net 1 ,-� s.- of wetland acreage or habitat values
due to development .
The California Environmental Quality Act: (ChE ,A ) PCquiress, detailed
nitigat cart proposals for significant environnctntal impacts,
particularly those associated with the Joss of wetlands . To a] low
development of these lands could rrftsult in serious adverse imparts,
to coastal wetlands , the Belding ' s savannah s5p-)rrow, and the
remaining wetlands within the City of HuntingtDn Beach . The
Department would oppose such a lose , particult.r ly wben mitigation
opportunities to replace these reuources are nearly impossible .
y 22
rin ny Corm (,it
We tirge tiv: (ZiLy to rec-nc
both f cir I It o i r t w i I d "I J f c.- va I it i! and thf-, j. r av--.30v. t: ic va 1.uc
The c i t i.z f.-IL ry of I It 4 1,1,. 1 it ej toi i Vit--a c-1i Alia.-i .i I rea 0.y A v m.ons t- rat !' d t.lie. i.r
c omm i tme n't and i rt t:!r(.-!g t: i i i w 0 t I a n d-.,s by j.nA t j,a t i vi,*I the tri Huntinqo
Bea-h Voletlandn Cc-)rwc-rvanc.y Pro-joct anc! the ("lli-ra Planning
Coa I ition . In our view , it woti Is d be in Lhe lwst iritere- st of
wildlife , Hie C'ity , and the ( -Atizonry tc) pi-Af2ci.
wut'Lal"A", by
shank you for the opportunity, to on tlij.s proposed 2onc
change. If you have any cjuestioti:i , please conto-Act Jack L . Spruill
of our. Efivironmental Services staff 1-1t, ( 213 ) 590-7- 1.37 .
S i ric-2 e re 1.v
ZF ed W�;ovtbl ,-!y
Beg iona I MA wl a(I:::r
Region 5
IT
cc : ... . Fancher, USFWS
Coa,-.(,-,el commis.--ion
B. Radovich , ESD, Sacramento
E . B�irkett
L. Sitton
i
huntington (beach department, at community devollopment
31Af f
EPOR
TO : Planning Commi2sior,
FROM: Community Dovelopmont
DATE; February 7 , 1989
supJEC'.t` ; ZONE CHANGE; tVO . 83--18 (CONTI1ViJED F?zom OC L-OBER 4 , 1.988
PLANNING Cnlrf IJOSSION M(FETING)
APPLIGANI:: City of Huntington Beach
,91M. Change of zoning on various parcels to achieve
consistency with Land Use Flan.
LOCATIQN : inland side of Pacific Coast Highway between Deach
Boulevard and Pacific Coast Highway
ACREg,Q: Approximately 232 acres
Direct staff to either, proceed with Lone Chang. No . 88-18 or prepare I
a new Coastal El.emeni: Amendment for the study Area .
On June 2, 19861 the City Council adopted a Land Use Plan for the
non-certified coastal zone area clong Pacific Coast Highway, between
Beach Boulevard and the Santa Anzi River . On April 13 , 1987 the
California Coastal Conw,ission rer.tified the Land Use Plan as
submitted by the City. The Land Use Plan, as certified, designates
approximately 7 . 0 acres as Visitor Sarving Commercial , 125 acres as
Conso,rvation, 63 acres as Indust.-ial Energy Production and 17 . 0
-cres me Industrial Energy Production/Conservation . The purpose of
this lone Change is to apply appropriate zoning designations to the
properties in order to achieve consistency with the Land Use
designations and to complete certification of: the Local Coastal
Program for the City.
The zone change was first tranamit-ted to the Planning Commission on
October 4 , 1968 . At that: time, however $ the City Attorney, requested
i:hat it be continued to a later date Aso that the legal :ramifications
of the zone chango cor• ld be assessed . Cn December 6, 1988, the City
i
'l •Mf�� ''�,�.�,+� ( �sirJM.M..'.hwaf3wLrq;Ln. .. i . 4_ _..__. .1..t,tr.Sr�n. ....rwl,._+11.;..
Attorney advited nl-:aff to zene -ripplicat-ion .
Rattler than accept the wi. 11:11drawalo I'lantillig cor;Liniied
the itein to a study soLision on F( brua-,, 7 , 1909 , to consider whothor
or not to procoss the zono chanqL, .
PurEuant to Section 15265 of the California Environmental Quality
Act, Zone Change No . 88 -18 is classified. ex -,npt: , S,r%:1:i o n 1.5265
states that CEQA does not apply to approvals by any local, governirw.,rit
pursuant to the preparation of a local coastal program. Rather , the
burden oL CEQ,s coml)iianej i..; Californi- a Coastal
Commicsion ,
4 . 9. Aglab JkTATV3
Zone Change No . 88-18 is a part of the local coastal. pLograrn for the
previously non-certified azea of the City ' S Coastal Land Use Plan.
After City Council approval, Zono Change No . 138-1E must be certified
by the California Coastal Ccmmission .
A D_ _NALXSJr2 :
The City ' s Coastal Elament was prepared in acccrdancq with the
California Coastal Act of 1976 , and submitted to the South Coast
Regional Coastal Convaission for a hearing In Mey 1981. The Coastal
Moment Lprd Use, Plan was rejected by the Coastal Camfr!.ssion at that
time pa:tly due to failure -t'-.o adequately -protech wetlands whic"'I had
heen delineated by the I)epartment of Fish and Game In prelinii�naxy
wetlands studies conducted 1979 and 1951. ,
After completion of minor changes , a second rajection by the Coastal
Commission, end further modifications , the Land Use Plan wary finally
certified in geographic part by the Coastal Commission on November
1.7,, 3.9 82. . 'The (7oarital Commission, however, denied cert1fication of
the geographic area along the inland side of Pacific Coast Highway
between Beach Boulevard and the Santa Ana River , due to the
preliminary wetland status assigned to it by the Department of Fish
and Game ,
In February 1983 , the Department of Fish and Caine released their
report entill:led "Determination of the Status of the Huntington Beach
Wetlands . " That stv 'i►
'* reaffirmed their preliminary assessments and
n couluded that 136 . 6 acres of land between Beach Boulevard and the
Santa Ana River were either viable or restorable wetland . Most of
this wetland area was within the non-certified area of the coastal
zone.
In 1985, the City of Huntington Beach prepared a study which was
intended to resolve the wetland issue and result In a Land Use Plan
for the non-certified area . The study analyzed three alternative
land use scenarios which were intended to address a range of
intensities from almost no develap- ment* to almost complete
Study Session I/?/Of -2- (1979d)
development o% the area . 'Ourinq av extended public he5rinc., 0ce.58j.
the Department of Yish and t:hfi Califorliia Coa,'� Lal .'Vancy
and the Coastal Cormilssion staff emphasized that vii: tuall - t'r (:11,11y
p
.. Ination under the, rovislons of Cod..stal-'ertifiable lane- use des !.
Act was Conservation. The orly exceptions Were i;x'-,e Acticn Boat
Brokers property at the southeast corner of Beach Boulevard and
Pacifi,c Highway, the strip of land hotween Cabrillo Mobile Home Park
and Pacific CoasL liiqhway, and the developed Edion Company
Property. On June 2, 1986 , the City C'ouncil cc.:ncurrad wi.6i that
advice and adopted a Land Use Plan for the area which was largely
Conservation . The Co,t,.,- tal F;ubstiquently certified that
desiUnation .
The Land Uue Plan which was adopted and certified by the Coastal
Commission is depicted in Figure 1 . The purpose of this zone change
Is to apply appropriate zoning over the land use plan. For purposes
of clarity-, the subjec.t property has been separated into 1.0
different areas . The following is a dascriptill.on of the land u:,F,%
designation , existing use , existing zoning and proposed zoni. ng Ear
each of the 10 areas .
7 acres
OME rlaalk: CalTrans
MCHAL L Ii
HMQRxd. 1975 - Des' ination Resort
1977 - Planning Reserve
1982 - "WhiteholeP
1986 - Visitor-Serving Cmiunercial
Pre-1964 - R1
1964 - RA-0
1983 - RA-0-FP2
Proposed 1989 - VSC--CZ-FP2
IN ME : Action Boat Brokers
This is an approximate 7 :acre site which w&R designated by the
Coastal Land Use Plan fox Visitor Serving Ccmniercia'.' . it is
occupied 1-1y Action Boat Brokers on the corner of Beach Boulevard and
Pacific Coast Highway, . The remainder of the site is a narrow strip
of land which runs along Pacific Coast Highway in front of Cabrillo
Nobilehome Park. The Department of fish and Came identified this
site as non-restorable wetlands . The Coastal Conservancy staff
further recommended this site for Visitor-Serving CommerciAl uses
such as a hotel . The existing zoning is RAu-m (Residential
Agriculture District combined with Oil Production and Floodplain
Districtn) . The proposed zoning is VSC-CZ-FP2 (Visitor Serving
Comuercial District combined with Coastal Zone and Floodplain
Districts) .
study, session - �3- (1979d)
2
' -
I
The p.roPOSed Z0fki11q w:i1 ? raerMldt: a iiotf::l , r.fistaitr�vt or otha
serving --omma cial uses , which would he locb.tod tit: the t orner of
Peach Boulevard and Pacific Cua:'O. Hit) tiway . The narrow strip of
proparty e3rI g P-ici "ir.t (`oa.-;t. Hioliway co-old ba osed as an ac:c:ets.s road
or parking for tho c.:oiNiie7.cial of e . '. Ivi '*)A.-. ),_. , r...r _i .r prf':!:el t: l y owned
by Calt;r. ans . T. .a C'oasl:al Conservancy rt:af:F� has proposed t hat
caltrans sell this property ba0: to the Mills 1.rand e,nd Water Company
who previously owned it end who prosont:ly own other property .in she
area which has been design,ited Wetlands by the Department- of Hi sh
FAf1it Game . lx.t'e1o[.mf,-•1t. of a }7utF;a7 an t.h�:' 1. 117P, rind allow Mills to
generate some profit: frolr, their. :iixtf?.c�;st: its Hi The
he CILy
Courici I. and Coaat:al Coiiumission 3gI'cod with t:h.-,; v7hen t:l:cy
deslUnated the pti-opet,t Y ui.;ij, i.r- r S c rvi nq Coiryriej.cial on the Land Use
Plan.
ARE".
AC ,QE : 28 acres
QW.KEB.SELFgo Mills Land and Wafter ._ ' . 15 acres
Ca lTrcans - 21 ace es
b1�8�lI+_�1l1�I �
HISTORY: 1975 - Destination ku,.,;,ort: II
1977 •- Planning Reserve I
1982 -- "Whif;ehole"
1986 - Conservation
pre--19 6 9 -- It 1.
1964 - RA-0
1983 - RA- 0--FF2
Proposed 1989 - CC-Cu--FP2
Jr 8 Tom: Vacant:
This is an approximately 28 acne area designated Conservation on the
Land Use Plan, It has been identified by the Department of Fish and
G9rne a Degraded Wetlands with high usage by, wetlands associated �
birds . ;I-a site ' s owned icy part by Caltrans and in part by Mills
Land and WB.tes Company. It is presently vacant . 1'he existing
zoning is RA-0-FP2 (Residential, Agricultural District combined with
Oil Production and Flood plain Districts) . The proposed zoning is
CC-C.Z-•Fr2 (Coastal Conservation District combined with Coastal. Zone
And Floodplain Districts) . Under the Coastal Conservation
designation, allowable uses are limited to those such as ni.nerrl.
extraction, pedestrian trails and observation platforms , wetland
restoration projects and limited publicworks projects .
Stud ► Session - V'7/89 -4 - ( i5 79d)
tiw
A X �
A-CM . 13 a c i :.i
QKNU',�til.l'. ; Mills atict
99N=Q. UMN
H15 y : i c;75 T-7 ':;}4t I11(1it3t:ri_ I'i.
1.97•i
19802, "Whi teho.1e'"
1966 Conrery I
Nt i
f 1964 M.L -A-.Q
1983 -- M1•-A-0-F2 Z
Pr.oT)osed 1989 - CC--C1.•- F�?
EXMIN USE: vacant
I This is an appz70xi.r0at611 13 :;i,re areii debb;i gnatec! Conservation on the
Land Use Plan. It was ident i f ieO her Fish and Game as Degraded
Wetlands on a portion of the site, and forTner but restort!ble
wet 1 a:ads on the r.emai ndl r . T t- i owned t-? Hills Land and hater.
Compaiiy azid is presently vacant . The ez'tStillr4 tKOrnilig i3 '�l --fix •l:� - t''}'i'.
(Restricted Manufacturing District combined with Oil Production and
Floodplain Di-stri^ts) . `I'hoi 1,,).coposed zoning :Zs Cr.•-CZ-FP2 (Coastal
Conservation District combined with Coastal Zc►ne aril Floodplai n
District) .
j
A-CREAGE : 17 acres
QMERaEi : Southern California Edison Company
C:RNF.ata'iT. PLMi
=Zx: 1973 -- Indlust:r•:ial Public Utility
1977 - Industrial �unlic Uti.li.t:y
1983 •- "Whit:ehole"
1986 Industrial Fnergy Production/Conservation
Z _ . T_M: Pr,a-1961 - R1
196). - Ml-A
19 R 3 - M?--,)--FP2
Prupoosd 1989 -• M2-0 CC-CZ-TP2
IM118TI'�C3 ti.2: vacant
This is an app ozimately 17 hcre area da3ignat:ed Industrial Energy
Production -'Conservation on the Land Use plan. It has been
identified by Fish and Game an Degraded Wetland . Although the
Coastal Act would not normblly allow development of ao -identified
property, the Act would permit development for tncxgy production
Study Session 2/7/89 -5- (1979d)
a , i
'Y+
{' 1
purposes if it could be demonstrated t1iat no other al.tes native, Pita
is available. Since the property a owyted by thedison company arAd
is adjacent to their generating plant , the special combined
dabignation of industrial Energy Production/Conservation was placed
can it . This Lznd iJse Des '�tna t i on ac ojni t,es the property ' s
identification a4 wotlandr_ , but would permit: expansion of the
powexplant, it necessary . The existing zoning on the property is
N2-0-PP2 ( Industrial. District: combined with ail Production and
FAoodplellx dist.riCt) and RA-k,V2 (Roryidential Agricultural Dish - It:
combined Floodplain District ) . The Proposed zoning ie
x2-0-CC--CZwr1P2 ( Industrial District combined with Oil Prod, .tJon,
Coastal Conservytion, Coastal Zone and Floodpiai:n Distri, .0 . This
zoning designation will allow expansion of the powerpla• .. if proven
necessary in tha fut:ure-
I w
i
J1.61-0 Y : 197 -- Planning Reservc
1 !a "r -- 11.1,a,nning P?,.serve
:z 9(k : _ "Whi,trphsolaN
98
ZQ�' .__ .k."
l',.-op sed 1989 i. --(`,y,,-1FP2
"his is an approximately 10 acre area designated Conservation on the
Land Use flan and is present iy vacant: . 1t is owned in part by
Caltrans , Daisy Piccxtelli and the Orange CL-anty Flood Con-,-rol
District . The Department of Yish and Came has identified this area
as Dograded hlel.andl with rAga usage by wet:iand associated birds . The
exist:inq zoning ib LUD--rT?2 (Limited. Use District combined with
Irloodplain Di,stri.ceL- ) . The proposed zonir..) Is CC.-CZ--FP2 (Coastal
COIABGt�vat:io vombi•r,ed with Coastal Zone and Floodplain Districts) .
56 acres
t. F, Daisy Fic:L.:. re11 i - 35 acres
fj Ca1Trktns -- 21 ac:x('s
PLAIN.
HISTORY: 1.9% •- P1.anning PrseWve
1977 - Planting Re 'terve
3.983 - "Whitehole "
198E - Conserve t. .io:t
(1g7�d)
Study Seaeion 2/7189 �-6-
1
ire
n.
I ,
Z011i1143 HISTORY: Pre 1960 -- R1
1960 - R.5
1977 - LUG
1983 - LUD-FP2
Proposed 1989 0"`C- rz--FP2
LJISTI o USE; Vanant
This to an Approximately 56 acre area designated Conservation can the
Lend Use Plan and is presently vacant . It is owned in part by
Caltranss, Daisy Piccirelli and the Orange County Flood Control
District . The Department of Fish and Game has identified this
property as Degraded Wetlands with high usage by wetland associated
hirda . The existing zoning is LUD-PP2 (Limited Use District
combined with Floodplain District) . The proposed toning is
CC-CZ-FP2 (Coastal Conservation combined with Coastal Zone and
Floodplain Districts) .
i1REA 7
Arm,,. AGE 16 acres
OHMM% H . H . Wetlands Conservancy
!rjEI
NAS& I-P.L—AN
1975 Planning Reserve
g Re
1977 - planning Reserve
1983 -- "Whitehole"
1986 - Conservation
' _JU,a=Y: Pre 1960 - Rl
1960 - R5
1977 - LUD
19133 •W LLD-FP2
Propossod 3,989 •- CC- EP2
qG U Restored Wetlands
Y
Thin is an approximately 16 acre area deuignated Conservation on the
Land Use Man. It was recently acquired by the Coastal Conservancy
and is tieing restaged to functioning wetlands; in a model restoration
project . The Huntington Desch Uetlande Conservancy will manage the
projeet . The existing zoning on the property is LUD-FP2 (Limited
Use district combined with Floodplain ` strict) and LUD-FPl (Limited
Use District combined w1 Lh Fioodway District) . The proposed zoning
is CC -CX-YP1 (Coastal Cnnsservation District combined with Coastal
sous and Ploodway Districts) .
Shady Besssaion •12/7/99 -7- ( 1979d)
a. c
141
y
55 acres
' $ liCRf�NIP: Sr uthern California Edison Company
1975 - Industrial Public Utility
1977 -- Public/Quasi-Public
1983 - Publiici'Quasi-Public
1986 -- Inkjust!cia1 Energy Production
Pro 1961 - R1
1961 - MI- A
1962 - M2--4
1983 - M2-0-FP2
Proposed 1989 - M2-0--CZ-FP2
L STM. , )war Plant
This is an approximately 55 acre area designated I du:;t•rial Energy
Production on the I ind Use Plata and is developed with t.`Ie Edison
Company power generation plant . The existing zoning i;s M2-0-FI12
( Indust;rial, District comtAned wi h oil Production and Floodpl.ain
Districts) . The proposed zone change is to v-1d the CZ (Coastal
Zone) suffix to the existing zoning designations .
Sau-horn California Edison Company �
HILIQRY: 1,975 - Industrial. Public Utility
1977 - Public/Quas.L-Public
1983 Pabl.ic/Quasi -Public
7.98E -- In4ustrial Energ;r Production
zQN, jig 111ft j: rra 1961 - R1
'961 -- Mi
1962 942-0
1963 .42--0-FP 7
Proposed 1989 - M2-0-CZ-FP2
]XICUM Oil Storage Tank:
This is an approximately 28 acre area designitted I&uduutriai Energy
' Production on the Land 'One Plan and is develoved with oil ato rage
tams for the Edison generating plant . Tre exi.ating zoning in �
l' -0-pP2 (Industrial District combined w;ch Oil production and I
PloodpI nine Districts) and MI.-A-F'?2 (Restricted Manufacturing
biatricu combined with Floodplain pistyict) , The proposed zone
change is to add the CZ (Coastal Zone) suff`i.x to the existing zoning
designations .
M
Study fission 2O7/89 8- (1979d)
4
•N4"P •i. 1,
I1 .
f Y
1 .
F'
acres
� RIES City of Huntington Bauch
" rim
AMM: 1975 Industrial rubli.c Utility
1977 - Public/Quasi-Public
1984 Public/Quasi-Public
�7. 1996 - Conservation
203Y M„.HZS Y: lire 1961 - RY
1961. •- Ml-A
1983 - MI-A-FP-2 �
1934 -- Q(ROS) -FP2 �
Proposed 1989 Q(R4S) • ,CZ -FP2
X1S1 .i1 vacant
This is at approximately 2 acre area designated Conservation on the
Land Use Plan. It i.:; owned by the City and is presently vancant .
The existing zoning is (,Q)ROS-FP2 (Qualified Recreational Open "lace
District combined with Floodpltain District) . The proposed zone
4henge is to add the CZ (Coastal. Zone) suffix to the existing
zoning . This property was not identified by Fish and Gams: as
wetlands .
As the above description indicates , the majority of property in the
non-certified area has been identified by Fish and Game as
restorable wetlands and has been designated can the Land Use PI -in as
Conservation, Tho proposeu, i.one change is to place the Coastal
Conservation District on those properties .
The CC (Coastal Conservation) District is a very restrictive
designation which only permits wetland related uses and limited
public works projects . The fact that much of this property is
privately owned was discussed. -in detail during the public hearing
R process for adoption of the Mandl Use plan. This zone change is
consistent with the Land Use Flan and does not reduce the impacts on
private property owners w-vith.in the area . Under the adopted Laney Use
plan and proposed zoning, the Conservation areas will probablp' only
hav• market value as restorable wetlands which could be used to
mitigate other projects el3ewhere in the Coastal Zone , It is
anticipated that Conservation designated areas will eventually be
vastbred to functioning wetland status as is being dome with the
%$-acre percel adjacent to the Santa Ana ]River month. The
Sort-Certified Coastal Areas Analysis prepared by the City of
Huntington Beacb and dated Play 1986 should be consult.,id for further
13 anslynis of the land use designntions and development or restoration
possibilities .
,4
I,
4'
►,. Atudy union -- 2/7/89 -9 ( 1979d)
,h
r
n ,
. r
If the Planning Commission choossis not to pursue the zone change , it
will be necessary to prepare a now land use amendment and an
envircrmental impact analysis for submittal to the Coastal
Commission. Based on past experience, such a package would take at
least six months to prepare Lnd •.could be re; ected by the Coastal
Commisaion, as well as solidly opposed by all interested parties
except they "whitehole" property owners . The primary benefit of such
a p:`ocess may be that it wc,uld absolve the City of liability in a
takings lawsuit by the property owners .
E
RZCQ W N ATI
Direct staff to either proceed with Zone Change No . 88-13 u& prepare
a new Coastal Element Amendment for the study area .
ATTACKS
1 . Area Map
2 . Ordinance and Resol.u!�ion for adoption by City Council
3 . City Council Rebolution adopting Coastal Element Amendment No .
86-1 dated June 2 , 1986 .
4 . Coastal Commission Skesolution and FIndings Certifying the Land
Use Plan for the area of deferred cextificaLion between Haa!wh
Boulevard and the Santa kna River mouth, dated April. 13 , 19737 .
5 . Non--certified Coastal Areas Analysis prepared by the City of
Huntington Beach, dated May 1986 .
HS : kla
Study, Session - 1f7/49 _10- (1979d)
n ,
r�
4AA
Page 7 — COU�' a � 1y'jAg!9nd,a
41
1�
• 1 r
r
� I
[T I
� it '��.Jf; •ti,
DT
M ,
i i �!� � roc •. , ,• ' ' �'�jh'"y��'' � �-
\1,too
-ram s • IL
en
9 _
i 1 1'•�J� r � .
pp .
mil' • ;.`���• �`?;-.;�'+ 1',1''••1•a, • � , . . .
+`+. - .�' t'`L �';�:;..�+;• �\` ' \`cif'•
IL
y•'^ ` •* ,� }a ,µ.-r �r � .ea�� '�• ,y, 1� ., 'I •a �''• 1•+�
�^ ,.e., �' ' 1 7,E •* 1` . . l r' `� .i j e e
't ✓ ,r A,1,• .ice ii; ,
�,' r, ro,• .' �� flr *r� ��y;P�', Fr+ • ' ,'i ', 1'„„. ^ r "'I, y.d S`�• li
v � dddlllLLL
t IIrt `` • a
o•y „� ( •'�•"�1��;: + ?(�"�:•���'�+'.,,,�F' � Il's+�'•rV Jt�/SEW�J1ti' ••+�,: � s1•",, -� . � r�•' N s
1*6
.1ter,'
ILMr
y y
• .i ., f I'�pYAFC
� 'r „� ,• � '�' hr �:1 e�l 3, 1 +' /`+ ,',`ij,�'F �t �k'Y J``� '4 j•{.� Ji /ram
'','1 !�/'J�'�l'e P'���,i r , � r �'' / �,\f� u� � `l�.��11 i i.rr !�,,'�'•{'e ! rr': ( F. "Y
'; 'r'i��' ! �r r�rr�•'•" '�ry• '',' •i rid• ' �, .r v�.•`' � J 1/''�'ti-1t '�; �• .t 4 �.. _� I"1
to T7,
1;
%
mw
10, \
em
u
Cm i"s lei y
�t•r ..t� .,f;r, 1,JLk
y�
i
lo
noo abed
W�y'h :t�?r' ' ti '",�. •. !•� � ;.i+frl�r'� fir.
6
L
a
I•' r
�1 •
R•
MOOF OF FUNUCIA'i' ON This spa= is for do County OeWs RWS Stan+
STATE OF CkLIFORNIAr
COUNW of C RANC4
I am aM eidm of tha United Stows and a
r aaidant 9i do County of xaW;I am over ibe
tree of doom YON% and not a party to or
in the abbve•enflded manor. I am Proof of publication of
4: do pri w4W dsrk of dw printer of the
1�lltf34 1 ON EEACM �'"'� .._.._.. ..._....-- —
a newspaper of general drculation, piiated and
publislwd w e ek Iy I
Huntington Beach l�uste Clipping
br the av of� i _.. c h of Noti p
County of Oranp,. and which newspaper has SECURELY
been *dJudged a newspaper of general !n This Space.,ti+clalati n by the Superior Court of the'` ►unty
of Cbwv,State of Californl6,under the
date of Au' u� s t 2`r...�. 19.J2- j �
Cafe Nuadber A 5930 ..,�_ drat the ; •
notice, of which the anrwx !d is a printed copy
(set .n typo not m ul*r their nonprre % has
been puhlisW in eac regular and entire im a,
of "M newspaper and not in any supplement
OwW on the following dateaw to-wit:
3/10
all in me yaar 19 88
Iorif (or dabm,) umda Penalty ry
dot die*rWft b tnw■nd fit,
Dialed *t Huntington Beach
loth .did Max t9§9
4; 9twr�a
C&WbrWa Now spopw SO:ice Hansa% Inc.
Ad .
!Ww w M aranl�r WKIr r rallawm e.
Mwr r+1�W�Iwo r-r �
:,r ;.`•..+`'.. .'..,.Wr' -1�1.�.. Tr°!'Y y.•► -%bL•i ,Aw,jrk-.Ap • Y'!I/•tl'F'-
oT
IF
%
f. .... _ .. ,�../ ,y+,- •r ... -.a�•_._1,.'i,M�-. � ./,Fi.... r. JT�•w4_ .t.y�y�Y,
- y' ♦�1�+3 is r • '°"
.I
r „ ,''•� W
-.-awa•,..1.: ',t,.:-•�' sra�•ww •,Ww,:�:r #��+..-+
♦,
f,
F` .• 'fit. �; W�<�f
�h P ,- J- _it + tis.�• � H
1. tt_• tld''M ti ra - . :' _ -\ �q. 4.'.�_�. , _ .fir
vt •• � I}i At�M�--_'.Y -':_��� ft.I�'�r/,'j Hf�l�-y.�}�'�54�•�.
ILA., i -w� � .Wt -r" .,l� ice/ ` r ♦-
°.t tit q ♦ql. `! ,
c
r •`
s MOM
04TV OF HUNTINGTON SWACH
INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION
To 1IGIIOR"LE MATJR W�:S BANNISTER From ARTHUR FOLDER
Acting City Attorney
Subject Your Request as to t_',4 Date March S , 1989
Propriety of Faking fart in the
Discussion or Vote on Zone Change 88•-18
f
At your request and based upon the facts presented to our office
by yau, we have determined that it would be a violation of the
Fair Political Practices Act for you to participate of vote on
Zone Change 88-1E .
Facts presented :
Wes Bannister is a principle owner. of Bannister and Assoc . �
Insurance Agency, Inc . , and has an investment of more than $1, 000 �
in the agency.
41lls Land and Water Company owns a large ouienye within the area
being considered on this zone .
Mills Land and Writer purchases the insurance on the property being
considered for rezoning trorn Bannistlar and Assoc , The commission
for this and other insurance purchased front Bannister and Assoc .
ih in excess of $250 .
The Government Cede 8 3710? d►afines what constitutes a financial
interest whicn pTohihits an official from involvement in a
decision making procams • The code reads as foll,�-vs :
An official has a financial Interest in a decision, within the
meaning of Section 87100 if it is reasonably foreseeable that
the decisions still have a material financial affect,
distinguishable from Its effect on the public ge-nerally, on
the official or a member of his or her immediate family or on:
(a) Any business entity in which the public official has a
direct or indirect investment wort:_ one thousand dollars
(01, 000) or more.
(b) Any areal property in which the public official has a
direct or indirect Interest worth one thousand 4allars
($18000) or more .
ZONZ CHANGE 6 8 w 18
March 9 , 190
Paget 2
(c) Any source of income, other than gifts and other than
loans by a commeciel banding institution in the regular course
j, of business on terms available to the public without regard to
official status , aggregating two hundred fifty dollars ($254)
j or more in value provided to , received by or promised to the
public official within 12 months prior to the time when the
decision is made .
It is clear iron applying the aoove facts to this section of the i
Code that you a-re prohibit nd from any involvement in the decision
making process can Lane change 8b- 18 .
ARTHUR FQLGER I
Acting City Attorney
AJF/r j l
r
I
II
i I
i
j
REOUES FOR CITY COU14CIL ACTION
Dam April 26 , 1989
HONORABLE MAYOR WES BANtiISTERIN
_
nitosd te►. D MLMBERS OF 'THE: CITY COUNCI4MPPROYED BY (;1TYCo0W4CIZ
Wt OrAd : Pg.
XL HMON, C 1 TY ATTORNEYO
AIL R<T'1TON, CITY ATTORVEY �?t°1't4 �• c • � _.
CITY CLR
Subjezt. Proposals 1.o Provi.de Addi.tiona v%sor�y ega R n
Regarding Zoning Property as Coastal Conservation
Consistent with Council Polley? IX) Yee I ) Now Policy or Exception
Statenmnt of Issue, Roc+ommmdmion, Aneiysos, Funding Source, Alternative Actions, Attachments:
i
At the March 20 , 19E9 , C�.ty� Council meeting , Council directed the �
retention of Attorney Dan Cut '-in, of McC.ut:heon, Doyle , Brown and
Enersen, to provide an addit-'onal advisory lv;� al opinion regarding
Huntington Beach wet-l.ande, conse;:ovation issues . After the meeting , it
was determined that Can Curtin has already been retained by one of the
property owners and would , Lher:efors, have a conflict of interest: and
be unable to represent the City in this .r kt:er . Four law firms
specializing in public law, environmental issues have responded to my
request for proposals to provide the referent;ed opinions,
The questions to be addressed ara as fo:lAuws :
�1 r
What are the potential legal, consequences of rezoning the
Mills/Picarelli/Edison Property as Coastal Conservation, per City
Council March 20, 1.989?
Includes within this question are the subsidiary issues of *.
1. Does zoning property as Coastal Concervation within the Coastal
tone constitute a cause of action for a t,�t.inq pursuant to the
Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution (the original
planning staff and commission inquiry) ,
2 . What in the likelihood that such zoning would expose the city to
liability (Councilman Erskine) .
3 . "hot other constitutional claims might be raised against the city
(Aathe�ireStone' s and Richard Terziar. ' a suggestion) , and
4 . What treasurers mi*yht the city rake to reduce any potential exposure
to liability? (Katherine Stone ' s and Richard Terzian ' s suggestion)
Y
'i
RZ(=8T FOR CITY .,'OUNCIL PCTION(
April 261 1989
Page I
If tho Coonci1 wirhea the riddltionel opini.on :
1. Approve the retanti.on of Richard Terzian, of Adama, Duque &
Nazeltlne, and Katherine Stone , of Frei.li.ch , Stone, Leitnex &
Carlisle to provide the City with a joint opinion and alternative
solutions regarding Huntington Beach wetlands conservation at a
coat to the City of $15000 . 30 , plus costs .
2 . Ditect the ity Attorney to prepare a contract .
E i
3 . Appropriate $16 , 000 . 00 in funds .
The following highly qualified law Eirms have responded to my rcquest
for proposals to provide the referenced opinion .
i
ESTlNATEn
X,EAD HOURLY COST PLUS
rim Ej�.FF
BEST, BEST Arin T. Thomas , $20C/hr Sr , at corney well not
KRIEGER Partneti: $100/hr Jr . attorney exceed
assisted by $5 , 000
Dallas Holmes
& Clark A1sop
HAMILTON & SAMUELS Karen J. Lee $196/hr not
assisted by provided
Paul Hamilton,
Partner
ADAM, DUQUZ & Richard Ter.&ien $195/hr $100 000
HAZELTINE
MBILICH, STONE, Katherine Stone Frei lich $225/hr $15 , 6J0
L2IT8 CARLISLE assisted by Stone $195/hr plus
Partners , Sohagi $140/hr expenses
a ' Robert Frei lich
ti A Margaret F4hagi
,
k
Zi'
a.
rr
x+
ti
1
RRQURFT FOR CITY CmURCIL ACTION
April 26 , 1989
Page 3
plt� SAL EQR QQ1 02111 "V.._�t: l� �_.bQL � .....ZQ.....IU
Richard Terrxi.an, of Adams, Duque & H azel '.ine , and Katherine Stone,
of Frailich, Stone, Leitner & Carlisle ( former partners 3n the
public law firm of Burka, Williams and Sor.enswn) have made an
3ttent:ion commanding proposal to provide the City with a n ju'i- at
opi.niota" exploring the legal issues raised by the referenced
problem and providing the City with a listing of alternative
planning solutions theret- .). They have ottererl these serv4.cos For
the total sum of $15 , A00 plus out of pocket expenses . Thesa out
of pocket expenses include, but Are not limited *u, filing fF.-es ,
postage, messenger or overnight serviccis , photocopies , fausxrn:'Nle
copies , t cola+ , long distance anrY woy.d processing .
this proposal has ,he obv-.ous advan't ig ; of provi.di,nq the expertise
of two hiq'hly qualified, spectalized fi.rina ' advice on thi.,,,
delicate issue .
The general fund 1.01593
ALTERNAT-IYE A-MM
Select one of the oth+sr cirms 'listed herein . �
ATT,&CNjS-:-
Joint proposal letters from Adaans . 1'utlue & Mazeltiue and Frei.11ch ,
Stone, Le itner & Carlisle .
Proposals of the other law firms are available in the office of
the City Attorney for your raview. All law firms that submitted
propisals have appropriate experience and giial.i.fications .
1 •1
M '
a 1laS 'tir a . •
vim ,...,
1 � /
21,Ito
1
'r p
A7 roptIF•r
' u�,w OFFICES OF 4`!T't OF
ADAMS, OI,.IOUK a MAZEI,_'044 'Nt; ON
riw PW^" qW 11n1�1� ,M 0Nffj WWp I1r�Me ►1�e�r .«w.oww,w�+ BEACH mew rya r< owes
oA1�+ MMw>wA w+�+H ow wcsT SIXTH irRE� ^r i, ,f �� � � �'�� o"aw Yom loloom0
,i tT
Tabao"ext wales rrNo
Tt"T" rLoolt raLap ama as 700-4*6
1+1d MiiC1 ? �rr7arl LCM ANGffAJ s. VA1 1001MN1A 00014
.60 NNW A 0"40" 7'rLZP`N0Ni Mil 62O''1i4C
i1i 1Y'�IM11�p 0%4 "0
mo qw`rvo~" 4=44 TiLECOPIZR 19131 4111d6p-M&l
Li`R►,�Mii oft ii ,46g'O MiM1PV OU069 (190}I6711
►t,' I TK69X 66-6136 C. AOAM * I1090-4"1
April 17, 1989
li
Bail Hutton
City AttCrney
City Hall
2000 Nain Street
Auntinoon leach, CA 92648
Rat MaLtington ftAgh wgtilWjU
Dear Gail ;
An a further follow-up to uy yropoaal lel:tar, I
Wound suqqest that the City zonsidar, the al.te.=atipta of
' '.iolftfting more than one► firm for the purpose o r r"pnderinq a
jo{.nt opinion on this natter.
1 would be happy to work with Frailich, Stone,
Lehner & C."arlimle on the preparation of such an opinion ,
si'ce severcl people at that firm are knowledgeable of the
l.av in this area. I have discuo-ged this ,Latter with that
firs and they would be amenable. to such procedure.
If this option is selected by would be Wnewhat higher than �ay origin alh estimate �e but we
vou.14 *lea provide a broader opinion which would suggest
poseibla alternatives for properties of this type.,
Sincerely,
RTC"HAMI K. TERZIAN
RRT:CIS'
cc; rraili.ch, Stone, Lalitner ,
Carlisle
'9M.
1 y
I ri�
G I ..i•, IVA
F
P�,W
LAW MPFICCti
FItEILICN, STONE, LEITNEIR 8 C'4� 1 ,,fj•'( JE;L"13 +
1 �,� iM M f�0U1M1
trA�"MiAt"iK �. t} ome. M�. • ••wrMrtw�w�� •r w++�,ows+o++w� sowro",Fvof.r ,f ,rNww.CAM104%081-1ow•IaNR
KKM0AMM KA11wMAM, �.C. Tits V iLsN1Ks LNrtAMAKK. Suo �M %%AMWe R '+�I�"911"1r
!ol��wAM J. trOxa"
MARGA11KY A. •ONA61 M�M�w 1i+fM Irl�' IYAt MII a•a�+n1 .755 V1�1L3mas BOULIRvAIre
G .a�•+�w+�rrr+•,•wA
Los Ai1GRLVA. OWFORNIA 90025.1518
T'/L�C'a�ifiL MAwn+M 1, utrn+sw,Ilo.' +
o.ItnA"S. OANUOI46 sa
(M1�1 ►17 i Md+•A.wwnwrWom.It IL w
MIFNeN J.MIIIIIIIIII f,Ile.•
TURINON! ovap"I+.#I ONR+M,me.10
(213) 4444696 rx11wi A. rAw"M I
yUMAN A FIC1461MIX•
MIGNAtL I@. rRY's
Apy:i l 20, 1989 Ab"I"No 10 me,an$Gov so•
VIA FLM=
Gail Hutton, City Attorrey
City of Huntington $each,
2000 lain Street
Huntington Beach, Calif )IMI a 92647
Re: Request for Joint proposal to provide Advisory
Legal Opinion Ret'gardinq Huntington Beach Wetlands
Conservation
Dear trail:
Freilich, $tons, Leitner 6 Carlisle would be pleased to
participate in• prov -ding the City of Huntington Beach ("City*)
with an advisory legal opinion prepared JGJ.ntly with Richard R.
Torrian of Adams, Duque i Raaeltine rtgardin.V the Huntington
Beath Wetlands Conssrvation. We are- familiar with Mr. Tarzian 1 ss'
work and recognize his expertise in land use matters of this type
and would welcome the opportunity to work with Mir. Tersian on
this prnject.
Ax we previously indicated in our letter of April 19. 1989 ,
we would estimate that the legal opinion could b* prepared for
013 000.00, plus costs. This $150 000. 00 estimate wtml,d be our
est t(a of total •-.aes to be paid to both Frai L ich, :;Stone y
Laitne r i Carlisle and Adams, Duque A Hazeltine. Pv p>revriously
explained, our custemazy costar include, but are not: limited to,
filing leas, postage, messenger or overnight services,
,,hotocopies, fassscimile copies, wessstlaw, long distance telephone
c:?iarges, and word processing.
Tt in our understanding that the scope of the Pos;ignment
world remain an outlined in our prior latter and should the City
desire to retain our services to provide Any planning or zoning
world, additional fees would, be incurred.
It .
r
ONA
f �IJ ggI fS J1 I �• r � �j�J
rfi FUILICN, 6S-1vNz, LEIrmk A L.A&LISLJ
"ii Hutteo. City Attorriy
April. 200 lost
y an h to provide the City with this pint proposal
loa►k yorwa the rug►• P posa�,
P pit ws�t
with • �itSr.
Very truly your*,
XhTHMXX E. STONE
�.., Of MILTCK, STONE, I.tI:TNER i CARLrSLlt
�jPil�cret�.tt�
+aa: Itiahard R.. Tsraian, Esq.
l d�
4 ` j
?• •• ^4�• � , `1•"r�;,,h 0 W. ,•' . vA 4,"' ' ' ,d'ii.. ' 'L A,. , i •, '•' ' ! tY' "trf .,' / '! •,•y (•} '•R,•� ..
aK•! aK
1
W r
6AW OFFIC98 '
u
FulLICH, Sromc, Lumit a fi r,;.; ' IN MI��ONAI
64TMCwI/1M a. 117dM1g. Ac. �wrw•raw�N�w�► P"8114s14Mw� aMw. it `aCt�
MJAMIN KAUFMAN• O C. J� � Pww1r�M.t,�ir�r.,CwrKi��R A Kr..wnrwi
98"MAN 1. PDX Us WILMIRs LANDMAItrt• SNITLI•PA 2A , ' :6TO 46"W^
M*"ANST A. SOMAGI a., 64"N"0611r8.
l WILMILB Qo16rvAa eNaoeMi■..1.RN.Iw1� �••,
Los AMCALIA, CALIPO1LNIA $0025.1518 walr.wr r►,, w�,�,�s�.�M �
ttur.�rl#11 imalmil I.LANOW& wr,'
!#1#y as7.70Sf elemme•.cw dmmt no,
Nils A6 •MOMWOOM 04.
. T[LS►t1ON� •�itlwriN w gMtMM, ��.'
M.QM�A A.CRY N
•gll►►fZw 1� MY•
April 291 1989
VIA FAX
Gail Hutton, City Attorney
City of Huntington ton Heacsh
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92640
Re: Request for Proposal to Provide Additional
Advisory Lagal Opinion Regarding Huntington
Beach Wetlands Conservation
Sear Gail:
This is to further clarify our letter of April 12 in �
response to the above r,egq'uest for proposal. The scope of our
opinion would include a list of recom wndationa ;for procedural
and substantive approaches for resolvinq the controversy.
Vory truly yours,
KA►THERINE E. STONE
of FREILICH, STONE, LEITHER A CARLISLL
cc: Richard, R. Terxian. Esq.
1�'srlMUTTR�.6TRc�p
`i
J ,
oY
t'i s�,�apt h, �iiisiM ,• a e
Ql0�0! 0�1KaARJ1AN► 1+
COASTAL COMMISSION (Findings approved by the AOft
California Coastal Commission
r, s� arr on April 23 1907
•,� ' r � ti� 6rt1� 1�11i' � is ,
DBD
' 11 ES
TO: Commissioners and Interested Persons
ROM; TOM Crandall# District Director y'
waynt Woodroof, Asaistant District Director
Christopher Kroll , Lead Analyst
SUBJECT: CITY OF HUNT'ING`tON REACH LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM
RRSUBMITTAL OF THE LAND USE PLAN
FOR THM A1RHA OF DEFERRED CERTIPICATION
BETWEEN BEACH BOULEVARD AND THE SANTA hNA RIVER
(P'or Public Searing and Commission action at the
meeting of April 21-24 1987 )
DATE: April 13, 1997
STAFF NOTE
The resolution recommended for action is the resolution to certify
the Land 0$e Plan (Page 6 ) as resubmitted . The action taken on the
resolution on October 8, 1986 ways as follows.-
LAND USE PLAN
1
Commissioners Voting:
Contreras ves Ncrnnier Yee
Franco Yes McMurray Yes
Gl ickfeld Warren ee
King Yea Wright es
MacElvalne Ys8 Wornum ee
Malcolm
r
it r gySy� M' ,r'';'. + •'4;�y'p
4' 1
ft"dA6�2 Y
dt
xt O $
r
1" fhe" certifiod Coastal Element (LUP) policies ($xhibit of the
•, City's certified in geographic part Local Coastal Program have been
rtee8bmitted an part of the hand Use Plan for this geographic area .
The Land Use Plan ( Inhibit 3 ) includes new laced use designatione
which address the issues which formed the basis of the Commission ' s
findings for denial of the: Land Use Plan for this area in 1982.
F
Background
The Commission at its meeting of November 170 1982 certified the
Huntington peach Land Use Plan in geographic part and denied
certification in part for the fallowing geographic areas:
1 . The area of the Metropolitan, Water District (MWD) parcel
pW of the Sole& Chid
7 . The area from Beach Boulevard to the Santa An& River Mouth
By a resolution dated February 6, 1904 the City accepted the
Commission' s certification in geographic part and the Executive
Director reported the adequacy of the City 's action to the
Coeiaission to effectively certify the Land Use Plan in geographic
part an match 15, 1984.
The City' s implementation was submitted to the Commission on
December 14 , 19b3 and deemed filed on March 21 1984 . On April 12,
11984 the Commission, denied the implementation as submitted and
certified it in geographic part with suggested modificationR .
The Executive Director determined and the Commission concurred in
the adegaacy of the CiLy ' s acceptance of the suggested
modifications and effectively certified the Implementation on March
13, 1985.
Since 1985, the City has held several public beatings and
discussions with Commission staff and ether affected agencie$
regarding the two areas of deferred certification . On .Tune /L,
1986, the City adopted a Land Use Plan for the area of deferred
certification between Beach Boulevard and the Santa Ana River
mouth. The hand Use Plan resubmittal was received by the
Commission on July 31• , 1986 and deemed filed on August 12 , 1986.
On October S, 1996, the Commiasion certified the Land Use Plan as
i` resubmitted.
C�
A.MY
L
{l i
4 '
S'
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1110.100,AMWitx 4
m1p man Phan
I. STAFF �tLCOMMENbATION. . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . + . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . �
it. FINDINGS FOR CERTIFICATION OF Lnp. . , . . . . . . . . . � . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
III . FINDINGS FOR SUGGESTED MODIFICA TONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,. . 23
V. ENERGY FINDINaB. . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Z3
VI. PUBLIC ACCESS FINDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . .i9
VIY . OTHRR COASTAL ELENNOT POLICIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . 30
VIIICNQA FINDINGS. . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . .31
1 HMO `
or
Raw
r
� A
1
ii
\RA, Page 4
I+
i lAa
gum", sum"RY
A
Area Description
w, Thy City of Huntingtons Beach is loca<tea in northorn orange county
between the city of Coal Beach and the Santa Ana River with a
coastal sons .of about five square miles including nine miles of
public beach+ ht the northern end of the City is tho Huntington
Harbour waterfront marina community and commercial centers. The
shoreline contains major state and city beaches with support
farciliti,es and a Municipal Pier which provides public recreation
opportunities. The Downtown and Townlot area are a mix of
recreation and commercial uses and residential development. There
is extensive oil and energy-related operations and environmentally
sensitive, coastal wetlands and other habitat in the City ' s coastal
some,
Land Use Plan: Summary
The Land Use Plan as resubmitted is comprised of the following land
Use designations:
1 . Visitor-serving _Commercial :
The City haA designated a seven-acre strip along Pacific coast
Highway between Beach Boulevard and Newland Street as
"visitor-serving commercial* . This area has been determined by the
Department of Fish and Game in its 1983 Determination of the Status
of the Huntington Beach Wetlands to be former weElands which s not
e
restor e. The visitor-serving designation is also appropriate as
the site is located at the terminus of the major access route
( Beach Boulevard) from inland areas to the beach. This designation
is parr of the Coastal Element ( the certified in geographic part
LDP) which has been included as part of this resubmittel . The
principal permitted uses are hotels, motels , restaurants , theaters ,
museums, specialty and beach-related retail , and service uses.
off.ice and residential uses are conditional uses in this district
and would be allowed only by special permit . The general height
limit for all categories of development is three stories .
2 , Conservation:
The City has designated 124 . 5 acres between Beach Boulevard and the
;;ants Ana River as *Conservation" . 'rhis use is part of the adopted
(:oastal Element . The intent of the designation is to protect
valuable resource areas. The designation allows certain low
1 , ,
E�
1
/ I
'I*•• i. low a L•.1.'raa,
�L• • 1
y
Page
Jot,ensity resource protective activities including picnic and
obsorvation areas, nature trails and peripheral hike path& ,
iptatmational signs or displays, and peripheral parking areas.
p1;tbitc access to encouraged and should be provided where posslhle.
�. s rtsl ne gY roe�uatfor�
The, City has redesignated 8465 acres between Newland Street and
pagooiis street as "Industrial Energy Prodactlon" + This
designation includes the existing developed 8dison Company power
plant site and the ad jacont storage tank area . The designation is
Intended to accommodate non-oil extraction related Coastal
darpen4ent energy production facilities. Principal permitted uses
include power plants , storage tanks, transmission lines , storage
and maintenance yards, and ancillary buildings .
4. industrial� Ener.wgy Production/conservation' rll /1-�����iiliiill �. • IA/1111.�/..IIIYIr♦ r�rl�W A■�A\
The 17-acre vacant parcel adjacent to the Edison power plant has
been redesignated as "Industrial Energy Production/Conservation" .
In this case, a "Conservation' overlay has been applied to the
underlying land use designation of "Industrial Energy production" .
This designation is intended to allow the existing wetland area to
be protected and restored while not precluding the option of power
pl4bt expansion onto this site if no feasible less environmentally
-damaging alternative, such as an inland location, exists and if
appropriate mitigation, including restoration of degraded wetlands
in the area, is provided.,
Y
^I� wI.I�,VryV 61�4 T v YI. • � �'r/f f
W4fW M ,.YMC1V,�r1N .•I-.,•
1
Page 6
ME 29B MAN
_ ac 1�1Qt� rIM ! $ OAR CRRTIMATION
r rrr� arr�.■.Ir+Nr��rlYri•..rM+rYr. prr♦��r/+�r�r
�Y
` Vollowing a pubtic hearing, the Commission shall adopt the
following resolution and related findings and declarations for the
City of buntington Beach Land Use Plan for the area of deferred
certification between Beach boulevard and the Santa Ana River mouth
as resubmitted.
NOTION I
I move that the Commission certify in geographic pArt the Land
Use Plan for the area of deferred certification between Beach
Boulevard and the Santa Ana River mouth as resubmitted by the
City of Huntington Beach.
tti
Agedlution to Certiu
ChM Commission hereby certifies the resubmitted Land Use Plan for
} the area of deferred cerMINTIon between beach Boulevard and the
Santa Ana river mouth of the City of Cuntington Beach Local Coastal
w Program and finds for the reasons discussed below that the
resubmitted Land Use Plan meets the requirements of and is in
conformity with the Policies of Chapter 3 (commencing with section
30200) of the Coastal Act to the extent necessary to achieve the
basic stated goals specified in Section 30001 . 5 of the Coastal Act ;
that the resubmitted Land Use Plan contains a specific access
component as required by Section 30500(a) of the Coastal Act; is
consistent with applicable decisions of the Commission which shall
guide the local government in their future Actions under Seotion
30625(c) of the Coastal Act; and certification of the resubmitted
Land Use Plan meets the requirements of Section 21080. 5 (d) ( 2) ( i) of
the California Environmental Quality Act, as there are no further
feasible alternatives or mitigation measures available which would
substantially lessen any significant adverse impact which the Land
Use Plan may have on the environment .
11 . FINDIf1GS FOR CERTYCICATION OF THE LAND USE PLAN
A. Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas
rAr��+�rwr+ 'irrH■■ ��Mir �
n
a
h
i
,
OW
Al
i µ
page 7
fectieb 30260(4 ) of the CoaSta l ACt states that:
(a) lavironmeptally sensitive habitat areas shall be
protsotod against Sray ,signilimt disruption of habitat values,
and only uses de'pendtnt an snch resources shall be allowed
within wubh items.
(b) Development . in arras adjacent to environmentally
sensitive habitat area, and parks and recreation areas shall be
sited and designed to prec+ent impacta which would significantly
degrade such areas, and shall be compatible with the
continuance of su:h habitat areas .
Section 30233 provides in part:
I: section 30M
- (at) The diking, filling, or dredging of open coastal
waters,, wetlands, estuaries, and lakes shall be permitted in
accordance with other applicable provisions of this division,
where there is no feasible less environmentally damaging
alternative, and where feasible mitigation measures have been
pwovi,ded to minimise adverse environmental effects, and stall
be limited to the following:
( 1) New or expanded port , energy, and
coastal--dependent industrial facilities, including
commercial fishing facilities .
(2) Maintaining existing, or reatot•ing previously
dredged, depths in existing navigational channels, turning
basins, vessel berthing and mooring areas, and boat
launching ramps .
(3) In wetland areas only, entrance channels for
new or expanded boating facilities; and in a degraded
Wetland, identified by the Department, of Fish and Came
pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 30411, for boating
facilities if , in conjunction with such boating
facilities, a substantial portion of the degraded wetland
is restored and maintained as a biologically productive
wetland. The site: of the wetland area used for boating
facilities , including berthing space, turning basins ,
necessary nAvigation channels, and any necessary - support
service Facilities, shall not exceed 25 percent: of the
degraded wetland.
( 4 ) in open coastal waters, other than wetlands ,
n ,-I'i0ierr streams, estuaries and lakes , isew or expanded
boating facilities and the p�acerment of structural pilings
for public recreational piers that -provide public access
and recreational opportunities.
• I'
nge
u�•r
Incidental public setViee purposes, including
b4t not Umited ' to, burying cablas and pipes oe inspeOtinn
of 08 and "intenance of existing intake and outlall
'ir ��a��•I�
I
if) liinejo1 extrocrio.n, inaludlog *and for
,. ro toring brachia, except in environmentally sensitive
v, areas ,
��`' • (7) Restotation purposes.
t ' 8) 11atOre study, aquaculture, or similar
resource dependent activities. . . ,
( c) In addition to the other provisions of this
section , diking, filling, or dredging in existing estuaries and
wetlands shall maintain or enhance the functional capacity of
the vetland or estuary. Any alteration of coastal wetlands
ident#�fied by the Department of Fish and Game, incl.adi,ng', but
not ItAitod to, tine 19 coastal. wetlands identified in its
ropori A.-,AAt1s4, "Atggisition Priorities for the Coastal
ot1
a44ds. of Califr►ra►las , shall be listfted to very Windt
i'ncideht'aij public fdcilities , restorative measures. nature
stud - 0 . if othirOiae, in accordance with this division. . .
Section 30230 states that:
Section 30330
Marlae resources shall be maintained, enhancod, and where
fras.ible, restored. Special protection shall be given to areas
and species of special biological or economic significance.
Vaea 09 the marine environment shall be carried out in a manner
that sill sustain the biological productivity of coastal waters
and that will maintain healthy populations of all species of
marine organisms adequate for long-term commerciarl #
recreational, scientific, and educational purposes ,
section 30231 states as follows :
Section 30331
The biological productivity and the quality of coastal
waters, streams . wetlands , estuaries , and lakes appropriate to
maintain optimum populationA of marine organisms and for the
protection of human health shall; be maintained and, where
feasible, restored through, am,-,ng other moans , minimizing
adverse effects of waste water discharges ,and entrainment ,
controlling runoff , preventing depletion of ground water
supplies and s+ibstantial interference vith surface water flow,
b i
I
a
Page g
` earcourraging waste water cecla►mai ion, maintaining natural
vagetation buffet areas that protect riparian habitats , and
sinimising alteration of natural streams«.
Section 30411 (b) of the Coastal Act pro7idesa that:
section 5
(b) The Department of Fish and Came, in consultation with
f_ the: eoimiission and the Department of Boating and
waterways , may study degraded wetlands and identify those
whit.a can most feasibly be restored in conjunction with
development of a boating facility as provided in
subdivision (a) section 30233. Any such study shall
include consideration of all the following:
( 1) Whether the wetland is so severely degraded and its
natural processes so substantially impaired that it is not
capable of reeoveriny and maintaining a high level of
biological productivity without major restoration
activities.
( 2) Whether &. substantial portion of the degraded �
wetland, . but in no ,event less that 75 percent, can be
restored and maintained as a highly productive wetland in
conjunction with a boating facilities l,roject .
( 3) Whether restoration of the wetland' s natural values ,
including its biological productivity and wildlife habitat
features+ can most feasibly be achievel and maaritained in
conjunction with a boating facility or whether there are
other feasible ways to achieve such values.
The Commission generally considers wetlands, estuaries, streams ,
riparian habitats# lakes and portions of open coastal wasters to b4i
envtronmerk�arlly sensitive habitat areas because of the especially
valuable role of these habitat areas in maintaining the natural
ecological functioning of many coastal habitat areas and because
those areas are easily degraded by human developments. Wetlands
are highly diverse and productive . The combination of shallov and
deep wator4 and the variety of vegetation and substrates produce
far- greater possibilities for wil11ife feeding , nestin4 and resting
than is found in less diverse &rase . individual wetlands may be
inhabited by hundreds of species of birds, Mammals, fish and
smaller organisms.
Migratory animals feed and zest in California' s coastal wetlands in
large enough numba'rs to make the wetlands invaluable habitat
areas. Mcst waterfowl and shorebirds found in North America, such
as dactKa, geese, sandpipers, ;4nd dunlines, are migratory. During
97 i_,, * r
-i
Y.',., . � �� ,� ,r t �.�r. yr•
r
N
•
r
Page 10
the fall and spring migrations, millions of birds move along
Well-defined routes called flyways . The C!�l f y u�. ,ia coast , part of
the pacific flyway, was assigned third highee - 64ority (out of a
total of 33 area* nationally) for Vintering' habitat presetvation by
the• d.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
$face wetlands are so valuable from both an , economic and biologic
standpoint , the Coastal hct:, and many other federal and state
statutes and regulations, mandate governmental requlation 'of these
dregs. The Coastal Act requires that the biological productivity
and the quality of coastal waters, streams, wetlands, estuaries,
` and lakes be maintained and, where feasible, restored . Section
30233 of the Coastal ,Act requires in part that the diking, dredging
or filling of open coastal waters, wetlandsa, estuaries shall be
permitted where there is no feasible leas environmentally damaging
alternative and where feasible mitigation messuroe have been
provided and shall be limited to the uses enumerated in subsections
Significant- wetland resources have been identified
w!thin the City 's coastal zone as determined by the Commission in
its previous actions on the City' s Certified in geographic part
LCP. In 1992 , the Commission certified the City 's LUP excluding
those hreas Identified as wetlands . The two non--certified wetlands
areas are the Metropolitan Water District (HWb ) parcel adjacent to
the Bolso Chica and the area from Heach. Boulevard tc the Santa '.ana
'f :Riven (11tthibit 2) . The Land Use plan was denied for these ateaa
based on land use designations which were inconsistent, with Section
30233 and the energy policfas of the Coastal Act ,
Historically, coastal esti.,Aaries and wetlands have been destroyed cr
disturbed by activities such as drjdgirzg for ports and marinas,
diking from tidal action, filling to provide new land for
development, and used as s4mps for domestic sewags and industrial
waste and deprived of rejuvenating freshwater inflow by water
diversions. of the original 197, 000 acres of marshes, mudflat:s ,
bays , lagoons, sloughs and estuaries in California (excluding San
Francisco D&V) , the natural productivity and open space values of
52k ' have been totally destroyed by dredging and filling. Of
Californ .a<' s remaining estuaries and coastal wetlands, 62 percent
have been subjected tb revere damage and 19 percent have received
moderate damage (California Coastal plan) . Thus , less than 100 of
California ' s original coastal estuaries and wetlands remain
relatively undisturbed.
It its for reasons such as theme that the Coastal Act contains
mandatory provisions for wetland protection and res;orait:ion
inaloding those wetlands which have been severely altered by human
activities and therefore degraded . In tact , wetlands are• the
coastal resources thaw have been granted the greatest amount of
protection in the Coatital Act . For example ; there arp several
specific Coastal Art poliniey which require the mainteriance of
biological productivity and the quality of wetlands ( Section
. 30231 ) ; restrict diking, filling and dredging of wetlands ( Section
A
r x r Y
1
1 M
mom
Page II
and vide for the restoration of wetlands Section 30Z31
10333�j pea ( e
50411 and 30407 . 1 ) . Thus , wetlands protection and restoration is
one of the Coastal Act ' s major priorities .
Of California 's r&matninq coastal wetlands, southern California
wetlands have boon the most severely depleted. However, southern
Caali ornia 's coastal wetlands still support hundreds of thouennds
of # wda, including' doaana of anecids which migrate along the
Pao.#,' # Fljr�aray Herne*, acear4ing to Zedler ( 1982a) , these areas
thk6"o0 ht6rnattonal' ir!aportaaance as feeding and resting grounds for
Aveaoiox foilfld, from Alaska to ,ntarcti.ca. Herons, egrets, gulls ,
torn*, shorob"I rAs o ducks, geese, costs, wading lairds aaind rails can
f be user; in southern California coastal wetlanda throughout most of
the year .
Hoaevor , several of these gird species which use southern coastal
wetlands are now endangered due, in large: part , to the massive
losses of wetland habitat. Approximately 73 percent of the
ostuaaries and coastal wetlands in southern California have been
destroyed or severely altered by man since 1900. Twos-thirds of the
twenty-night sizable estuaartes existing in southern California zt
the Otn of the century have been dredged or filled ( California
Coastal P)�f.r~) These losses have driven several spec es o
w a rtae�irly to extinction.
Endangered species which use the wetlands include five endangered
birds. The California least tern ( Sterna albifrons browni ) , the
brown pelican (Pelecasnus occidental Ts car orn sus ) , the peregrine
falcon (Paaloo _peregri nu$ aria um) , afid Me g t�- ooted clapper rail
(Raallun sax roaf—ffii-- Ievi are federally listed. The Belding' s
9 vanhifi sparrow assercu. us saandwichenis beldin i ) to state
listed, The laattet wd speck c.i are res ens of the salt marsh and
abOolutely dspend on it for survival ( Zedl,er , 1983a ) .
ln .' Anion, the aeacthecic and Open space value of southern
Cr' iforniaa crustal wetlands iry aignificrant. Onuf et &I'. ( 1278 )
140 than: coastal wetlands rpra►bably support higher densities of
rigv active animals, especially birds , than any other major habitat
�ypar in the Uhit4d States. The small size of most .af the remaining
s* athern and central California coastal wetlands, the lore stature
of tho marab ' plarr,t-i , and the close proximity of many of these
Mft,laanda to de mseli populated areas allow easy viewing of a wide
Va riet al birds in 'their natural setting.
a►. Sorroucce Valise of they Huntington beach Wetlands
in 1983, the Department oC Fish and Game ( M) prepaared# at the
Comrai,ssion's request, as report concerning the astaatas of the
EantihIton Beach Wetlands. The report r.4 -., prepared pursuant to
So-.t+on '30411 of the Coastal Act which pr Vides for the study of
degraded wetlands by the Department of Fish and Garce in
` oun&ultaLlon with the Commiasion and the Department of Boating and
Waterways,
'fir i nl,;;, •�,' _
r
I.
I�H ice',�. ' .� ,� •
OEM
�1 r
Page 12
w
The Department of Fish and Game summarized its findings as follows :
Hased upon examination of historical mapping , existing
biological data, and upon the definitiona and criteria outlined
r hertinr the Department finds that of the 162 . 6 acres within the
study aNrea, 149 . 9 acres are histoxic wetland and 12. 7 are
k. histotic upland (Table 1 ) . we find that of the 149. 9 acres of
bistoric wetland within our study area, 114 . 7 acres ( 76 . 5t )
6 coatYinne to function iiably as wetlands. 7.her Department finds
that all 114 . 7 acres of wetland identified are degraded
pursuant to the definition established herei n. , 13owaver , 1:e
also find that 113 . 9 of these 114 . 7 wetland acres ( 99% ) provide
either high or moderate habitat values to wetland-associated
birds. Further ; the Department finds that ma;or restoration
efforts would not be required to restore and enhance wetland
values on 114. 7 acres identified in this report .
The OrG report discussed the historical importance of the
Huntington Beach detlatnds:
K
1
The study area is a remnant of a once extensive wetland area
which existed at the mouth of the Santa Ana. River (Figure 1 ) .
` This wetland was historically connected to Newport Bay, by the
meandering Santa Ana River. The present wetland ( 114. 7 ac. ) is
all that remai.na of approximately 2, 000 acres of historic
wetlands which existed upcoast (northwest) from wham is now the
Santa Ana River FlobdlControl Channel. This reduction in area'
of nearly 95% has oedurred primarily due to the channe.lixation
of the Santa Ana River and other drainage courses and
subsequently fr%&s *ncroochme:nt of residential , commercial and
industrial deveelopmtnts in they City of Ountington beach. The
study area has been formally claGnifie'd as watlrand by the State
of California since at Yeast 1971 (Radovich 19601 Appendix 3 )
Tiie report also included a description of the present status of the
_ I ara�thands t _
Th4t4 pirsa*ntly exist 114. 7 acres. of viably functioning
wrertlaAds in the. study area. These wetlands are non-tidal in
aatar*, T'ha are primarily a combinstion of vagetrated and
rA*h-v*get*t% wetland fists? and manifest various salinity
e$imes . Dominant plant species include pickleweed ( Salicorn a
` vir inia) , alkali heath ( Frank#nia randifolia ) and sM grass
121stic lies cats ) in salt marsb arenas; spiny rush Oun�
ac.,eutus and au ruses (Scir us, spp. ) in brackish waterntarsr-
areasp and cattail (T as app. ) in freshwater mazah areas.
Salicornia vir inia a�ri o�logate hydxophyte, is clearly the
pre om nan . plant species in the study area. . .
The invertebrate population providas a forage base -for an
I
{
I
r'
1
'1
Tdr
Page 13
Y
abundaitt and di.versr complement of wetland-oriented gird
species , At least 03 bird species have been observed in the
Huntington Beach Wetiands ( hppendix 7) . Of the 83 speciea# 53
specits are wetland-associat4id birds . included imong the
apecies kndwn to occur in the study area art the, federally and
state-listed endangered California least tern and the
state-listed endangered Belding 's savannah spar-row. Bird
ceetseser. . . indicatee that of the 114.7 scree of existinj wetland
In the study area 113. 9 2f these acres ( 99% ) provide either
blilb rr moderates habitat valuea fat: wetland-associated birds.
Of ti,e 13 . 7 acres of aistoric upland , 8. 7 acres adjacent to PCH
and downc:oast ( generally so+,thesast ) from the power plant are
composed of coastal dune habitat , willow thickets and
transition veegetation# and are environmentally sensitive
putauant to coastal Act Sections 30107. 5 and 3024.0. These 8.7
acres provide desirable habitat diversity to the overall study
area, and constitute approximately 350 of all rgmaining coastal
dune habitat in nort:.ern Orange County ( the remaining roughly
53% being located primarily in the Sol%a Chica Ecological
Deserve) (Seen DFG 1983) . . .
b. Land Use Plan Policies
As noted above, 'the wetlands area in the City if Duntington. Ceach
from Beach Boulevard to the Santa Anal Diver in part of the - last �
remaining remnant of the once extensive salt Marsh and eesr nary
complex of the Santa Aria River which encompassed over 3000;, acres.
The area' s primary re source value is an habitat for marsh dependent
bird species. The area presently serves an a waterfowl wintering
area, providing valuable nesting and feeding areas on the winter
miotation route. The ..westlands provide a critical food source and
beseding habitat for the endangered California least tern and the
endangered Beelding' s savannah sparrow.
In 1982r in its► previous action on the Huntington. Beach LCP1 the
Comets8taq „ certi.fled the City' s LCP in geographic part and denied
certifiaetion irk part for the two wet•,land areas within the Cityt
the Mettropolit4n Water District (M by parcel adjacent to the Sals& ,
mica a4d• the area from Beacih . Boulevard to the Santa Ana lover .
The Coxlriseion found in its action on the LOP, the findings for
enrich Are hereby inttotpotcated by reference, that e
The LUP as resubmitted fails toe confote to the Resource
protection poltaits of the Act in the: following significant
areas :
1 ) . The LOP fails to provide land use designations and ...
standards to ensure protection and restoration Where
feasible of wetland resources identified Consistent
with the Coastal Art definition .
„
1 r
Ar
fly •' ���,'.
r
Pages 14
2 ) The r,UP as resubmitted while referring to wetland as
f "potential " (page 61 ) or "possible" (page 54 )
wetlands and acknowledging their identification by
F the Department of Fish and Game in a preliminary
determination , designates wetland areas for uses not
allowed by Section 30233 of the Coastal Act .
They, . Ceassiission further found that the land uses proposed for the
wetland areas would conflict with the energy policies of the
Coa fatal A(:t which address the siting and expansion of power plants
and energy facilities . The Commission concluded that :
The Plan as resubmitted would result in the filling of over 130
' acres of wetland with an irreversible loss of habitat value and
productivity and loss of habitat for endangered species .
., further , the plan precludes higher priority coastal dependent
uses on the MWD site and precludes potential restoration of
wetland repourcees on that site.
The Commission made similar findings in its original denial of the
t.,
LUP in 1981 , the findings for which are hereby incorporated by
reference. The City' s LUP resubmittai for the area of deferred
certification from Beach Boulevard to the Santa Ana. River contains �
now -land use designations for major portions of that area (Exhibit
2) . The'' proposed land use designations include 'Visitor-Serving
Commercial' s "Conserrvation" , "industrial Energy Production" , and
"Industrial Energy Production/Conservation" . In addition, the LUP
reesubsittal includes the resubmittal of the Coastal Element
policies including the environmentally sensitive habitat, visual
resources, energy policies, etc. The "Conservation" and
'industrial Energy Production/Conservation" designations for 141 . 5
acres of wetland/coastal dung/upland habitat ( in conjunction with
the environmentally!!Sensitive habitat policies of the Coastal
Element) would provide: protection for these environmentally
sensitive habitat areas consistent with the environmentally
sensitive habitat and wetlands policies of the Coastal Act . The
deesigna t ores are consistent with these policies because t 1 ) they
allow for the following kinds, location and intensity of land uses
:r consistent with section 30233 and 2 ) the land use designations
hd/or , gtbor policies provide for development meeting the other
teats of Section 30233 - that there: are no feasibles lose
eavironmeatally damaging alternative and feasible mitigation is
provided/required as well as the: energy policies of the Coastal
Act . The "Conservation' designation allows • cortain low intensity
r, resource protectir• activities including. picnic and observat:.00
areas, nature trstla and peripheral bike paths, informational signs
or displays, and peripheral parking areas. The "industrial Energy
Production/Conservation" designation is intended t•o allow the
existing wetland area to be protected and restored while not
precluding the option of power plant expansion onto this site if no
feasible less environmentally dasaging alternative and if
appropriate mitigation is provi6ed . The 141 . 5 acre figure reflects
1'y
''rti ;�w�, s., .,• ,tip:
'1
page 15
t'
the Department of Fish and Ganes 1983 Watland Determination of 149 . 9
acres of historic wetland minus former ( not restorable ) wetland and
upland hobi.tzL west of Beach Boulevard and a strip area along
r. h&c-iiic Coamt pighway east of Beach Boulevard.
. , B tallto>ti ' 1�roneae xxtensior,
The
Ad designatiehe limit allowable uses in retiands,
hoiiov���r,* ha r+eaait'tad Lt)p includes a prop islan for the exteansion
' 41i1
( venu6 fro;* Newland Street to Beach Boulevard. The
are** that would bo bisected by this ellignment of the extension i
have b art idahtifte' d in the Department of Fish and Game wetlands
dot+sr4i=tiph as restorable former wetlands and degraded
saltlast, 66?salt flat tweetlands . The D?G hem also determined that the
affected arias suppott 'Moderate" and "Sigh" use by
wetland-associated birds.
the city states that arr: extension of Hamilton Avenue is needed to
p1tovi,de on alternative circulation route to pacific Coast Highway .
the extension, would alsop the City maintains, provide increased
k access to the coast for beach users and would improve pul :IiC safety
aso tt would socve as ap alternative route to the beaches and
l' dovhtown Aro,a for fire and emergency vehicles. The City' s proposal
e states that :
The• 041toeu extension will be constructed in such a wary as to
mfni'miset impacts on the wetland. This includes raising the
entijs structure on pilinga if necessary. Appropriate
mitigation shall be provided. It is the City' s intent that no
net loss of wetland occur . Any wetland which is filled nr
roiftoed in productivity by the project will be replaced L'y
raatoring otherwise degraded or non-functioning wetland as
close as feasible to the project sit 0 o
l it"e itt i�ius. mans uh the LUP in 1981 and . 1982, the commission
noted thait : tr'ha. �roposed extension of Hamilton Avenue would result
in the filling b'f identified wetland areas. The Coiamission 4150
found that roads are:: not a permitt:ed use for which, filling of
rwetlap& it Permitted under Section 30233 of the Coastal Act,
except ar part og . 00orgy expansion allowed by Section 30233 and the
Briery 110tes 6 tb* Cos'Oal Act . in its 1:991 ac�tione •gale
Coumiet r e eel tee a ruggnstad %66ification t�rne8 .the City adoptsd
the policy Yarn as part of ite Coastal zleme:ntl. which provided
tbat nco' fil for road construction would be arllowed in wetla►ada
Q%ceapt as pgovidead by 86,0tion 30260 far coistal dependant:
industrial uses and Sections 30982-30244 for allowable energy
iacilitte'* and shall be limited only to access COadm appurt•.onant to
-facility facility to serve uses permitted by Sections 30260-30284. Arty
proposed road al*o `had to meet the other: policy tests of having no
feasible less •nvi>:oomentally damaging alternative and providing
feasible miti4ation.
. A look i
,'
•iV�l�.l'�'y'`'i
4 • 1
Page 16
The, LUP resWimitted in 1982 incorporated policy modifications
Similar to the Co�aaisdion' s adopted suggested modifications. The
now• LUP policy ( 9e) provides as follow"
t
• go. prohibit ill uses within the Least Tern nesting site on
Huntington State beach except those related to habitat
te#torat�on. Prohibit f-ill in any wetland areas for the
purpose of road construction, except for roads required to
serve a$*$ allowed in wetlands pursuant to and consistent
` with Sections 30260-30264 for coastal dependent and energy
uses. Also, if a project were approved pursuant to and
consistent with Section 30233 ( a ) ( 3 ) , and a road was part
of the approved PraJoct, such road would be permitted in
portions of the severely degraded wetland where
development is permitted. Any loads governed by this
policy shall be 1•imited to necessary access roads
appurtenant to the facility, and shall be permitted only
where there is nb feasible less environmentally damaging
alterna-tive and where feasibility mitigation mearures have
r
` been provided.
it is significant to note that this policy was adopted prior to the
final Department of Fish and Came Section 30411 wetlands
detarmination report , which found that the wetlands to this area
were not so severely degraded as to require major restorartian.
Projects approved pursuant to Section 30233 (a) ( 3) pertain only to
wetlands identified as so s verely degraded as to require major
restoration.
Th;i Commission previously found that the policies and standards
contained in the resubmitterd LUP were consistent with the Coastal
Act but denied the land use desivgedtions fiilingrofhwetlandafiel
for ores
' wetlands areas because they a►1lar
not consist^nt with the Coastal Act and Mould have resulted in
significant, oss of wetland and other environmentally sensitive
habitat are The Catrmission certified arivironmentally sensitive
habitat airi :-)O1i�iex far the geographic area excluding the
wetlarido ac , finding that the %0-110*v*r#
i�r� themselves were
consistent rri ,h the Coastal Act . as the LUP was denied in
04egr4phic Fort , neither policier nor land use designations were
1rtified for this area. Now, the City has resuhmitted its
'y,, c ti trwiran�aenGally sanaitive habitat area policies along
vita niv land use designations to comprise a rerubmittai LUP for
the J"raphic area denied certifination by the Cemmission in 1982.
Y polity 9e, as the Commission previously found, is conaist.ent with
the Coastal Act in that it would protect wetlands, allowing road
extearipns only ae part of allowable coastal dependent or energy
uses per*itt9d by Section 30233(a) ( 1 ) and only where there is no
ressibleubmit Od includes the extensiontive and where ioftion is gamiltonrAvenue. The which isF as
10 not
re�rub�aittad inc
s
i
Yam{ `_.�• i, / w ,�
4' Page 17
consisten►f with Policy 9e or Section 30233 of the Coastal Act as
the Hamilton extension is not part 61 any coastal dependent or
energy related project and to not one of the permitted uses of
Section 30233 of the Coastal. Act. .
of e13 'the einvirenmentally sensitive habitat arias mentioned
! cifically ift the Coastal Act, wetlands and estuaries are
6 ortbd the most stringent protection. In order to approve a
Istoject involving the diking, filling, or dredging of a wetland or
setuory, the Commission must first find that the project is e,ne of
the specific, enumerated uses met forth in Section 30233. in
a;,0ditsone permitted development in these areas must meet the
requirements of other applicable provisions of the Coastal Act .
Tile activities and types of development permitted in wetlands, �
` pursuant to Section 30233 , are as follows:
1 . Port facilities
2 . Bner4Y facilities
3 . Coastal-dependent industrial facilities, such as
r' commercial ,fishing facilities
4 . Mai.ntena►nod of existing or restoration of previously
a dr*dged depths in navigation channels, turning basins ,
vessol berthing and mooring ireas, and boat launching ramps
'5 . incidental public service purposes which include, but a.ie
not limited to, burying cables and pipes, inspection -.f
piers, a maintenance of existing intake and outfall. lknes
6 . Restoratton projects
7 . Nature study, aquaculture, or similar resource--dependent
artivitics
8 . in wetland areas only, entrance channels for new or
expanded boating facilities may be constructed, except
;., that in a deg-waded wetland, other boating facilities sway
be permitted according to the requirements of Section 30411
9 . Now or expanded boating facilities in estuaries
The Commission has consistently found that protection of wetland
resources it a high priority of thh Coastal Act, and has denied
dev*1a nt which would have resulted in the filling of we:tlairds ,
or oon itioned projects to avoid filling of wetlanda . In many
previous actions, including the 1901 denial of the City's LUP, the
1982 certification of the LUP excluding the wetland areas,
certification of the County of San Diego, San Biequlto segment LUP,
and previous permit actions including. A-320-79 (Hawthorne) she
Comission s &de findings regarding the importance of protecting
wetlands and related "abitat . The Commission found in its review
of the San Dieguito LUP. that a specific policy which limited the
type of use and developmnent permitted ire wetlands .was protective cf
wetland resources consistent with Section 30233 &ad addressed 1.4
concerns regarding road extension and widening pro;ects adjacent to
San Bl i jo and Bat iquitom lagoons . In A-156-74 ( Carmel Valley
hood) , the Commission initially denied a proposed road widening and
realignment that would here resulted in wetland fill . The
4'
W. duo
r"
Page 18
Commission later , however , approved the project which was intended
to eliminate a dangerous curve situation after the project had been
redesigned and modified to mitigate wetland fill to the maximum
` extant feasible .
In previous actions on proposed road extensions through wetland
&teas# the Commission has also found that limited expansion of
roadbeds and bridges necessary to maintain existing traffic
Capacity mmy be permitted only when no other alternative exists and
whets consistent with the other provisions of Section 30333.
sivailarlIt, in this caseg the Commission notes that: the intent of
the pro posed Hamilton Avenue exrenac on s to serve a ub c serviC*
a s as an as ternate rou a to Pat c toast HlUv" for
emeLqency ve c es. ' Presently; 'imergeaM vehiclea are hindered b
e lacko alternate Es when Pac c oast H1 *awl s
m assa a ue o con este tra ce The 1-tends to-extend
Walnut Avenue MoWthe downtNn to Ne-a-c-F Boul,ova il w ere would
tpge MP--dxtend'e'rH5Fi I ton Avenue. This wou create a new
cross-town aX s a on a nut an Ham ton venues rofi a downtown
o e aa<nt& na River . T e exten a lam on venue Ain
r den unc Min w o ValnuElvenue extension ) Would serve to
enhance lamer er►c ve cis Fac e weep the downtown an he
sou"Mr -tern ern area of t a c Y.
In its action in 1964 on the Maritsa Del Rey/sallona LUP of the
County of Los Angules LCP, the Commission approved the extension of
Falmouth Avenue through an area of severely degraded wetlands
proposed for restoration in the LUP. The Commission found that the
extension was consistent with the requirements of Section
30233 ( a ) ( 7) of the Coartal Act as it was part of a restoration
project and was the least environmentally damaging alternative for
reRtoring the wetland as modified to be elevated on pilings. The
suggested modifications to the LUP required that the road extension
be elevated on pilings "to insure: maximum flow of water, m.ojvement
of mammals and avian species and clearance to permit periodic
maintenance. " The Commission based its decision partly on evidence
supplied by the Department of Fish and Game (DFG) in a letter to
the Commission . The UFG stated that the extension of the road in
combination with an expanded wetland restoration program was "more
protective of coastal wetland resources than the preclusion of the
�'•, proposed extension and no wetland restoration. ' The DVG also
expressed concern that without approval of the LUP including the
Falmouth extension and the restoration plan proposed by the
landowner, the use of the area for agricultural purposed would be
expanded and thereby further diminish wetland habitat values. The
Commission concluded that:
The proposed extension of Falmouth Avenue through a portion 6f
the degraded wetlands deuignaated for restoration, is
permissible as pact of a restoration plan even though roads are
nog: id*na M PA as a permitted use in Section 30233 of the hct .
f
v
,�•,. . . � , -fir.
p F,�
r'
'Y r b•
i
ti Page 19
The Commission ' s interpretive Guidelines for Wetlands and Other
Wet Environmentally Sensitive Areas ( p . 14 ) declare that
- 'additional flexibility will be allowed for restoration
Proj'eCtra Yapated in wetlands which are degraded (as that term
its used in Boction 30411 of the Coastsl Act. " The Guidelines
90 OR to state (P. 34) that 'restoration projects under this
APPrasGh may include uses that are rant Permitted in Section
30233 if the project meets all of the other requirements of
Bection 30231 and 30411 . 6
The Commission notes that the there are significant differences
between the Sallona wetlands and the Huntington Beach wetlands.
' na major diffarOnce between the two areas is the Department of
Dish and Game wetland determinations prepared for each area . The
BIG determined that the overall sallona wetland 8 stp
y m is severely
degraded and requires a major restoration plan. The Huntington�"
Beach wetlands , however , *hough determined to be degraded wetlands,
wire found by the bFG to be *not so severely degraded that major
restoration efforts are requiM. 9 (emphaisis added) (Dra
Deters
Aftotion of. the Status of the Huntington Beach"Iretla►nds,
e rust
sores 7 of the149. 9 acres of hiatoric wetl&,cdecontinue' to functionally viably as
wetlands* and major : restorati.on was not necessary to restore and
enhance, wetland values ,
The Commission finds that the recise ali nment of Hamilton Ave.
Can not be avorPed Q—Tthout the no
ctsssa —"F r env ronmenta
CU 066t a on —show n e IeM env roamen a aria �q feasible
tine Ve s e Cho saan a ernak vea. , However the OM as, on
fi
Maas a ere as a ned o rev I de; an a I t ern a t,■v r°.___�.r.....
enalleling VWX. or u c sarety nee s .
e Ca lasI.oa f"art er rinds that such minio iaation of im acts
• a n01114 • atamnnruJk acn o IMF r..oawas non
nn�en w c s moan ca is ve o we arts a a •s w e , ma
roqu r -th 6ntire rona to becon$ ruCte on__P1 lingo. OE o litr to&d
i na Stich As t r� over the wetlands---- as n a w
0 ro wa► narrow in anes —and ellm1nil n s au eYa an
re n r� u m a ion for. an m acts wit an e 4 ra ssfb
a a e ar w w ne• to s one before Is
x " our w nee o ad e uses a ties e
* e alti,ye Alignments br Nam on Ave. andv nee r«
o addxd�
e s a, 401M ee s gonerat.04Vroan each aM I L 4 Cn 01TveF
The City argues that the Commission has approved a number of reads,
such as Falmouth Avenue, as part of wetland modification proposals#
and that the extension of Hamilton would be aonaristsmt with these
previous decisions. The Commission disagrees . In most Of the
epectfic exaraPl4R Where the Commission has approved construction
within a wetland, the wetland was a *severely degraded wetl_,nd"
(e.q. Sallona and Bolsa Chico) . Inherent in the determination that,
a wetland system is a *severely degraded wetland" i,� the associated
/rJ n
'•'.p .1!41.
mom
yiy, F
Page 20
determination that is ' is not capable of recovering and maintaining
a high level of biological productivity without major restoration
activities. " in the case of the Huntington Beach wetlands , the
Department of fish and (bane has identified the wetlands as having
extremrdiaarily high values for bird habitat . Indeed, the nesting
intensity at the endangered Heldingws savannah sparrow is so high
in those areas that even enhancement activities are likely to be
eountetproductive� Thus, unlike the situation in the Hallona,
Aelas Chic&, Hatiquitos, Los Cerritos, and other wetlands,
intervention is not essential to assure the mainterianne of habitat
values, and restoration efforts are likely to be slight .
Although the City has indicated its intent to mitigate any wetland
fill resulting from this protect , the commission is concerned about
the practical problems of implementing wetland restoration
efforts. In reviewing the proposal to Cill approximately 110 acres
in outer Long reach Harbor, the commission heard testimony about
the practical problems involved in putting together wetland
restoration projects and having them successfully completed. These
problems are even more serious in an area like Orange County where
the market has set the acquisition cost of potentially restorable
land at extremely high levels. The practiced problems of
restoration are immense, as the Coastal Conservancy has found in
its restoration planning efforts for these wetlands. There are not
enough clearly defined uplands available to be able to assure
direct mitigation.
The City mairtaina that the Hamilton extension is needed as wan
alternative circulation route to Pacific Coast Highway" and in this
capacity would provide "visitor serving access to the beaches, as
well aa. . .an alternative route for non-visitor traffic . " The
extension would also, the City states, provide a route for fire and
emergency vehicles to the beaches and the downtown area , The
Commission finds, however, that the Coastal Act does not permit
fill in wetland in order to enhance access to the coast . The
Commission notes that Mmi.lton Avenue runs parallel to the coast
and its extension would not perceivably enhance access from inland
areas. The Commission is also concerned about the City's reference
to .•raisicg the entire structure on pilings it nacessat and the
proviaias of "a ra riate mitigation" (emphasis A e . it is not
�
clear who or ,wn&t disterarnes it pilings are "necessary* nor what' exactly it "appropriate" mitigation. The City, although stating
that the extension would serve emergency vehicles, has not
demonstrated any need for the extension based on public safety
concerns .
There is also no discussioa of feasible, !alternatives that would
avoid wetland fi-11 . such alternatives could include rerouting the
extension to avoid the wetlands* "bridging' the wetlands area to
prevent any fill for pilings , or a Combination thereof . The City
• did alternative roatings of the Hamilton extension in its
� 1
1 �
10
GOO
i,
+ A
SI
G page 21
r al aria 29 &Ipge -bJtOJDetiVO5 tar The 'White Hole' Areas
(R*VJXGG ROY ree alternatives nc u e
' 01+�#truction on pilings for the 1*n9th of the extension ( this
�r���►rnotiw0 would involve the most fi) l) t f) construction on
ctlIng: frc*e. beach boulevard to the tank farm ( thereby reducin
t 4n fill ) $ and 31 no project . The alternatives discussed ?n
,a the Vfs"too did #p►k inaiede an ext,--nsion which would not involve
'F wetld4 t Il 600h as on $%tension &.,rose the tank farm connecting
to a biiQge across the wetlandO between the tank farm and beach
•oulovard. The Commission further notes that the resubmitted Ldp
does not clearly indicate which alternative was chosen or why. The
discussion of the extension in the Lpp to vague and generLl in
"Sture: As discussed above, Section 30411 of the Coastal Act
allows uses in several degraded wetlands formally identified by
the DFG that . wou na be permitted pursuant to Section 30233 of
the Coastal Act if the project meets all of the other requirements
of Section 30333 and Section 30611 . suction 30411 states, in part ,
that any D?Q study of a dograded wetland snail include
consideration ofs
( 1) Whether the wetland is to severely degraded and its
nirural processes so substantially repaired that it is not
capable of recovering and maintaining a high level of
biological productivity without wajor restoration
activities.
The Commission notes that the DFG has, pursuant to Section 30411,
formally determined that the Ballona wetlands are severely degraded
and incapable of recovering and maintaining a high' T ve=f -1'I
biological productivity without major restoration efforts . In
contrast# the D?G made findings related to Section 30411 for the,
Huntington Beach wetlands which stated that sajor restoration
efforts are not required for the existing wetlands. The DrG fount
that$
These wetlands could easily be enhanced by reestablishing
controlled tidal flushing due to their existing low
elovat ion. . . ,trhei r immediate adjacency to the tidal water.& of
the flood control channel, and the demonstrated ease end
ot,ticiency with which this water may be used for restorative
purposes.
The Commission_further finch_ that feasible mitigation ."ieasures Tust
e erov'la;3-70r�'e rasa �taa wet and' f ro ects n oraer to
m n m ze a verse env'ironmen a e ecits or e rd ec . e Land
Use Fan reau m to rovide" as not;d a ova that e HAM Alton
y..anus ex ens un w minimize n acts on t e we an s. The 'LUP
a •a *�rs"E at EN-mi'nimi�t tin o m acts on the wt an s
nc u es raising t e entire s id ure an ling If neceasar ,and
a -gippropria e m gift ON a e provided . e �'Onc ,y 41
• on
/ ■ ��ii/1r.M11.Ni�. Y■IV■^w�� ■ IW����IY.+■■■�1�
th�IYW.�1«4 t
4
yv 5 • w
iS +Y:T
Page 22
it is tb Ciid
int n that no n!t lass of wetland
CC . •
r uc , v x we IkO64 by too or n
wee err n- n i � se ad
w b
CoN-16f
o i s t e
os b ss s
410 this--twoww n anal
ac e we rt rn o will
V eyy yyto .mh n m se t o ayverse � c o b to a the
can, s en wprovisions o • -ion a coastal Act .
The Commission finds, therefore* that though the Falmouth Avenue
extension was found by the Commission, in consultation with the
Department of Fish and Came, to be consistent with lection 30221
and Section 30411 of the Coastal Act► no such grounds esiat in the
case of the proposed Hamilton Avenue extension. The Runtinyton
Beach watlande, in contrast to the ballona wetlands$ are not so
severely degraded that major restoration efforts are required. The
Falmouth extension was found consistent with Sections 30233 and
30411 as it wag part of a major restoration plan for a severely
degraded wetland . These findings can not be made for the Namilton
extension. The Commission further finds ) thersEoro ► that for the
reasons discussed above► the Land Ure Plan is inconsistent with the
environmentally sensitive habitat, marine resources, and wetland
policies of the Coastal Act .
The Commission notes that the resubmitted LUP designates a seven
acre strip along Pacific Coast Highway between Beach Boulevard and
Mrwlana Street as *Visitor-Serving commercial" . This area has been
determined by the Department of Fish and name in its 1983
Determination of the Status of the Huntington Bench wetlands to be
up an an ormer wet an s Mch Is not restore eo, The proposed
visitor-serving uses would -;got therefore involve any fill of
wetland. The visitor-serving designation is appropriate as the
site is located at the terminus of the major access route ( Beach
Boulevard) from inland areas to the beach . The Commission finds,
therefore, that the land use designation of "Visitor-Serving
Commercial•► proposed for a seven acre strip along Pacific Coast
Highway; is Consistent with the environmentally sensitive habitat,
wetland, and public access policies of the Coastal Act .
w
M, 1
ram. .
mpdb
� .A
Page 23
I III . FINDINnS FOR SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS
A. Environmentally sensitive Habitat Areas
+ir_"_F-W I�a�. i w�+�AWIw��All i���•uu�
Of all the envlrohnientally sensitive habitat areas mentioned
specifically in tht Coastal Act , Wetlands are afforded the most
' stringent protection. In order to approve a project involving the
diking, filling, or dredging of a wetland, the Commission joust
first find that the project is one of the specific, enumerated uses
set forth in Section 30233 of the •Coastal Act . in addition,
permitted development in these areas rust meet the requirements of
other applicable provisions of the coastal Act . The Commission has
consistently found that protection of wetland rasourres is a high
priority of the Coastal Act, and has denied development which would
have resulted to the filling of wetlands (except for permitted uses
or where the development was part of a major restoration plin ) or
conditioned projects Lo avoid filling of wetlands . The Commission
finds that , for the reasons discussed above in the findinCs for
denial of the I,UP# the proposed Hamilton Avenue extension is not a
permitted use allowing fill of wetlands pursuant to Section 30233
of the Coastal Act . The Cor:•.mission finals that only as modified to
delete the proposed Ramilto'j Avenue extension as proposed 'would the
resebmittal LUP be consistent wit.. thm wetlands and environmentally
sen:citive. habitat policies of the Coastal Act . The Commission
further finds, therefore, that the Land Use Pl,%n, as modified,
conforms with Section 30233 and is consistent with the
environmentally sensitive habitat, marine resources, and wetland
policies of the Coastal %ct,
V. ENERGY FINDINGS
MwY�r,ww
Section 30260 of the Col stal Act provides:
Section 30260
CoAstal-d ierdeht industrial faeili* ies shall be
00couragod to .,cat* or *spand within existing sites and shall.
bid permittei rei;�ona ale long-term growth where consistent with
Lhis division. 4owever, whoa* new or expanded
coastal-dependen; industrial facilities cannot fea,aibly be
acco!nodated consistent with other policies of this division,
thoy may nonetheless be permitted in accordance wil-h this
section and Settion 30261 and 30262 if ( 1 ) alternative
locations are In'teasible, or word environmentally damaging, ( 2 )
to do otherwise would adversely affect the public welfare; and
( 3 ) adverse enVi rahmental effects are mitigated to the marximuii
extent feasiile .
T---1
Pit`
t
7K" •
1•
M
Page 24
Section 30764 of tht COUSta7l Act btates as follows :
- Section 33264
Notwithstanding any other provision of this divi.gion,
except subdivisions ( b) and ,c) of Section 30413, now or
expanded t.hernal. elcictrIc generating plants may be constructed
z; in the coastal,, $ope i.1 tna propostd coastal -site has been
determl'hed b} the State Energy Resources Conservation and
Development Commission to have greater relative merit pursuant
to the provisions of Section 25516 . 6 than available alternative
sues and related facilities for an applicant 's service area
vhtah have been determined to be ac 2eptaale pursuant to the
ptov�i4ions of Section 25516.
A. Power Plant Siting and Bxpansion.
1 . EacUround
The C049tai act and the Warren Alqui.st Act ( Energy Commission
LegiraUtion) . provide a combined approach to power plant ailing �
vithi'n the coastal zone with the California Energy Commission givern
,
the overall permit authority for power plant siting within the
r xtateo other state and local agencies , participbt.o in the Energy
Commission siting proceedings ,e f-Iterveners. However , the Coastal
Lommission has a special role with regard to siting power plants in
the coastal zone. The following discussion describes the
Commission role relative to the Energy Commission and the need for
ad"Va►te• policies in „the LUP to assure that coastal.. protection
policies are implemented during power plant siting procedures. . j
2. Areas Unsuitable Bower Plant Siting
The N#)astal .Act ( Section 39413 (b) ) requires the Commission to
Masignate" areas where thii. construction of an electric power plan.
would pteveat a chievenent of the objectives of tho Coastal Pict .
The snerq� commission oanno%: i* rove the constructiors or, operation
Of any thsreal power pan n an urea that has been designaite}d by
tha' Coasiission in tbia, process. $estion 30413(b) requIres that. the
Coa�tisxi6n not designate specific locations �-hich are �pr.49' ent.iy
seed tot parer plants or aer:rrounding areas that ooui ld j�a used for
"reasonable expansion" of they facilities.
3., Power ' plant Siting Proc-cdi
Whenever the Snergy Commissio" eaercisen its siting authority and
undertakes proceedings for the posoible location of a power plant
within the coastal zone# the Coastal Commission prepares a speeif .-,
report on the proposal. - The Commission prepares this report for
the firxt N+:ama of the siting p:, _ess where several sites are
womb Y
Page 25
cvalum'-.Nd and une or two are ranked and grant.,id conceptual approval
( NuLO-.L of Int.rantion , iN01 ) , and during the actual permit or
certiEicaticn process for one site (Appli cat l.on for Cps: t i oration
AFC) . The Commissi an report includes an analysis of the potential
i.mpQct!� of the proposed pro;ec;t and possible mel.hods to mitigate
the impact:: . The Enerqy Commission :;luat implcment the
recomioondation included in the report~ unless to do so would result
in yret'+ ter environmental damage or would not be feasible .
4 . lames Relating to the Huntington Beach Power Plant Areas
be s i c�ri a ,"a R ` j'o� Suitable ._.. _
- . _
As p;. .: : of the Commission ' s adopted Power Plant Siting SLudy,
" Designation of Coastal Zone Ar^as Where Construct -.or-, oZ. an
Electric Power Plant Would Prevent Achievement of the objectives of
the California Coastal Act of 1.9760 , Nov . 1979) the Commisetou has
designated some of the property south of the Huntington Beach Power
Plant: as unsuit- :.ble for siting because of valuable wetland
habitat: . The designated wetland system extends south of the
existing Huntington Beach Power Plant as discussed in this report .
However, the northwest portion of the wetland was not designated as
uncuita,ble so that reasonable expansion of the facility would not
be precluded by the designations . (This non-designation of the
wotlard area in Huntington Beach was not Faized on resource value or
suitability for siting , but rather on tie requirements of the Act
that reasonable expansion not be precluded . ) The power plant
presently has room to expand into the mud dump area north of the
Talbert; Channel rather than into the wetland . As stated
p,r;; vioasly, the Commission must assure that reasonable expansion of
the power plant is not precluded by the power plant resource
protection designations.
5 . Edison Notice of Intention
The Commission in October 1978 ur,animousll adopted a report can the i
Edison Combined Cycle Power Plant Notice of Intention concerning
the proposed expansion of the existing Huntington Beach Poker Plant
facility. The Commission found that the must serious impacts of
the proposed power plaint expansion would be thn filling of the
adjacent wetland and the associated environmentally sensitive
habitat. The resource value of this area has been discussed
above. The Commission found that the area inland of the existing
facilities could provide a fea rible lees environmentally damagir..g
alternative location for expansion of the Huntingtor. Beach
facility. Section '10232 of the Coastal Act matndatee that energy
facilities can only be sited in w _tlar.;;s if there is no feasib.Le
Ia.aa' environmentally damaging alternative, if the . functional
capacity of the wetland fit maintained or enhanced, and if
mitigation atcasures have been provided to minimize the adverse
*nvironmentril effects. The Commission report directed the Energy
Commission to analyze ani reach conclusions regarding the
Uasibility of power plant construction and the potential
��
r
Paoe 26
environmental damagea asn - ated with, the uce of t1he inlaid area in
place of the wetland. Th( report stated t'r.at if such conclusions
of feasibility could be re-shed , then the :...pansion should occur on
the inland area thus avoiding or minimizing the use of wetland
areas for proposed power plant facilities . If expansion could only
occur on the wetland adjacent to the (-Misting power plant and
northwest of Magnolia Street the Commission report than recommended
that Edison be required to acquir,� and restore the wetlands to the
south of the affectid area .
Additionally a permit ( A-342-78 Sand Dollar ) for a 9 :tot industrial
subdivision was denie, during this period because of the
possibility of using t .ie inland proN )rty for expansion of Edison
inatead of wetland should the Energy Commission choose Huntington
Beach from the four sites . However: , when the proposed expansion
was not approved for Huntington Beach , the coastal permit waD
issuedp releasing the inland property for development . The
existing mud dump hiiwever , still remaina a potential area available
for energy facility expansion .
S. Previous Comni..ssi.on Finding
The Commission found in ita 1931 action on the City ' s LISP that the
resubmitted plan failed to conform to the energy and resource
protection policies of the Coastal Act in relation to power plant
siting and expansion . The Commission found that the proposed
01ndustrial Energy Production" land use designation did not provide
standards which require the expansion of the power plant facilities
in Eeasible less environmentally damaging alternative sites first,
such as the mud dump and the designation also failed to incorporate
standards to ensure protection of wetland resources in conjunction
with allowable energy expansion if alternative inland sites are
infeasible . In its suggested modifications, the Commission
recommended that the designation of the ar & including and south of
the power plant to the Santa Ana River be changed from "Visitor
Serving Commercial• and "Industrial. Energy Production• to
"'Conservation/Industriral Energy" . The Commission further found
that power plant facilities should be prohibited in the area
soutt'east of Magnolia Street as specified in the power plant sitina
study . The suggested modifications contained three policy
modifications which development within the area designated
"Conservation/Industrial Energy" would be subject to:
1 . Such uses shall be permitted conaistent with othar
prrovidfone of the LUP only where ti)ere is no feasible,
lose environmentally damaging alternative and where
■sximu!sr feasible mitigation measures have been provided to
minimize adverse envirorkmen'441 effectse and the functional
Capacity of the wetland is maintained of enhanced,
Page 27
2 . As a condition preceaent to any energy facility expansion
or development into the wetlands south cof the p.awer plant
and north of Magnolia Street energy facility expansion
inland to the Mud trump must be undertaken or the
infeasibility of doing so demonstrated . The Jeterminatior.
of inf earl ibi lity will be made by the Energy Corimi s ;ion
during or before the Notice of intention Procenlin-is.
3 . if further expansion or developmenw of power plant
facilities and necessary accessory facilities on the
inland site is infeasible or causes greater environmental
damage as determined in #2 above , then such power plant
expansion may he permitted north of Magnolia Street
pro-ided that not less than two and one half acres of
wetlands south of Magnolia are permanently protected by
conservation easements , dedications or other similar
mechanisms for each acre of wetlands filled for
development, and that a program acceptable to the Dept . of
Fish and Game is implemented to assure long term hob?.t;at
enhancement or restoration of these protected wetlands .
Vehicular access shall be prohibited in conservation
easement areas.
The Commission concluded that the suggested modifications were
necessary in order to provide for a reasonable expansion of the
existinq power plant consistent with the protection of wetland
resaur',cEg. The first priority for siting power plant facilities ,
the Cumm.-ision found, would be at any available inland site. The
Commission furthic found that the City ' s LUP should contain
conditions for energy expansion into wetlands which would ensure
specific mitigation and maintenance of the functional capacity of
the wetland .
In its 1982 acticn certifying the LUP in geographic part, the
Commission denied the portions of the LUP which applied to the
wetlands areas of the city , i .e, the MWD parcel and the Beach
Boulevard to Santa hna River area. The findings for denial in
geographic part concentrated on two policy areas: energy and
environmentally sensitive habitats. in regard to energy, the
C%>smi.ssion found that :
The LUP as resubmitted proposes no mcdifications to the plan as
it relates to land use d::aiga&tions on the parcels adjacent to
the existing thermal power plant . As the Commission found in
its previous oction on th• LUP the proposed land use
designation, • Industrial Energy Production" fails to provide
specific standatdi fos expansion of power plants and 'rbitigation
for such expansion,
The Costiust6n found that the proposed land use designation of
61ndustrial Energy* and other LOP policies did not conform with the
pollelgi or ChApter I if the Coastal Act and were not consistent
Page 28
with previous Commission findings fox the rdison Notice of
Intention (NOT ) or the Commission power plant study designations .
in order to find the proposed land use designations consistent with
the Coastal Act , the Commission determined that :
1 . The land use designations must specify permitted 1s5F and
such uses should not preclude reasonable expansion of the
existing Huntington geaoh power Plant as indicated in
Section 30413 ( b ) of the Coastal Act .
2 . 'she land use designations must reflect the previous
Commission findings that power plant expansion priority
should be given to the area inland of the Talbert Channel ,
and, conditions of and mitigation measures for an energy
expansion into wetlands must be provided consistent with
the mandatory provisions of Section 30213 and the energy
!' policies of the Coastal Act .
i . The land use designations must protect wetland area3 which
are not required • for reasonable expansion of the existing
Huntington Beach power Plant, consistent with Section
30233 of the Act and Commission findings of the power
plant siting study.
C. FindfnSson the Resubmittal of the LUP for the Wetlands Area
Irom Beach Boulevard to the Santa Ana River Re-gar ng Ener
Ydr�W.\M pl �
Expansion
The City +n its resubmittai of the LUP has redesignated a 17-acre
parcel adjacent to the Edison power plant as " Industrial Energy
Production/Conservation" . A "Conservation" overlay has been
applied to the original land use designation of `industrial Energy
Production" . The intent of the overlay as explained in the
resubmittal is:
. . . to protect certain unique or environmentally sensitive areas
without precluding other options which may be allowed under the
Coastal Act.. Conditions to be imposed by the overlay include
mitigation measures to maintain or enhance the functional
capacity of the wetland.
In the `Area-By-Area Discussion" suction of the Land uee Plan, the
City farther describes the intent of the "industrial Energy
Production/Conservation" designation as fallow$ :
The designation is intended to allow the area to serve as a
Conservation area for the short term, but be available for
possible future Expansion of the power plant , if necessary, :Ln
the long terra, ' provided that, there is no feasible, less
environmentally damaging alternative, and appropriate
mitigation in provided.
r•
Paae 29
The Commission ' s concerns as discussed above include provision for
the reasonable expansion of the power plant and protection of
identified wetland areas . The new land ose designations for the
area between Beach Bouie,4&rd And the Santa Ana Rivur address thase
concerns . The proposed " Industrial Energy Production/Conservation"
designation is protective of wetland resournes on the parcel
aditcent to the power plant but also does not preclude the
expansion of the plant into that area if it is deemed that 'there
is no feasible, 16ss environmentally damaging alternative and
appropriate mitigation is provided . " The Commissior, notes that
feasible less environmentally damaging alternatives include power
;plant expansion inland of the Talbert Channel . The overlay
requires than conditions on future development , i . e , power plant
expansion, incliide mitigation measures to maintain, or enhance the
Functional capacity or the wetland. The Commission notes that in
previous actions where wetland fill has been approved for permitted
uses, such proiects were required to restore wetlands, then at
ratios of 2/1 or gieater, in order to ensure that r,o net loss of
r
wotla►nd occurred . The Cityi N s Conservation overlay recognizes the
need for wetland restoration by requ!.ring condition$ that include
mitigation measures which maintain or enhance the functional
capacity of the wetland.
The Commission finds, therefore, that the "Conservation"
dasignation for the area south of the Edison plant and the adjacent
17-acre •Industrial Energy Production/Conservation' designated
parcel is consistent with the Commiasio n ' s 1902 finding that the
proposed land use designation for 'rhe area not required for
reasonable expansion of the power plant must protect wetland
areas . The Commission :finds , therefore , that for the rta sons
discussed above the land use designations proposed in the
resubmitted LUP are consistent with the energy and wetland policies
of the Coastal Act .
VI . PUBLIC A"CESS FINDI14CS
Sections 30001. 5. 30210, 30211, and 30214 of the Coastal Act
provide that MaAximum 'accees shall be provided, and that development
shall not interfere with the public ' s right of access to the sea
where acquired through use or legislative authcrization. Section.
30212 further requires that public access from the nearest public
read to that sea shall be provided in new development , And Section
30214 provides that arfquirements for public access take into
account tlta time, place and manner of the access.
A 6"Cific public ,access component for huntin ton -Beach was
certified by the Co, mission on November 17, 1182 aP part of the
CIPY's certified in geographic part Gap. The City has included the
Coastal 111toent, which contains the certified public accsass
poi
Page 30
policies and standards, ab part of the resubmittal . The Commission
found in its 1982 action , the findings for which are hereby
incorporateu by ref.�renQe , that the LUP maximized public access
consistent with Sections 30210 , 30211 , and 30214 of the Coastal
Act , The area governed by the resubmittal ;Uttr is bounded by Beach
Boulevard , the Santa Ana River , and Pacific; Coast Highway and does
not include any shoreline frontage. The area does, however,
contain environmentally sensitive habitat areas, i . e . wetland ,
coastal dune, and upland habitats . The certified Coastal Element
contains a public access policy in the "Environmentally Sensitive
Habitats" ,section which states as follows :
6 . 2 . 4 public Access
In coordination with the aesthetic and biological
enhancement of the wetlands , the City encourages
low-impact public access to allow nature stud} and
enjoyment c,: amenities . The City will investigate
strategiep to provide boardwalks , peripheral trails ,
interpretive exhibits and ether educational
face 'Litiea in or adjacent to coastal wetlands so long
as auch acti -iities do not significantly disrupt any
habitat values or impair the viability of the i
eccoystcm.
The commission finds, therefore , that the resubmitted LUP contains
public access policies which maximize public access consistent with
Sections 30210, 30211 , and 30214 of the Coastal Act . The
Commission further finds that the resubmitted LUP provides for
public access in environmentally sensitive habitat areas when
consistent with protection of the habitat .
VII , OTHER CUSTAL ELEMENT POLIC19S
he noted above, the City has resubmitted the certified Coastal
Element as pari, of the LUP resubmittal for the area of deferred
certification between Beach Boulevard and the Santa Ana Piver . The
Coastal Element includes policieL regarding public access ( see
previous section ) , energy ( see section V) 9 viaua►l resourcesc
environmentally sensitive habitats/diking dredging and filling ,
recreation and visitor-serving facilities, haEard,a, new
development, water and marine resources, and shoreline structures .
The Commission in its action certifying the LUP in geographic part
made findings as to the cons istertwy of these policies with the
Coastal Act. Those findings are hereby incorporated by reference .
The Cossi.ssion finds, therefore, that as applied to the geographic
area from Beach Boulevard to the Santa Ana River, the policies
referenced above are consistent with Seet.ons 30210, 30211, 3021f,
30222, 3025a, - 362510 30232 , 30262. 30260, 30233, 30240, 30253,
30235t 30230, and 30231 of the Coastal Act because as found in the
(Wnfn i ve i nn 0 4 nrawi nila act ion, they:
h
Page 31
1 ) assure access consistent with the Coastal Act pfovisions
to maximize public success ( Sections 30210 and 30211 )
2 ) assure visitor facilities will be provided consistent with
Section 30220 , 30221 and 30222
3) provide policies to protect wetlsnd and other
environmentally sensitive habitat area and assure that
adjacent development will not significantly degrade
resources ( Sections 30233 , 30230, 30231 , and 30246 )
4 ) provide for energy development consistent with Sections
30232, 30262, and 30260
5 ) minimize risks and assure safety and structural stability
of new developire:iti consistent with Section 30253
6 ) assure access consistent with resource protection
including visual access to scenic resources ( Section 30251 )
7 ) protect water and marine resources by controlling runoff
( Sections 307 'r' ind 3023.L1 and protection against spill&
( Section 302-1. ,
Vtzi . CEQA rINDINGS
1 . Consistency with_
CEQA !
Pursuant to Se 1073, which amended the California Environmental
Quality Act , the Coastal Commission is the lead agency in terms of
meeting California Environmental (2uality Act ( CEQA) requirements
for local coastal programs . to addition to making ra finding that
the LUP is in full compliance with CEQA, the commission must make a
finding that the least environmentally damaging feasible
alternative is chosen. Section 21080 . 5 (d) ( 2) ( i ) of the Public
Resources Code requires that the Commission not approve or adopt an
hCP:
. . . if there are' feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation
measures available which would substantially lesson any
significant adverse impact which the activity may have on the
environment.
The three alternatives considered by the City �included various
ration of development to open space conservation . Alternative One
was the least intensive in terms of development and designated
approximately 124 acre, of *V.onservation• area and five acres for
vViattor-Searing Commercial• use. Alternative Two featured 76
acres of 0eanaervaition" , ten acres of "Visitor-Serving) Commercial" ,
thctst acres of "General Corcmetcial" , and 38 acres of "Medium
Density kesidential " . Alternative Three was the most intenvive
1
r
Page 32
proposal with only 27 acmes of "Conservation " , tan acres of
wVi.sitor -Serving Commercial " , five acres of ' General Commercial " ,
74 acren of "Medium Density Residential" , and 13 acres of
"office" . AA11 three altenatives deuignated 17 acres adjacent to
the Edison power plant as "conservation/ln9ustr, ia•l Energy
i Frod!iction" .
f Section 30233 of the Coastal Act oiitlines permittedt uses for which
fill of wetlands may be permitted . Development is permitted in
wetlands only for certain uses and only when there is no feasible
less environmentally damaging alternative and mitigation measures
have been provided to minimize adverse environmental effects .
Alternative3 Two and Three would result in a net loss of wetla,•d
and therefore raise questions of inconsistency with Section 30233 '
of the Coastal Act. Residential , general commercial , office and
visitor-serving uses are not uses for which fill is permitted in
wetlands .
The City has resubmitted a Land Use Plan ( for the area of deferred
certification from Beach Boulevard to the Santa Ana River ) which �
essentially adopts the land use designations proposed in the most
environmentally protective alternative reviewed by the City,
Alternative Ctie. CEQA requires that the Commission make findings
that the least environmentally damaging feasible land use
alternative has been incorporated into the LCP , and , that there are
' no feasible mitigation measures available that could w1bstantially
reduce adverse environmental impacts. The Commission finds , for
the reasons discussed in this staff report , that the resubmitted
Land Use Plan is the least environmentally damaging feasible land
use alternative and that there are no feasible mitigation measurer•
available that could substantially reduce adverse environmental
impacts . The Commission further finds, therefore, that the
resubmitted Land Use Plan is consistent with Section
21080. 5 ( d ) ( 2 ) ( i ) of the Public Resources Code .
w
1731A
N • 1
ARTICLE 4
MARINE ENVIRONMENT
Section 30,230.
Marine resources shall be maintained, enhanced, and where Vasible,
restored. Special protection shall be given to areas and so,?O es of special
biological or economic significance . Uses of the marine environment shall be
carried out in a mariner that will sustain the biological productivity of
coastal waters and that will maintain healthy populations of all species of
marine organisms adequate for long-term commercial , recreational . scientific. ,
and educational purposes .
Secti31 .
The biological productivity and the auality of coastal waters , streams ,
wetlands, estuaries , and laki.s appropriate to maintain optimum populations of
w-rine organisms and for tho protection of human health shall be maintained
and, where feasible, restored through, among other means , minimizing adverse
effects of waste water discharges and entrainment, controlling runoff,
preventing depletion of ground water supplies and substantial interference with
surface water flow, encouraging waste water reclamation, maintaining natural
vegetation buffer areas that protect riparian habitats, and minimizing
alteration~ of natural streams.
Section 30232.
Protection against the spillage of crude oil , gas, petroleum products , or
hazardous substances shall be provided in relation to any development or
transportation of such materials . Effective containment and cleanup facilities
and procedures shall be provided for accidental spills that d-a occur.
Sectign 30 33.
(a) The diking, filling, or dredging of open coastal waters, wetlands,
estuaries , and lakes shall be permitted in accordance with other applicable
provisions of this division, where there is no feasible less environmentally
damaging alternative, and where feasible mitigation measures have been provided
to minimize adverse environmental effects, and shall be limited to the
following:
Ili glow or expanded port, energy, and coastal-dependent industrial
facii tas, including commercial fishing facilities.
(2) Maintaining existing, or restoring previously dredged, depths in
existing navigational channels, turning basins, vessel berthing and mooring
areas, and boat launching romps.
(3 In wetland areas only. entrance channels for new or expanded boating
facilit es; and in a degrided wetUrid, identified by the Department of Fish and
ibme pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 30411 , fo.% boating facilities if ,
in cunj unction with such beating facilities , a substantial portion of the
degraded wetland is restored and maintained as a biologically productive
wetland. The size of the vietland area used for boating facilities , including
berthing space , turning basins , necessary navigation channels , and any
necessary suppovt service I'ac.ilities , shall not exceed 25 percent: of the
degraded wetland. 6.
(4) 1n opera coastal waters , other than wetlands, including streams,
estuaries , and lakes, new or expanded boating facilities and the placement of
structural piling,.; for public recreational piers that pr*vide public access and
recreationdl opportunities .
(5) Incidental public service purposes , including but not limited to,
burying cables and pipes or inspection of piers and maintenance of existing
intake and outfall lines .
(6) Mineral extraction , including sand for restoring beaches , except in
environmentally sensitive arp ;s.
(7) Restoration purposes.
(8) Nature study, aquaculture, or similar resource deperrant activities.
(b) Dreaging and spoils disposal shall be planned and carried out to
avoid significant disrgption to marine and wildlife habitats and water
circulation. Dredge spoils suitable for beach replenishment should be
transported for such purposes to appropriate beaches or into suitable long
shore current' systems .
(c) In addition to the other provisions of this section, diking, filling ,
or dredWing in existing estuaries and wetlands shall maintain or enhance the
functional capacity of the wetland or estuary. Any alteration of coastal
wetlands identified by the Department of Fish and Game, including, but not
limited to, the 19 coastal wetlands identified in its report entitled,
"Acquisition Priorities for the Coastal Wetlands of California' , shall be
limited to very minor incidental public facilities, restorative measures,
nature stu'ey, carrrnercit,-- fishing facilities in Bodega gay, and development in
already, Oveloped parts of south San Oiego Bay, if otherwise In accordance with
this division.
For the purposes of this section, "commercial fishir:g facilities in Bodega
Bay" paeans that not less than 80 pe;,vcent of all boating deilities proposed to
be developed or improved, where such improvement would create additional berths
in Bodega Bay, shall be designed and used for conasercial fishing activities.
(d) Erosion control and flood control facilities constructed on water
courses care impede the movement of sediment end nutrients which would otherwise
be carried by storm runoff into coastal waters . To facilitate the continued
doli•very of these sediments to the littoral zone, whenever feasible, the
rmcterial removed from these facilities mAy bel placed at appropriate points on
the shoreline in accordance with other applicable provisions of this division,
where feasible mitigation measures have been provided to minimize aiverse
j
i
envi rorimental of tects . Aspeets that shall be considered before issuing a
coastal development permit for such purposes are the method of plat m nt. time
of year of placement, and sensitivity of thw place-tient area
i
(Amended by Ch. 673, Stats. 1078. )
(tended by Ch. 43, State, . 11992 . )
(Amended by Ch. 1167, Staffs . 1982 .)
(Amended by Ch. 454, Scats. 1983. )
Soctigp
Facilities serving the conniercial fishing and recreational boating
iirdustries shall be protected and, where feasible , upgraded. Existing
commercial fishing and recreational boating harbor space shall not be reduced
unless the demand for those facilities no longer exists or adegLate substitute
space has been providers. nroposed recreational boating facilities shall , where
f feasible, be designed arr located in such a fashion as not to interfere with
the needs of the Commercial Fishing industry.
Wti4 -,2w22151.
Revetments , breakwaters, groins` harbor channels , seawalls , cliff
retaining walls , and other such construction that alters natural shoreline
processes shall be permitted when required to serve coastal-dependent uses or
to protect existing structures or public beaches in danger from erosion, and
when designed to eliminate or mitigate adverse impacts on local shoreline sand
supply. Existing marine structures causing water stagnation contributing to
pollution problem and fish kills should be phased out or upgraded where
feasible.
sect on „a0ja6.
Channelizations, dams , or other substantial alterations of rivers and
streams shall incorporate the best mitigation measures feasible, and be limited
to ( 1) necessary water supply projects, (2) flood control projects where no
other wthod for protecting existing structures in the floodplain is feasible
and Were such protection is necessary for public safety or to protect existing
developarenr„,ors (3) developments where the primary function is the improvement
of ffia;h and wildlife habitat.
5ec�19a7,.
(a) This sectioe shall apply only to the Bolsa Chica wetlands or a
Portion thereof ire the County of Orange.
The County of Orange or any landowner may petition the Departnwnt of Fish
and Game, on or before October 1 , 19103, to prepare a habitat conservation
plan. upon receipt of the per iti on,, the Department of Fish and Game and the
State Coastal Conservancy, in cooperation with 'the county and any landowner,
shall jointly prepare a habitat conservation plan in order to carry out the
following objectives:
( 1) To provide for the conservation of the habitat of fish and wildlife
resources.
( Z) To anticipate and resolve potential conflicts between the
Conservation of fish and wildlife resources or their habitat and actions by
Iccal , state , or feueral agencies and pri .-ate persons .
( 3) To provide for greater certainty and predictability i'egardincg the
conservation, of fish and wildlife resources and 'their habitat and regarding
private znd public activities potential affecting those resources.
(b) With respect to the preparation of the hanit�!t conservation plan, the
Department ar Fish and Game shall be the lead .agency for wetland identification
purposes and the State Coastal Coiservanc:y small be the lead agency for the
piirp,se= of identifying land use alternative:s . Uann cumpletion of the habitat
conservation plan and on or before July 20, 1g84 , the Department of Fish and
Rame and the State Coastal Conservancy shall jointly forward it to the
comission for 4pprovai . The commission shall approve the plan if it: Finds it
raises no substantial issue as to conformity with the planning and management
policies of this chapter. If the= plan is approved by the Corm.lssion , it may be
incorporate) into the county' s "local coas'tdl program..
(c) All Costs of preparation of the habitat conservation plan , including,
but not limited to, additional necessary personnel temporarily appointed by •Lhe
Department of fish and Game and the State Coastal Conservancy, shall be paid by
the petitioner or petitioners. If additional persunnel are necessary, the
Departswnt of Finance sheil review the requests to ensure that the personnel
required will be utilized to tarry out only the purposes of this section . If
the Department of Finance finds the rdditional personnels required w'll be
utilized only to carry out the purposes of this section, the temporakI°;,
appointment requests shall, be processed and approved by the Department of �
Finance in an expedited fashion, in no event longer thin 10 working days after
the requests are made. flu►-thermore, these requests for temporary appointments
shall be exempt from all state personnel hiring requirements, for the review
provided in this subdivision by the Department of Finance, and from any
personnel hiring limitations during the time period set forth in this section
for the preparation of the habitat conservation plan.
(Added by Ch. 12039 Stats , 1983.)
u
V
United Sates Dep.irftnem of the Interior
iw � 1
. FISH A.ND «'PUXlF`: 5rRti10E
u.., ....-� / L( L'Nil, t Ir0M FIELD OFFICE
24000 Asi i 1,i P oa d
I.�7,CJ �• Cae.1 —iA40:niA 941656
19 March 1986
Jeanine Frank , Senior Planner
irepar tment of IX-reloi.nkrent Services
P. Q. eon: 190 f 2000 .Rain Stwreeh
Huntington Beach , CA 92643
•
Re . Huntington Beach Non-Certified Coastal Ax tas -
P:e%4 -4iminary Urzft Analysis of Lard Use ; terna_ive.
Dear .Ms. Franc
The Fish and �4ildlife Savice (FWS) has examined the referenced i
document, provided under your cover letter dated 21 Feacuary
1986 , and offers the fgllowing comments.
First, we suggest that. Area Description and Histery section or.
Vpage 2 , include a summaries of the biological char mcter of the
Carce,ls, the Federal c egulatory invol-cement through Section 404
of the Clean Water Act , ; nd the fish and wildlife values
attributed to them by the i,WS and the California Department of
Fish and Game. We believe out views un the bi;clogic value of the
wetland pat,rcels in their present condition ure well known to the
City , but have enclosed for your reference, a 9 April I M letter
to the Carps of Engineers on the subject of pending permit to
fill a portion near Beach Bou1•awazd.
We suggest that the fiscal considerations include an evaluatioc i
of the public costs of the proposed land use scenarios , in �
Addition to the tax "benefits " auccuing to the City, 1 + is our
understanding 'that various types of developments may have I
considerable hidden coats associated with them. Demands on
public services would presumably remain very low with a wetland
conservation alternative , aA well as not .incurring old well
cappLnq and peat sgils construction coats.
Tt.exe also seem to be public benefits of some: alternatives that
are not well evaluated. 10oc example, "o P seriously flood prone
area such as this, a flood cot:ardi,ng f anct.ion of a "'restored
wetland" parcel could offer significant public benefit, not to
xenbion the fish and wildlife benefits.
A logics I thread throagbaut then eocument se%.:as to ir: that ihe;
City is a land speculator with a nigh priority for obtaining come
liocal gain. The docvment: also seems in_,rdinstely int 2retsted In
it.3 considf• ration of private " ez-ut. ;% on lr.'.%os::.nE-n l
(p.. 61 , p. 6 � ) . cnLLairy to the star. ncn ;-. ur. pa •e 6 • , }1 �
majovity o 'A` ;:he .Land in q•aertion i. s a1r (., ady owned by p!i1ba. ic
agencies and a puhl.ic utili In.y. About forte th ee psrcent (64 out
of 147 acres ) is rcivat:el•., ownr-,!. Soar : of Weiland ac.= . na3 3t'
conzi. dered in doc �ine :i ': xS a A tly .. n-ico-1 er '. in pending
Ii !,9,4t3.cn wh -: (.!I Was ? ti, a ��u by t.`Ios•-. -.-:.;►e �• .: %7a :�: ow Ile ru.
This lzif—t :r pain - ha -5 apparently toreztalled ;.-%Il sof orts : to
ft
(!a, te, to resolve thu 1korl -te.—m status of the wh: t1z :id p3rceis .
Re,•na: !c5 offered or, rage di , Le,;trding outright pur �:hase, sh ,u1d
by mended to more cle,; rly indicate that purchase zc prt�senr. ly
appraised value is apparently po 3ible. We understand that: Che
easternmo�!t parcel i r expect. .-- I to be ,gold by CALTRANS to the
Coastal Con3er. vancy, at the value appraised under the -existing
xona ev9i. 9n3t :. (jns ( LUDI LVD-•FP1J and wet-.land status . It; imay 1,e
the private owner's wi,1_',i.n9ners to sell a: app�; wised value that:
determine._, whether any change is .ache to MLI---h ref the other
wetland acreage. x':: ey nav elect, to hold the !.and pending some
more personally tavora le wir:coxist:ances, Fcw�;ver , -n inverse
condemnation argument would see:a tc have no merit:, either at the:
present time or after a change in zonr. ees:gnaticn. We slxggest a.
` ►ora extensiv-� discuaa io; of the outright purchase possibilities.
f AS for land use altern:� ti.ves , we would like LO sue- pGt: that all
existing wetlani parcels bet:wien Beach Blvd, and arookh:rrst kra. �
be considered for a special p. eserve statue, principally for the
S_•lding° s sarannah sparrow, J1gA11-g1LJ.Lj �. ,ndw iche.ns i s 1�cl )Lusi.
Available a i- deuce su5gesWs to us Lhac the present nestinr Use ,
particularly of the Magnolia to Srooklhurst varc9.''. by ti;is State
endar:ge : ed bird , and Pedersl candidate foe endangere'.1 or
tht4at:er.ed status , may, warrant: prase :vation of the area in its
lfexisting condition, That: is, some of the wetland area may be of
such high quality for Belding's savannah sparrow nesting that no
alteration would be appr. o2r iate. A thorough nesting census of
all the Subject parcel: would aeacr lavaluatble foe determin: at the
appropriate extent (if such a preserve, however.
Should one or mare parcelr best be preserved as Belding' s
savannah sparrow nPotiir+g prese-- ie, levee removr.l should likely
not occur. Also, as stared, any such levee removal, even
addition of culvr - ts, may rdquica construction of another levee
or berm entirely around the subject parcel to prevent: floodwater
inundation of ad ,ja gent lowlands . Such berms could have
slqhifica.nt footprints in the existing wetland.
The various locati'ons any', techniques for restoration of tidal
influence deserve's additional discussion and ,detail i:n :he
referenced document. Complete levee removal, au shown-an Ftgurc
3.2, ,paga 24 r may alreaed•v, be accounted for or may not be f ens.1ble
or desiceable. For axample, hhe 1 .12 acre wetland habitat gain
attributed to ltie¢ removal at the easternmost parcel is already
being considered as a restoration ber.* it: to be weighed against 1
habitat losses of Oraw-e County's proposed Talbert Channel
improvement protect.
2
qt,+�• .. +.. ! '� i. Itt''. �� :+. �. (l .'. :.�� (71 t.:il t.t' :Ct'. n on C•t.. N bn �n� �-
�tYyLJ a:-,C! h�
.,1 iJ.;i:t::1 ll
l: t: o� trill? n .;OCI il•.". t:
rldFJ+:' :.! 7ll:it L :
1 . tl ..; .' 1" ;: :?1 ' i; !'►�i 1i !1 +�i1 ac'L
(a;��i +�1. (Ji": 1'.`i: i: 1 .l�Pub= i ' ', .:�(:i_1_.:+'_'rJ n1 J 0 ZtCr (2 i tJ ~1-1or'i._.
nCi '' (. .,1 ;'i,al'Ita An Iti ','t f: ri. oLit:`1 -inrl i.1 acci!
owntiCt i 1'i w Lit:1Ci ri,"ir _ �', I:C: cC' tiliIUc d �.as c.lea'. �.�� �"ibla land p
r; !:t7 i ': t nr wer). in el
tr b& Changecl iIl .a Cun n.ia.
k'i Det: l: '! CiU '.: tion of Wt? t1 .' ud arZa would r. esult:,. We do
I10t- Unutti r .itarlct how th 2 In5_, aI" wet,l: ndi at 4 "dC", elopment:: node "
co ;i 'I d t eI .-. l: :: Lo t:ht? ., t,,%!o f :: .l e ri L 6 1 tr1.sv , the doculment
!n S tl pr:' r: ., u fl0- frh '. 1 +: c: � removaI ? nd t:i1 !e!r u1. taZI wet. IaIn
I1 ;3J : t:1? cl i, ;; .. „ i.'UI. Ci i)e a "!' c?Ll �. l : '': i. r t: radeaCL ( COL' CkiC pcov)o e
rtii f. ] �.1. � :;r,:a "ret.`.trn on property invesLl.lent. '. 'rr � again co
I:Crt: L_"iC'•_' i ;'..a:i-] t1he L'e1 tionsilip of t'ho o- 11-- o t'he Coast4al
Act to C1 t 11, t '_ f.- � t. 3 UC t: 0 rile pu !D .. C;
IISt ., '�tilE' appe.-arance i. :: that o ; a ]. and tr :, ._ �� _ � � ;nation
1. I1•rol ves a di ;l' i. n'. ?hi.r! r high pri.orit y r_' eSOUr' ce
'A'i_t.1ozrid, j.r ravor oz pci_vace economic considcrzti.crls.
.is VCr-1 leased that t_he CI. t v has :: cstimcd cons ::J,l at:.ion �
of the uncertit.'. ed areas . 'rya lo(,% terward to di. sc.u.qsing theme
matte,.* ar: the :rt.arrh I `) ;I ee"Zing. rT",,e FWS reprosentative On t:tis
iI��Cter I'o-mair,.S Mr . Jac, ("clncha , Wf'c• mny b.,-: at. (7141, 643-.
4270 , as needed.
S.incere).V yours,
2
r'
NanQ�-.,M . Ka�,rman
Project Leader
Enolosu.;e
cc : CDFC, Reg Sr Long Peach
CCC, song Beach
CCConsv, Oakland
Muntington Beach Wetlands Coa?it: iun
3
�~' w
CAL"MA--W3M*33 AKV TRM-44CN�,ATION A!UN[T
� -�.��. ,. ..�Y�•._,:,�� _, �3E<Y'lif ORU!G11.11/N. Gb.yrhp�
'ar.:.—.:;�:amp.•:--_ . .;,,���,,., der.:..
DEPARTMENT OF 7 PANSPONTATION
WTRKT ."� P.O. KV :.'OVA, t L 3 A WDE Lt 3 MJ t
( 213 ) 620-5335 4,0-6
may 16 , 1986
Mae jeanitie Nrank , Senior
Dep4,rtmei.t of pevelopmtr:t- 6ervice3.s M 4.)4
Cite of Huntington �
2000 klg%% .n 1treet: P.O. U0,X r.t1
Ru_1t3.ngto;%A iieech c.>. 92643 Huntlnatgn
Opar Ms . Frank :
r Department of Transportation comments on Draft
i Non-C"ert:if fa l Coast.,,l Areas White E1c►1e Re)ort
On March 19 , 1986 Paul Gonral.eo of: our ')ranch authored ar letter to
you on the above, refetr encecl report . Be advised that the opinions
expressed in that March 19th letter do not reelect the Caltr. ans
management or 'Legal ,-i�-)4,it:ion on. th:: Huntington Beach "Whit a
Hole . ,
Our Agenc supports your efforts to resolve tho difficult issues
3,ryvolvtd Tn the Dirad use designations f(,,r this area . Cal.t:,rans
recommendation for. the Calt:rians properties wit:h}.n the "White Hole"
is that Alternative 1 would be the preferred option , if modified
as fol.l.ows
1 ) tt app ars that the scrcyare within Area 1 realistically
evai:i.ar��le fe)t vt.sit~or commercial. us' is closer to the 10
acres ;►town on Alternative # 2 . Approximately 7 to 9 acres ,
stre'_c �in� from the entrance to the Mobile Home Park thr, u the
bca►t yard to a point just youth of the proposed Hamilton
Avenue exten�,'.on , tshould he designated as visitor commercial
land use, The decision on the exact acreage: should be based
»pan a careful, antlysis of habitat 7alue balanced against the
need 1-o establish cconmercia). parcels that can meet economic
and speci f to zon i nq re:qu i rements
2 ) Develu-�ment credits should be offered to Caltrans for wetland
d,::-1 ar,ated acreage. Cal.tr.ans .intent would be to put a portion
of these credits into the City's replacement park1ng plats for
the PaO fi` Coast Highway wid-!r,ing impacts through the downtown
,.trea .
In addition , page 3 o t the match 19th :letter stated :
"Finalllr , tin page 45 -- Daisy Thorp* (Sic) flood floes not own
all of the property between Hrookhurst and Magnolia , Her
,
r
Meg . Frank May ) 6 , 1966
claim to all the prnperty is on the fact that mucky of iL
was bought from h�tr , %-ri :she hold.9 a first of ref.usral
option from Caltrenis on t: ► stage—owned Fort:ion C)t: the parcel ,
Ti—a z,ption is in Violation or t.ti-., 1 1 ,11 .6 (if the bst&reet.s and
Highways Code and weveral other pieces of State legislation
and the vNlidity is , therefore , in Caltrans , in
fact , could be required by law to sell. tn!. parcel. to other
Mate agencies or a private caretaker agency . This factor is
.gno red i r, the document. . "
Those cominent s represent Pnul r s per.3onal opinion and should
not be interpreted as official. comments made or- behalf of the
Departmont of Transportation , Dior in any wary construed as
rendering a 1egdI opi-tion . Additionally, he did not seek any
opinion of advice frc i the -L),_•part.ment of Traarsportation ' s Legal
Division on the option referred to above .
We trust than: this letter clarifies Caltrans position an the
Nan -Cer-t:ified Coastal Areas White 9oie Report , Please
distribute this letter to tnose partie-q tSat received tkie
Haarch 19th letter ., Any questions should be directed to Ronald
Kosinski , ��n?car v,o i ronmenta.l. Planner at: ( 2.13 ) 620--3755 .
Very truly youra ,
W. B. HALLANTINF, Chief
Environmental Planning Branch
r
r �
$TAR Ot CALOOO MA—TM. IMSC"M AGfN%:. GEt v! i)(URMEJIAN' :;a"~
CALIFORNIA STATE COASTAL C0N5FT/AN".:Y ,.
1330 MC40WA1', %All 1100 .: a
GrK'AND, CA 14417 •+ 7
AMS Ul•1011 '
t a"0CWA. ilS,�b+ lals
't • r,h I�� I_ _
Malrcii 26 , 1986
Ms. Jleanine F cank _
ti11
City caf Huntir,,4i-on H,,-ac`''!.
P.O . Box -
Huntington Reach,
%'ear Jeanine;
Thank yoo f)r t )a oocor"tunity to review he "Analysis of U-A-4 rrlse A lrerna_i ves
for the "Whi e-Holef Areas". ' n general, we arp ancouraged at t�-e overall
direction of the report W., coamnd t•ie Ci,ty or. the rapid progrx.ss in achi,- i•lit;
the Ccx:nci l is goals. However, rruch rroc,re work is need to bring LN- proposed
);Ian int,:3 wit-5 C:�astal Act nolicies and to insure t�le via::^i :city nt
certain elen'*:31_s of t .e plan. l'h.z ���i*Nacific c.:cxt:1wnts follow:
Proocsed TJC Prog>`3m
The proposed me program relies on two assumptions: (1) the acccvmptablility of
Cortsoll'-?atim uplan3 zr--reac;e try restoring wetland acreaq aix3 ( 2)
the avd_ aoa ley of for;mr wetland acreage eha•� iti restorable.
(1) T:l-: premise faces considerable policy obstacles. Ordinarily,
consolidation has :gin apecoved by the Crystal Comission only whera the
wetlands in ruesticn are severely degra6czd and c.nnot be restored wit:irA:r
ccnsolidat:ion. E3ciel the 9olsa Chica a:-4 tt)e Los Carritos Plans were
approved by the Comissiun bcc:ause the sever.:-217 deer_ 6.!d wetlain&, e:ou'_d
not be restotL�d ty other nVans. l.,The Hunr.ingtcn beach wetlarxis are not
severely degraded, tiaus this policy cannot: be applied.
In addition, amy we_lard fill, suab as that proposed along Beac#i 817d. ,
rwst bp. ccrisistent with Coastal Act polices. Section, 30233 establishes
permitted uses in wetlar4s ai'4 they do n4 include residential. or
C09mtcial uses. T;* plan should, in general, relate Coastal Act polices
W the recomvende land use alternatives , especially ire light of the need
for Ccmission certification. energy deielopuent is a use
permitted in wetlands, the plan should docnmmnt that siting energy
facilities its a wetland meets the aWitionai tests under thq- Coastal Act,
Let no 0&,er feasible alternative site and mitigation for proje^t inpacts
on wetlands.
(2) The plan identifies 8 .3 acreA of restorable wetland within the white)-hole
*nd pcgposas that restoration of these acres justify the f i lling of 8. i
Wzwr along Beach Blvd. Most of these 0.3 acres are, In factr not
avv4Uble for restoration. The 1.72 acre segment along the 17 acre
Ca,ltcs»a>>s prnrcel 12 a1z .ady Committed to Caltrmw aW Orange County for
n;3
R.
' W
V�
t .
i
mitigation of their pro jec.: i.rpaW ts. The 1 .6 acres awreed by the City are
not suitable for rector&duct, the F,le,vation of: the :�at�: arx3 its ;,sc�la6.on
fray the ot'aer wetlandn it. i,rpvact..ical for rest•orat:ion. 1,4.he 1 acres
located adjacent the Santa Ana Rivo:r nootith rave been designated as non-
restorable,orable► by tale of s i!;h aril Game arx3 are transewred t7y t..he
sewa,;e outfa 1 i pipes, ►+'akinc, >:,�t:�it�)rat:.ion inE)o-siblo. The reau inirx- 6 .61
r
cacras uoder Lho fide are not ',�11thcut constraints on their
lase for reotoration.
5 ince tkie! berm is owned 1:1y Oranc.e. County, use of t h,--- r_ret.'i t w(V.z 1d have to
ni--4dtiated with Lhe C.oun�:y arc: a sati f-actory .ariar,Serw�ntr c:arw)at nee
guarunt+ :d at: this In rewval of the ceriu would
clecess.itat:e pexiaeter herring; the CcNinty L;-iat t1)e perimeter
t?�,r-,n t..x,,!;l c�-.)vc : L')e a'.z,unt of surface as tJ.e existing k1P.rm,
creating ra wetland resL'cration debit, not: a credit. Substitution of a
peri:etex seawall would alleviate this problern, brit the cast wculd be,
pr:)ri*►J1t.l-ie and t:k i n'ipdc:a n vl5ual access have. to he, serioczly
Restoration of the wor.lainds within t: ie white-hole any or may not involve
removal of tre flood control berms. Most of the propert-3s have subsided
' f since -heir isolation fr:m tidal. influence, breaching the berm; may create
a laka rangier than a wetland. Deperding on restoration goals,1wit may be
preferable to leave the 1*.r,= intact W., provide tidal access by.
irmtalliny culverts with cuntrol, stLuctur<es iri the beans. Rescurr:e
agen.:yes my not gez:Ri t filling of high qual.t.} wet larkis and reo lacfer,11..nt
wit'a later quality wetlands; it they du allow this exchange, the
replace:rrent ratio is likely to exceed 1.1 . In svwa.r , t`se proposed TDC
program does rrt appear to of.`:Ai. tnich promise.
Other Cm,
p9. 23 The plan should reference the rkerous other report!, besides the Ddr
report arxi the Soule study, that dociment t`re wetland values .7n all
of the properties in the White-hole.
pg • 42 The proposed alternatives for the hw i lton Avenue extension shr-xild be
am lyzed for cons is randy with existing LCP polices.
p5. Sid V* fiscal analysis is really a revenue projection analysis and
should include an accura;.e analysis of the relative costs of
inpleimrit:ing each of the proposed alternative land use designations
to ref lect true f iscal icpacts to the Ci ty. The cost to the City of
inplemnt:ing alternative 1, war+.ld be substantially lower than either
alternative 2 or ! because there would be li 'ti.ttc.-d public services to
maintain. This fact should be included in the revenue projections
developed by Staff to shin act, not just anticipated, revenues to
the City. It is out belief that once thie analysis is done,
alternative 1 will offer the twat. cost-effective solution.
pg. 52 The chant on page 53 showing wetland use was prepared by the Coastal
Conservancy, not the Nature Conservancy.
u• '1•r
a •
T:Ank you for thF, t-Vportunity to cor,*,-It. AS .11wayu , ii• vcx: Kive, any quest::.or,g
coicernfng air r.,Lrum.-nts or tequ' -' ' XP) �'t:si�rJtrc]f1(,'(�?� (all. e the ',,Ie .' HoIdermn
or wself..
Wendy Eliot
Project A-m lyst
i
i
A
y
r,
0A
r
Llnifel !Staies Dep.nrlment of the Interior
FINI'l AND WILIK11j. SERN WE
1 L D '0 1
A'.'JAGUNA NA"GrUEL
Laguna '1J. 3uel Ca_1 j-fo C rli.Jka 92.6 56
1 .1 march 1986
Jeanine Frank , Senior Planner
Department of Development Services
P.O. Box 190 , 2000 Main Street'
Huntington Beach , CA 92648
Pet Huntington Beach Non-Certitfted Coa4ta2 Areas
Prell:i(inary Draft tNnalysis of fond Use 4%lternatives
Dear Ms. Frank :
The Fish and Sevice ( rr'Ha) has examined the referenced
document, proviied unde.- your cover letter dated A011 Febru-'ILY
1986 , and affers the following comments.
Ficst,, we suggest that Area Description and History section on
Vpager; 2 ,, i!jclude a summaries of the biological character of t.he
parcels, the Federal requiatory invol,-!,nijent th.-ough Section 404
of the Clean water Act , and the tish and wildlife val ,., es
attril,)uted to them by the FWS) and the California Department of
Fish and Game. 'We believe OUr views on the biologic value of the
wetland parcels in their present condition are well known to the
City, but have enclosed for your tefertan!.--e, a 9 April 1962 letter
to the corps of Englnenrs on the sub jecw of pending permit to
fill a port ion near Beach Boulevard.
We suggest that the fi5cal -'-onsiderAt ions include an evaluation
of the public costs of thoa propo -1 %. d land use scenarios , ir
addition to the tax *benefits " RcCK: u,;.nq to the City. It is our
understanding that various types of developments may have
consideraKe hidden costs associated with them. Demands on
public services would presumably remain very low wJtb a wetland
con3ervation alternative, as we.. 'A. as not incur Ling old well
capping and peat agils construction costs.
There also seem to bt public benefits of some alternatives that
are not well evaluated. For exampl*, in a seriously flood prone
area such as this, a flood retarding functLon of a orestor*d
vetland* parcel could offer significant public benefit, not to
&*ntlan the fish and vildlife benefits.
A logical thread throughout the -Socument stems to be that the
'0 City is a land speculator with a hi9b priority for obtaining SOM6
9184:41 94LA. the &CUMSAt AISO SteMS iAOCdinately interested in
Y.r
Y
its consideration of the private owr;er. "return on investment ,
% 5) . Contrary to t:h ,i ;; !:3, :. c''1E'rlt 7n a 64 , the
majority ot: the laced i. n question is alr -e-a dy owntid 6y ()ubIiC
agencies and a public litil. i. ty. Ahout: fot7ty tlirec pei cent: (64 out
of 1. 47 acres ) is pr `. va _ ely Ow.--led. Some a Wetland acreage
considered in .h � documon ' i. ,; ?;,p rently i.nvrolved in pending
it.-gati,cn which wa-. .i.ri , tiated by thos�a sane Fr' iv :ita ownezo.
Thiz latter point has apparent-17 foruF.,- aiLP-d all efforts , to
date , to resolve the- long - term status of the:: wetland parcels .
R..o.nark.3 oEfcced on page 61 , rogarding outright: purchase, sho:al,d
be am. ended to more; Clearly indicate that purchase aL prese"ntl
iUl t:a .i i Lhat LhQ
c�p p!':''1 f :S f.? �:� �7 r� l 11 C' i. ::� �� �f.��": :. ., L�1� �l� :i:W i' . i4� ;�. ll n u �:L' :.i � '�
easter: rimoit parcel i. ; ex, e:ct�--d to be sold by CALTIRANS to the
Coastal Conservancy, it the value appraised under the existing
zone designations ( LUD, LUD-FPI ) and wetland status . Ie m •iy be
the private owner' : willingness to aell at appraised value that
determines whether any change is made much of the other
wetland acreage, 'they 'say elect to hold the lend pending some
'core personally "avorab+e circu:nstances. However, an inverse
i; condemnation a%_gumenL would seem to have no merit, either at the
present time: or after a change in zone desirn4it-icn. We suggest a
;Wore extensive: discussion of the outright punch.,;:: possibilities.
4
As for lZ: nd LISe alternatives , we would like to sugges c that all
existing w;:tland parcels between Beach Blvd. and Brookhurst+ Ave.
be considered for a special pre sej-.ve status, principally for the
Belding's savannah sparrow, 2,�„,,sgrcUJUI s%'LAndwJch. .JI bee ingi.
Availaale evidence suggests to us that the present nesting use,
particul.xj:ly of the Magnolia to Brookhu:st parcel by this State
endange ; ed bird , and Feuer. a; candidate for endangered or
tha. eatened staL• us , may warrarit preservation of the area in its
existing condition. That is , some of the wetland area may be of
such high Iual. it y for Belding's savannah spar,caw nest; rig that no
alteration would i)e appropriate. A thorough resting census of
all the subject parcF►Is woia]ld seem invaluable for determining the
appropriate extent of such ct preserve, however.
Should one or more parcels best be preserved as Belding' s
savannah sparrow nesting preserve, levee removal ahould likely
not occur, Also, aQ stated, any such levee removal, even
addition of culverts , may require construction of another levee
or berm entirely around the subject parcel to prevent floodwater
inundation of adjacent lowlands . Such berms could have
gignificant footprints in the existing wetland.
The various locations and techwigues for restoration of tidal
influence deserves additional discussion and detail in the
referenced document. Complete levee removal, as shown - an Figure
My page 24, may already be accounted for or may not be feasible
ar desireable. Por example, the 1.7. acre watiand habitat gain
attributed to levee removal at the easternmost parcel is already
being considered as a restoration benefit to be weighed against
habitat losses of Orange County' s proposed Talbert Channel
imptrovement project.
2
•lam
, Lastly , we gtlest:. iorl the Val i (t.i. t-7 o t:}, :; t atementr on pace 60 t:.1h .it
QAutI%nritiPs have .all. agreid th,,. t. the <« like).Y a:iu p, )duc:ti.ve
rest.or. at4an areas at. e those clotiest^ c_ , the Santa Aria River
ti mcuth, " This statment is offei:ed in suer. )ct: of the notion that w
Y
"de�Jalopmerit. node " at f3e�at•':: rlrl�:l "CII dould be a ,; ustifiable
comprom i- se . The FWS ha :i s k.,ac h,.ld no Bauch igc eement:. regarl-.1ing
rescurat.iOn Ceal, ibila.ty.
We also req.iest further: eiaborati.on ar: t l,,.: t:��Z)._>; of 'tranafevab1e
development rights " discu s,5,cd on pages 64•-63, Two ac.ces of "non
restorable wetland " at t:h (_ Santa Anna River mouth and a 1 .5 acra
city- owned non--wetland parcel ar -�� dplrelopahl t� land
fragments that can he redistributed into existiaq wetland.
Howevec , as these fragments cou.l ;.! not be changes: into Eunctiona :
weLl.arids , a net reduction of wetlaod area would result. We do
not understand haw th , los:y of wetland at a "development: node "
could relate to th ,.se t,-io fragments . Similarly , i:ne dccument
seems to presume that: leveo ri0moval and the resLiltant wet: lanu
habitat gains wou d be a "realistic tradeoff " for rho proposed
wetland and "return on property inve tment". We again do
not ,and the r,_ aticnship of these remarks to the Coastal
Act requLt eraents , to the Ci. ty' s interests , oc to the public
trust. Th .:, appearance is that- of a land use deli . gna. t. ien
shellgame, ::hat involves a diminishing, high priority resource,
coastal wetland, in favor of private economic considerations.
The F'WS is very pleased that: the City has resumed consideration
of the uncertified areas. We look forward to discussing these
matters at the March 19 meeting. The FreIS representative on this
matter rre.mains Mr, %pack Fancher , who may be reached at (714) 643-•
4270 , as ner.ded.
Sincerely yours ,
Nam /M, Kaf2ma n
Project Leaaer
Enclosure
cc ; CDFG, Reg S . LOpg Beach
CCC, Long Beach
CCConsv, Oakland
auntington P�Acn Wetlands Coalition
3
i�
STATt Of CALMKONLA.—TUk NIOUNCIS AUNCY CrtMtN DFUK"IIAN, awoW
CALIFORNIA COASTAL rOMMI$5iO?'4
SQM COAST A KfA •
24 WR$I WIMMAY, 'ANM W
tMG WAIN, CA, VOOM
f
30 , 1 1)fir,
-J iT
` 'ICES
�ea;;. Lne Frank
Fpniir Plannnr
Department of Development Services h, CA 9 2 6 48
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach , California 92 (. 411
Re : Draft Analysis of Land Use lklternativeo for the "White Hole"
)tir eas
Dear Ms , Frank;
Thank you for the eVVortunity %o comment on the analysis of land
use altametives for the "White Hale" areas . These areas were not
Include,2 in the certified ( in ileographic part ) Huntington Beach LCIP
aad remain. therefore , s?3bject to the policies of Chapter 'i of the
California Coastal Act . In giineral , we are encouraged by the
progress that the City is making in resolving the plantAng issues
relating to the wetlands areas and the emphasis on reL. � oration of
the resources . however , we do have concerns regarding the
consistency of the proposed al ,".ernative� with all relevant Coastal
Act policies . our specific -.ommente are enclosed . For the sake cf
brevity, we have consolidated Dur cromments where possible .
Thanka aqtiin for this opportunity to review the draft analysis of
land use alternatives for the "White Hol ,911 areas .
Sincerely,
ez Zzt/zr xLLJ�,/----
W=e
Wayr. Moodroof
Asgigtnnt District Director
South Coast District
MM/CAIC
1)
f
Jeanine Frank
April 34 , '1986
Pa;
e z
He offer the fot lowing comme aCs of. tho! draft "White [tole" raar►d Use
Alter. raativeH :
1 . tntloduct. z,on
i qLt_ a a�.`L_ Line 8 This sentence should read . '- It ir; thi!
Ci.ty ' s ;catent to adopt appropriate lend use des i nar. ions and
APLlemfisa t trig oridirim:, nces f: t- t!i,: r,f► i c 1101 =� , • —_____
Pa, e 2 PAC�t ___Lino 3_(and,PaS,5 -5 Para . _ 1 ) : 'rhe institutional
arrangements descrited here are not expressed entirely correctly.
Section 30121 of the CoaRta► 1 Act defiries wetlands . Thw Coastal
Commission cer t if iea land use dos i gnat ioaas consistent with the
Coastal, Act . Section 30411 ( b ) empowers the Department of Fish and
Gaae to study degraded wetlands and identify thrioe which can most
feasibly be restored in conjunction with the development of a
boating facility .
page 8 Fi a re 1 . 1 : Alternative 1#1 while it offers excellent
opportunities for p>rotect: lon of wetland resources does not address
feasible alternatives to oil production in the wetlands ( e . q , slant
drilling from offsite) . New eneL9Y tacilities are permitted in
,retlands when it has been demonstrated that no feaa:, ibl a leas
environmentally daaaaging alternative rxis►tzf and than mitigation
measures have been provided to minimize adverse environmental
effects consistent with Section 30233 of the Coastal Act . The LUP
needs to fully discuss and reflect these otthea: provisions of
Sgcttion 3Ok33 .
Fiqur-i 1 . 4 designates the 17-acre parcel adjacent to the Edison
plant as Conservation. The text on page G identifies the site as
Industrial Energy Production for all three alternatives . This
discrepancy should be clarified .
The LUP also needs to address requirements of the Coastal Act
regarding expansion of power plants . The Commission findings of
November 17 , 1982 discuss the Coastal Act Section 30413 (b)
requiter,eu'. a and --he authority of the Energy wotamission and the
CoaastAal Commission in power plant siting . The Commission has
designated some of the area south of the existing power plant as
"not suitable" for power plant expansion because of wetland habitat
in its power plant Siting Sr.udy of 1979 . The LUP should reflect
the power plant siting study designations . Any land use
designation[ must reflect requirements of Section 30413 (b) ; must
address inland alternatives and provide conditions of acid
mitivation measures for any permitted power plant expansion
consistent with Section 30233 and must peotecr wetland habitats
corasistant with Section 30233 .
h
Jeanine Ft:ank
April 30 , 19N6
Pagi�
� . 5 _.1.1t:er. n.-4ti.ve 42 raities majoi: inccnni tnrwie
with Scetlon 30-233 of the i:oart-A Act. and would result: in a net
:ass of wetlands , Sear ion 30233 esLablishea pecmitted uge:,si In
watlasnds . Rewiderst: ial , gener,il commercial. And vinitzr-serving uses
are aut uLies for which t. l i3 lc, porilllt: ted I wet lands . `Litt:
Lldusats: fal rterety desaiquation should a .l. l.o�a for power plant
P-xparision ( a permi r. red u!;e , in rho=. wF.?t: lo.nd,3 only. it. there is no
Ceat3 erl:aLivu ►, .IIlll(i ,;�Yur1:il.Ul1% itJtll �'11�. C1�;� AI; 1l)Il lla:
been provided . This eculd be accomplished by designating the area
ConeervaLion oc indunrrial Energv/C'onser.v% tAorl ( i . e . a combined or
overlay district ) .
Alternative 42 designates IB acres as Conservation which provides
for the protection , maintenanoo , rootorat Lori and enhancement of
wetlands (pursuant to Ar :: ic:le 969 . 7 of certified LC:P) . 'PrA
Commission found in iti; action on the previously submitted 1 :,_11r' that
the ,,epattment: of Fish and Came in its, 3.993 DeYermination, of the
Status of tha Hunt isl_qtc r HPach W_Llarscls de-term�ined that. "ininimal ly
a 126 . 3-acre wetland/upland system, comer. iced of 114 . 7 acres of
existing wetlands and 11 . 6 ar;res of existing environmentally
sonsitive upland , can be feasibly maintained and enhanced in the
study area" ( page 3 ) . Given this assessment the 78--acre
Conservation as. ea wosslci r.p):ulL in a redaction of 48 . 3 acres nf
exi s t iag wetlands and associated upland which could feasibly be
maintained and enhzinced .
gage 10 Figure 1 . 6 : Alternative 43 is also inconsistent with
Section 30233 of the Coastal Act as viF i. Lor.- Serving , sesiderO.al ,
genera;, commercial and office usea are not permitted uses: For fill
in wetlands . This alternative would result: in the reduction of
weitind area to 27 acres .
Face 14 Para . 1 : These s iiould be discussion of the provisions of
the Coas3tAl Act as well art the City ' s3 Coastal Conservation District
(Article 969 . 7 ) relating to flood iontrol channel improvemelts .
New flood control development: is not a use listed as permitted in
Section 30233 . Section, 969 . 7 . 3 of the C'ity ' ss ordinance also limits
flood control maintenance activities and states that new flood
contr(.l facilities are permitted only in conjunction with
restoration plans and where necessary for public safety and to
protect existing development where there is no other feasible
alternative .
1'ata2 L4 , rica . 1: Section 30233 of the Coastal Act out) ines;
1� .wid for which fill may be peemit; ted where there is no
feasible lose environmentally damaging alternative and where
feasible mitigation mr4asuresa have been provided . It is a
Jeanine Frank
April 30 , I )F,6
Pall-] 4
mi.,linterpri�Var. ion of the Coastal. Act to imply that it
permiss :.bl o to fill wer lands f`or Lion-permi. t;ted use- 4r, long ac it
is mitigated .
F, 5 rj, ra:,._. 2 : gest,oY:a I. inn pIanniiio ,. havo ro de,Lo:;s
f prot0'CtTon aya inaL f louding by uii,2 ci` r:,�:�: i.m.rLPr berms . Uctc
methods of restoration r-oration may - q iiro fill !:oc the becwc if. ,-hore i;:;
no ether feasible. alt:ern;at: 3Ve . The of such terms needs to
be oonsideted in the o%;erall tebii i-" at iohn ,;o r.h,-it rhere world
be nr nR!r. loss of wetlands as a result: of perimeter bt- inir,(Y . A
res+ •)rati.on plan should add►oss Leasible alter. nativer, -o removal. of
the flood control rearms and pi, r. i mater herwing ,
I
5ie_ 1�Fuca . 3 . 1. . 2 : Se,ti.on 30411 states thit the Department of
Gera aced Game , " in cunt.-.41t:ation wi. rfi the Commission and the
Department of Boatittq and Watoarways , may sLudy degraded wetlands
and those which _can _most _ fteagi,hIX be vectored . . .
(emphasis added ) . �^ ----- - _--_
Paa2 .. d Para . 6 : The def ini t ion of "feasible" is s tat id in
Sootion 30108 of the Coastat Act .
F;a„ge J_EU a,:, I Tr.e 1983 Fish and Gamc.� report (page 3 ? identifies
1.1 . 6 acres of gnvironmentall.y sensitive uplands - 8 . 6 acres of
crustal dune habitat and 21 . 9 ,acres of I, impvr!-Ant upland habitat:
( formerly wetlands ) . "
Pa2e _Z3 e2ra . 3 . 1 . 3 : The LUP should note all the major reports
concerning resources of this area . 'rhe Coastal Commission findings
of October 6 , 1981 and November 11. 1982 outline numn.r.ous other
studies and reports addressing wetlands in the area . These other
etcidias should also be mention,-d .n order to present the full range
of ".nformation available dealing with wetlands in the area .
Pace 25 Ptra, . 2 : Sea comments re Page 15 Para . 2
qu§ 37,: New or exk?anded energy facilities are permitted uses in
wetlands ollly where there is no feasible less environmentally
damaging alternative and where feasible mitigation measures have
been provided . The LU"P shaulrl clarify these requirements as part
of any land use designation.
gaaa . 3g 6 1: Reference should be aad,9 in thi.e section to Policy 9e
of the certified Coastal Element .
ElgE2 40: The filling of wetlands for the extension of Hamilton
AVOnue, do noted in ease of the alternatives , is not consistent
with Section 30233 , Road extensions are not a permitted uce for
wetland fill gAgArdleas of any mitigation.
Jeanine FranK
Ap c i 1 20 , 1.94 6
Z'a 9 e
233 to fill I.,ection, :30 poi: sevetal
itlanda hu' of-111 If rhore ii; iw toa!iible le,.;-, oiiviconmon (-.ally
'J ! I err ial, i v o 'Aill f cm!i 11) 1 � ;0 1 �,i% ill�,Iasurea have '.ief,.,n
pzovidedo Sec :. ion 30233 does not t.,Latq that w,,* t zod- - " L 1 j !4
S '
permitted as long as miti-gArJnri ki provil clod .
4 'See conatents re Page 40 .
E4q#--.43 7 . 0 : See comments to Pag,-- U.) . I t. i ,i L iiporl.arit*, ('o note
that the full, extent of the impactu from the prposed Pacific. Cuai;t
Highway wHening have not 1,rer been determined . Ympacts of the
propoued widening of PdQtfk,-' (-'OASL III ,'JIIWI� may 1.n(-111d4'
encroachments into caistatl dune habitat and wetlands Inland of the
h I q howa y The LUV should consider thE.r the impacts and mitigation
of this pcoject. have yet. I be dotetpj).ned .
Secr. luo 7 . 0 shorld have aiao addressed other project.-) proposed in
the area and '-'.heir. postilble Impacra on tte wetlands . These
projecto include the expansion of the Talbezt Chaixtwl , Lhp. SaviLa
lima River main etem .-roject , the Beach Boulevard Sl�pecstceets
proiect . and the wUieiiir.-�; of. Broo)churst Street .
p@qk,.4Z_A1..tgrnative 1 : The 17-acre parcel adjacent to the Southern
California Edison plane is designated Consery-Ftion not. Energy
Production an Page S . Figure 1 . 4 . This discrepancy should be
elar1ried .
page 55 Para , 1 : See comments re Page 2 Para . ;. Line 3 .
1!jige 55 Para . 2 Lines 2-4 : Seve'-.-al proposed uses in Alternatives 2
and 3 (e. g , residential , commercial , offoice ) are not permitted uses
in a wetland purbuant to Gection 30233 . In our opinion these land
uses J2 prasent some secioui2 obstacles to certification of an LCP
for this area .
Pace 60 Pagg . 1 : This is an inco-.-rect represantal.- ion of tht-se
Commission actions . One major difference was In the Tieparument of
Fish and Ovame determinatiou of aev.>rely degraded wetlands in nee']
of major reatoration.
60 We balleve the pcoposal to cstablis! a Transfer of
Development Rightn ( TDR) program raises significant cor;-.erns . It
is basal on A consolidation of upland areas LeStIltin,; in tilling
functionirag wetlands and restoring qquivalent acreage . Such
consol! 4stjan bas occurred in previous cases only where the
D*1p&Ct%Qftt of Fish and Game ;DFG) hat determined the wetlands to be
so severely degraded as to require major restoration and such
consolidation is the only feasible masna to restore the wetlands .
T Ai.
I
:Y.1•r
M
h 0 , 14 4�
Stich is not the case with these t4e ,. landss Y The UF'u determination of.
Februatcy 1983 discusses feasible rest,iration end enhancement,
measures involvinq reestablishing r. i.dal influence to the area . We
believe the LU? should focus on these r_ypen of restoration
act iviCiph .
Z"A ta .,3 _> rr€t�_ Z��-.12 : his ctatemeat appears incorrect . We do
nOL beltove that the r)epar. truent of Fish _end Game Wetlands
Determination disstings,ii.ehed areas nearest the Banta Ana P ' ar as
the "most likely or productive" potential restoration a - :as .
Rather , riie :*)F(Ii determinat 'Lori discussed the ceatotatic potential
of the erit i. ro area .
. As we noted previously, this trans er approach,
raises p7oblems in that the watlands are not so severely degraded
as F•.o r. quire major restoration . The LUP should focus development
Da non-wetland area8 , Uties in wet ianri areas must be consistent
wi to S- ec;: :ion 30233 the r ar; tal Act . Rn,; tor. ation is a use
per. snI. VIYI h;' ",C%(: ti ()n 30d23 2 71 ,
'a e ,4- 6 i AS we cc►mstIont:ed xn the Match 1.9 meet:.ing , t;ie figures
c .ted in the �; r af ; recommer►dat: ion are incorrect in that they do not
Lew lect Acx:eagr, within r:he eestr. rat i.on areas needed for any
ps. i, iLheral, bermi. siq . The :3nalyr. i.s a8sumes only a 1. : 1 re,- toration
although the Cs),+mi ,,skon has of: ter, repaired a gteatec ra ,. io for
et�tc�rat:i ��st . Also, the cit :M toz: I'developable " ,acreage , as
<rre noted Previounly , slicul.d not arjcuui�-. consolidation .
-lige �65 Para_. Wit : As we noted in our: comments at: the March 19
meeting, the basic approach stated here that corsol. idation is
cortsi,ero°�t with t.hr: Coastal Act as long as it is a compromise and
grade- o f , it not: what is pcovide-d for yr, Suction 30233 of the
C-.oastaI Act . Rather , Section 30233 provides for consolidation only
where ti.- %. ' wetlan,ls are ski ssevcrply degraded as3 to require majow
rest oration .
jgL9 8A; The IAIP should correct the dencriptioa of provisions of
Section 30233 . Development is permitted In wetlands only for
certa i rt usee and only when there Is no f.e-atiible lens
®aivironntantaily damaging aXtesrtc�stive and L'eas;, ible mi. tiyation
measures tiavc been provided to minimize adverse environmental
effects .
1
r 1
r
STATE OI :AINCANIA—Rr SOURM ASP.-r 51(AO DEIIKMLIIAN, i2e ew
zoom w2mmmomr9ma Yam- :astxs =_ _ �..ma. s•d:�=�a+eCrir�.—�__
CALIFORNIA STATE COASTAL CONSERVANCY
13M IMMOWAY, SM 1100 +
Q"I AMO. CA N/i 4
ATM 561.I MO
T111111Qm 4131"4.1015 ►►�C,f(�(� BEAC3
0 >r 16, 1985
DEVELOP, ..Nt SERVICES
OCT 18 1�?;;
HLin
ctlo r im ,,ai ityr Servicaea �'��, Box 1 ju
City of Etmt fngtm Beach Huntington Beach, C,A 141648
P.O. am 190 i
Htmt bngton aaach. C h 92648
Isar Jima
After talkirrf with your atsff over the pant few weeks, there appmarrc ',o be saw
nf�aicn about the C amservancy's final re=mendations for land use
deafgnat is na in the white-holey area. .refore, ve would like to take this
opkv. t-tTnity to foilaw tip our presentatim to the City Crnuncil. an Septm er 4,
1905 with rmra mpwifi c x>aoatmomdatiorns Jar dE:si.gmting land uses in the
Wt*-hcl,e a w.
Vft draw pxvpar-d a d encloaed a map depicting the designation-, for all
properties within the -, 1ii tR-1x)le. As illustrates an the map, we recraartl -A
the faollow.tnq cbsignatims for the tmdew.loped port:i.or'ts o the vkit -°holcs:
' lr&strial �prcduction/Conser.vation
lt�, designation covers Saithern California Ed.ison's undevelcped property.
Alttr. t* this area, has bm designated wetland by the Uepar:atent of Fish arxj
Gxm,, the art&l Ac:t prmides for exansian of ex.istlM energy facilities
in wetlands under cyerta n comdtims. 7his desl.pation will accar>ad afie intrrrlm
keying of the prop'};tY f= wetlands enharmrlert writhrmt precItyU xg --hit.uze
expansion of Sout mia C,ali.forni.a Udison's ertagy facility,
v i�rvir�
. i
This denigration caoverm the 7 acres of W.taam property at the vorr*x of
arA 9wh Blvd. Permitted usm art this property wvtala include a range of
vWtc.w eerAM tma: we are rec"mclmldirY; a tDtel develr4mm t
Cqr=4wt1m/F1pcd Ocntrol ,
nm 4 acm a d jeoent the Smft Ana River are so desigmAtJed to allow for wetland
as wall rij e=ansi,m of the lfthest Wley floes£ contmi dmnrai.
cwtion
OK zamb%!�rr of the whit&4iole hu be= wigmtsd watlaixl by the toast
of 1r` & atd Go= ad othwm, re txict1% imft to onmt of the
existbV Ust'A rAs andd low inbamity ;.abl 4 c scvelse.
�i
I
`�-
w r Qu,• � ��� k,Y
w
V L.
If cm. ke at thstims k
�r
PZOJ
* t Awdyst
I
i
t ,
1 „ /
•.• \f\i�\ ���
J1�1•�� �
loin a
A OP
'� •r '1 � 1�'I � 'S
r
• 1�+1�11�i y
\I~ •.1 1
•ir 4
f �
A
1 f�
!\l,/FYI/\ �/\ ��f'�✓ �• �/ �,�
' � I
f/ter/�••/•,r/ ��
�•\/\, I CAI\ \\
i
i
�.
I••
*.
Y
RESOLUTION NO. 5670 -A
A RESOLUTION OP THE CITY COUNC I J� OF THE
CITY OF HUNT I NC TON BEACH APPROVING COASTAL
ELEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 86•-1 TO THE GENERAL PLAN
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beech
dastres to update and refine the General Plan in keeping with
changing community needs and objectives ; and
A public hearing oo adoption of Coastal Element Amendment No .
86-1 to the General Plan was held by the Planning Commission on
April 221 1986, and approved for recommendation to the City
Council ; and
Thereafter the City Council. , after giving notirc as
prescribed by law, held at least one Dubli.c hearing to consider
Coastal Element Amendment No . 86-1 ; and
At said 'hearing before t. -.e City Council all pe-reons desiri.nq
+ to be heard on said amendment we:a h,iard,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE ILT RESOLVED by the City Courizil of the
City 9 of HunLi,n ton Beacho that coastal Element Nmetidment No. 86-.L
consisting of the following changes is heraby adopted ;
Designate the 231. . 5 acre non-certified white hole area for 7
acres of 1- sitor Serving Commercial, 17 acres of Industrial.
thergy Production/conservation, 83 .8 acres of Industrial
` .' Inergy Produrnion and 124# 5 acres of Co► nervation as
indicated in gshtbit A. attached hereto and incorporated by
reference herein.
Codetal Element Amendment Wo . 86-1 w0 >. be presented to the
Cali or�ila Coastal Cooniwoion as trio hand Use Plan for the
unaartified white hole area.
r;
�J
1�7 i•r,
r i, ll
All
Ji }
�I
AOO I 'r
,4
r_• 4"4.' !, �� \tea . /
4f.
Ln
J tl,•
'i
1 a �
S�
F
' 1
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of
Huntington Beach at a era ular meeting thereof head on the da
� 9 9 ��n..d Y
a
of � .a a w. .._..._. 1986 .
Mayor - '
ATTESTS APPROVED AS TO FORT :
�► .-� -�.�-�5- G 01 t y A t t or nA y
REVIRWED AND APPRO17ED: INITIATED AND APPROVED
ty AdministratW Directory o . De,. p,:E:nt
services
I
i
i
i
d
i
i•'1
All
J
Res. No . 5670-A
STATE DT C"17t"?MXIA ) �
Ci'rf or NWIMTOIN BLUM )
19 ALICIA M. WEtflWOKU, the duly ^elected , qualified City
Clerk of the City of Muntington Beach, and ex-offir.io Clerk of the
City Cavil of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of
Ms bars of the City Council of the City of Huntington beach is seven ;
that the foregoinS resolution was fasted and adopted by the affirmative
vote of ud -o than a aw,jority of all the numbers of said City Coun( I
at a rogular _- aesuttng thereof held art the _ _ tnd � day
of ,. j un , 19„ ,,,_, by the following vote.-.
AYES : Cntuve i loan
,-W-ley... K&W-J4, Bailey, Green , Thomas. ..�
r Iox$: counc I Imen;
' Kelly, MacA l lister
tJSE14! : Councilmen:
,4
City Clerk and tx-of'fid'io Clsr' .
of th+i City Council of the City
of Duatir4jtoa aesch, California
I,rr! `� I I b.4,'•.7i IIY. .,. ..__._.......,...�..._W.. ....+... , S
.�'�I41yJ��•� �.r r
11�1,'n�lr r�V
�Yy '
11
I
+1
�r NON--CERTIFIED COASTAL AREAS
G
a
,AfNAT.YSIS OF LAND USE ALTERNATIVES FOR
THE WHITE HOLE; !►.FtF:AS
I I
I
pry
1
1 ^.w�� ►�rw .'
II
F .
N
r?i�J
TABLE OF CONTENTS
BNvti n �a�e '
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
1. 1 Area Description and History 2
1 . 2 Ownership of Vacant Property4 j
1 . 3 Land Use and Toning 4
1 .4 Land Use alternatives 4
2.0 FLOOD HAZARD AND CONTROL 11
2. 1 Existing Conditions 11
3. 2 Proposed improvements 14
2. 3 Conclusion 16
3. 0 BKOLOCY 17
s. Y tx istinq Conditions 17
3 . 2 Restoration 23
3 . 3 Summacy 26
4 . 0 SOILS AND GEOLOGY 27
4. 1 Existing Condit. ion.,l 27
4 . 2 Inpacts 34
4. 3 Conclusion 35
5 . 0 OIL PRODUCTION W !
5 . 1 Existing Cor.ditionE 37 j
5 . 2 Abandonment 39 �
5 . 3 Conclusion 39
6 .0 HAMILTON AVENUE EXTENSION 41
6 . 1 Existing Conditions 4 .L
6 . 2 Project AltErratives 42
6 . 3 Mitigation measures 44
6 . 4 Cost Analysis 44
6 . 5 Conclusion 45
7 +0 rACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY WIDENING 47
8 .0 FISCAL IMPACTS 45
6 .1 Alternatives 49
6 .2 Results of Analysis 55
6 . 3 Public Benefits of Open Space Corsex-,iation 56
9;0 PUBLIC INTEREST 61
EQUITY FOR PRIVRTE LANDO'1 KHR3 65
10 . 1 Land Sweeps 66
Transfer of Developsent Rights 66
10-.3 Restoration with Development 66
M �.� Outright Purchase
67
69
a'
16JIX A X01* 1 PROP tTY - PROPERTY TAX RRVLNUE 73
,1/ 11 N IM1TO VOLN AREA REVENUE AI�lALYStP: 75
PtIA011 4; WANTS AND ANIMALS OP TRR HUNTIdGTON BEACR if TLANDS 97
AMIMIX D 1000MY OF $?Aft AND FNDBRAL REGULATORY I14VOL'6 EN214T
REGARDING "TT AND AREAS 103
AA1ftKDIX E GLOSSAItT 1 C 9
ARMD11 ! AN ATED BIBLIO►UAPHY 113
M
y r
LIST OF FIGURES Page �
Ficaure 1 . 1, Project Area 3
Figure 1 . 2 Ownership 6
Figure 1 . 3 EXiSti.ng Zoning 7
Figure 1 .4 Land Use Alternative No . 1 8
Figure 1 . 5 Land use Alternative No . 2 9
Figure 1 . 6 Land Use Altexnati. ve No . 3 10
Figure 2 . 1 Floud Control %'han»el.s 13
Figure 3 . 1 WeLlands 2.1
F ic!ure 3 . 2 Possible channel Levees to be Removed 25
Figure 4 . 1 Peat and OrganicSoils 28
Figure 4 . 2 West: Ni�wtort U1.1 Field 31
Vigur'e 4 . 3 Faun trap ?2
Figure 4 , 4 Newport- Inglewood Fault South Branch 3 '1
FigLlre 4 . 5 Leighton-Yen Geotechnical, Study 36
Figure 5 , 1 Oil Operations 38 �
Figure 6 . 1 Hamilton Avenue Extension Alterna-Lives 43
eigure 8 . 1 Fiscal Analysis of Land Use Scenarios so
Figure 8 . 2 White Hole Lard tlse Alternatives
Figure 8 . 3 Estimated Coats Per Alternative 57
pigure 0 .4 Annual Visitor Use off. Coastal Letua; i ss and
Wetlands 59
r
Figure 9 . 1 Open Space and Conservation Element 63
Fif7ire 11 . 1 Staff Rec:,mmended Land Uses 72
r•
'J
1,
T
f
a
' 1
1
1�
1 w 0 IN'I'ROrIUCTION
The purpose of this report is to examine the exi!�tinq conditions and
future development possibilities on the -properties between, Beach
Boulevard and the Santa Aria River which were riot certified by the
California Coastal Commission April 12 , 1982 as pa; t a£ the Land
Use flan for Huntington Beach . This area between Beach Boulevard and
the Santa Ana River is referred to as a "White hole" , because it is
uncertified , and , therei,,re , is shown on the Land Use Plan as a
blank . It is the City' s intent to adopt appropriate land uses for
the white hale and complete certification of the Focal Coastal
Program for the entire ri.ty.
This report is intended to provide technical information to the
Plannirg Commission and City Council which will form the basis for
,A their adoptic►ti of .Land not and zoning designations in the white hole j
are*. In compiling the information, staff has reviewed previous
studios of the area, conoulted with local and state-wide speciallets
"�- to obtain curronk *xpert opinions , and developed! now data based on
spocitic land use scenarios. The Coastal Conservancy provided r
a#tkot analysis an one hotel development and coat facture for L 044 i
aligment alternatives.
I
Th* report is organized aro:jnd a aeries of issues which trere
;Javeloped from tht planning objectives adopted by the City Council on
April 1, 1965. These issues are : flood controle biology, soils and
geology, oil extraction, the extension of H&aihton Avenue, Pacific
Coast Highway widening, fiscal impacts , tho public interest , and
equity for private landowners . AU:er examining each of the iasuee,
tho report presents conclusions and ro. Anmendations.
Aaft
t
1 . I Area ser i. tion and Ai story
The white hole area consists of undeveloped land on he inland side
of pacific Coast. Highway between nearh 11oulev.ard and the ,ante Aria
River , as depicted in Figure 1 . 1 (page 1 ) . Much of the area lies
below sea level , and standing ng wate17 may of ten be ahserved at various
locations . The white hnIe area has been the subject of many studies
over the yEars , some r,;l' wrhi. rh will be reterred to in later sections
of this repor It has been gonerall y auknow.l.edged that sorr.e wet l and
values exist within the area . A full discussion of the biological
chartct:er of the area and fish and wi.163. ife value; attributed to it
is included in Seo:tznn 3 . 0 of this rppr,rt ,
The California Coastal Act of 1976 contains policies to protect �
wetlands and other en• - tronmentalty se i-isi, tive areas ( si.e Al,pendix C ) .
The California Department of Fish and Caine advises the Coa,Stal
Commission in identifying and desi.gnaz ing wetlands within the roarital
?one .
When 4he City hegan it-3 Pl ianning ef: f or tls f it requested
assistance from the Department of Fish and 6'ame in identifying
wetlands in the Coastal r6one� . Biolagi!;t 5 from the t)epartinent of Fish
and Game studied the Ltea in 1979 and presented the City with a
preliminary report early in 1980 . - his preliminary report was
considered by the Ci4}r Council when they originally adopted land uses
for than ooastal zo-ne in the Codstai :dement Of the Huntington Beach J
General Plan on Janua-Ly 3.9 , .1981 . The coast:al Elem,:nt designated the
area from Newlarid Street to Magnolia Street as Industrial/Energy
production and the remainder of the white hul.e acea. , From Beach
Boulevard to Newland Street and from Broo burst St_•eyet to the Santa
Ana Rivere as Visitor-;sending Commercial .
1
The Coastal Element was submitted to Lhe South Coast Regional Coastal
Commission as ti)e City ' s Local Coastal Lark] Use P lanj and was
considered at a hearing in May , 1081 . The Land Us( Plan was re jecte t1
by the Commission , in part beeaus� c>± the failure to adequately
protect wetlands delineated by the Department of. F'is� and Came ill
their preliminary determination ,
'ihe City Council made minor chancres and clarifications to the Coastal
Element in June of 1981 Gnd resubiniLteu it to the California Coastal
Commission , %:hick also re jectr-d the Land Use Plan in September .#
1981 . Additional changes were made by the city Council in August ,
1982 and the Land Use Plan was certified in geographic part: or,
Neve tuber 17 , 1982 . At this timer the Commission denied certi ficati,or
of the geographic area from ,;each Boulevard to they Santa Ana River ,
creating a white hole:'.
The Department of Fish and Gatme` s preliminary determination was
finalized in 1982 , anw is used as the basis for the discussion of
wetland habitat in Section 3 of this report .
it a''
ti
pp � � Yam•'' 4
, , ..,
w
J � I
i 1
our
HE
1 1••I �r' ti�t1,:til�•
fox
•'� ('",
r
V
,r
"'3-
1 r 1 ~ • ,
t
y
q was
1
1 .2 ownership of Vacant_ Property
There are five owners of vacant property within the white hole area
( figure 1 �2 page 6 ) . The largest: owner cif vacant property is
CaltraMns with a total of approxiinmtely 66 acres generally located at
Beach Boulevard and Pacific Coas : Highway and on either side of
Brookhu at Street . Daisy Thorpe Pir-cirel 'i is the second largest
owner of vacant property with approximately 45 acres located on
either side of Magnolia Street . Malls Land and Water Company own
approximately 19 vacant acres N tween Beach Boulevard and Newland
Street . The Southern California► Edison Company owns 14 vacant acres
adjacent to tho power plant aad the Orange County Flood Control
District own;m 3 acres at Magnol la 5t:ree66 and the (DOI ) Channel . The
City of Huntington Beach owns 1 . 6 acres At the northeast corner of
Magnolia and the flood control channel which has been general planned
{
for Open Space.
i . 3 Lan Use and Zoning
The portion of the white hole Area between Beach Boulevard and
Newland Street is presently zoned RA-0 ( Figure 1 . 3 page 7 ) . It has
had this designation since 1961 , when the zoning was changed from
R1 . The Edison plant and tank farm are zoned M2-0 . The vacant
Edison property west of Magnolia is zoned M2--0 with a strip of RA.,
These zoning designations were placed on the Edison property in 1962
and 1967# respectively . The remainder of the white hole area was
formerly deeigrated R5 until 1977# when it was rezoned Limited Use �.
District ( iUD) . LUD zoning is considered a temporary holding zone , /,l
to be, used for areas which require further study and analysis before
permanent zoning is established .
1 . 4 Land Use Alternati vA.s
In analyzing development potential for the white hole area, staff has
formulated three alternatives wh tch feature various ratios of
development to open space conservation. For purposes of this
Analysis, the Edison plant and its tank farm, the industrial uses
north of the R dison plant and the 1.6 acre wedge of City property at
Magnolia and the `luod control channel will not be given alternative
land uses, as their charr.cter and' use have already been established .
Furthermore, any revenues or costs attributable to these properties
mould regain the same over the three alternatives . Only vacant
property which has the p:,tential to be developed will be included in
the anlysis of alternatives .
Alternative One (Figure 1 . 4 page 8) is the least intensive in terms
of dev-�lopment . This alternative features approximately 124 acres of
Open-Space Conservation and a small amount of Visitor Serving
Commexci0. . Alternative Two ( Figure 1. . 5 page 9 ) features 78 acres of
Open Space Conservation and moderate amounts of Commercial and Medium
Density Residential . Alternative Three ( Figure 1 . 6 page : 1 ) is the
most intensive alternativ? with only 27 acres of Open Space
Conservation and substantial acreages of Commercial and Medium
Density Residential . The following table identifies .land use -�
designations by acreage for each alternative :
( 0284D) -4-
Ir 441
r'
A1�, t �1 hit-2 Altom. 3
Via for Comm eci.al 5 10 10
it fiasitky Residential 0 38 74
0 L 1" 0 3 13
¢ -POW , Commercial 0 3 5
* roy -p due ion 17 17 17
0 1 Vr. tion 1 1 1
airy on 124 78 27
I `
For Purposes of, analsio, the white hole area has been divided into
four su sections Al Beach Boulevard to Newland Streets B) Newland
SL-reet to Magnolia Street; C) 4agnol s a Street to Srookhurst Street t
&ad D) brookhorst Street to the Sainte Ana River . The following table
identifier Land Use designations by acreage* for each subsection for
e*bh alternatives
Alt . Alt . 2 Alt .
A ea 1 De o -N land .
r or- Commerclai 5 10 10
MOd,Ium Denbity Residential 0 15 18
Off ICIA 0 0 13
Concervation ----411
Area 2 Iftlan,d fir, na1,a
commercial 0 5
Rnergy Production 17 .17 17
Oil production 1 1 1
Conservation 9 6 4
� 7
Alt . 1 Alt . 2 Alt . 3
Area 3, Maggol i a-Br ookhu et
Medium Density Residential 0 23 56
Conservation 56 33 0
56
(8rookhutst nte Anb" iv
Conservation 16 16 16
Total Acreage 147 147 147
* ,Acreage figures are net after dedications for proposed road
Improvements ,
02840 ) -5-
l.f.�llN!!!Nf i
�� O • NNNNMfilMHflifMNfffM
lNiffi •.MiMiiNNiiNl Nii
Ir
kv
acmMUTM
wr
- ----------m
f• iMi-mow 5 -
Yy{
SO CAL
NONCBTrFIED
-
PIGCRELLICOASTAL AFFJSwimsm .
Q.C. C.D.
oO` r°� �
RA-
WA-0-CZ PA
LUD—FM
itestricted Manufacturing District as ��gg Residential Agriculture
otaldzonehSOil uffixroductioa T1f�- Combined with QfZ Production
Ml-A-Q� C 's
DistrictRestricted Manufacturing
��{ _
Lim MI-Use District f' Combined Cained with Oil Production
-
FL F Limited use District H_Cz ftbilahOM District -
Fl lain 1 District Cnastal Zone SuffIn r s
ReIt J41MIMP10
crwational Open Space District Endnatrial District 1 MIM �
a— Qualified Classification M2-0 Combined with ail Product-ion
N�
rl�
I
nr�or n ! r
O O Q a
. 1 M
e !r r ?� M p �' M J•�
1 rl � A 'C A r• ,
P S II
M r . M• W
w � -J 1tl N ♦r�U } '
onn� f �i
Hoo •w o �� „s�
.«-J p
ro. re ro .+ r •••
�.�oar �.n n .� ••,1 I
• Q
,
40ASO
ti rf,
r _ •�,,
1 , W
t�
� v
A
r
41
Vwx
as
- • cam
ACREAGE TABULATKM AREA I FIGURE 1.5
AREA 1 Conservation 16 � VI
OTCR Comm.
Visit..r Commercial 10 AC LAM UW
�p��
Med/Rich Res- 1.5 GENERAL CXIM. OrM �.i� _
CoazervLtion 23 �, , ACREAGE #2 MED-HM4 RES.
General Coartizcial 3 Visitor Commrztal 10 AC. -
General Commercial 3 ••-�
Ind. £aerav Nrc+djct. 17 -
Oil Product.on 1 ;:ed/Hlgh Iles. 38
Conservatior. 6 lad. zimm Product. 17 �`.���. COM -
oil Prothwtion 1 m Pwot=m
AREA 2 Conservation 78 �+/1a� MUNTIMIXON momeu c4�'M`
-1 3 147 AC. y C���1� Pk�er :rP421me i'
CCnstr�at:o: 33
- - s
IF
���`` -...ice .� ■f■�■off � i1 � `\� lam- ✓ ✓ �.� �\J.• �r f-:1� � +� 1
`' ` ■� _. ... - :. its L `
a
A 1a Flaw
conservation to
Vi ��
Visicor Commezciai ld AC!�dr High Res 18 LAMUM
��
Of!ice/Profassional 13 �A, ACPZAGZ •■ � � � ALTEFIGaM _
k �nservatiun .
Visitor Commercial 10 AC ,AM v
2 General Commercial s MED—HM RES. 3
Geaersl Cceoereial 5 Of it NONCERINIM
^ _ y
fInd. EnergyBoded Product- 17 Ind.En Asa_ 74
Oil Production 1 Ind. En_• 3y Prodact. 17 ;ND
�a_�sasvatioa 4 Conservation i rtt 1
f ftAMM U7lW �
nodE:iigh F•:s. Sa 147 AC
f �11k 4-
VPr '+ ''1r a '1•'+Y ri r' r w 7 + y w , i 1 r w'++. 7 „1, J7 •i, M1 •,
f i 9 r•
r
rrkkj+ a
r
D,5.
l
r7.
i"
av a 1.L rtgi�l�AND CON rr L 1I
2. 1 ' Exiglif ` ac�ditians
,1 Flood
The white, bole area lies within the 100-year flood haseird area as
,- ,ldentifted by then v.e . Army Carps of Bngineers for the Federal
fitterfloWing ,which
*tray• Maiagment Agency (AMA) . A 100 -year flood is defined as
then would occur from overflow of the Banta Ana Alveer
due to a notion of stoats, accumulated runoff and high water tables
which would fill prado Days to the extent that uncontrolled releaser
;', • flow rates into the Santa An& ltl�eer would occur . The 100 -year flood
w tld' 'Origloate in A►otahein with water flowing toward the ocean
outside of the Santa Ana liver channel. A large portion of northern
ar,ango County woUld be inundated with flood depths rOnging from one
to eleven feet« The Flood Insurance Rate leap date! February 16,
1983 r and prepared d for the City of Huntington Reach oy FElM.A indicates
that all portions of the white hole area are in that portion of the
f•loodplain designated Al2o B1 -vation 11. This designation projects a
flood water elevation of eleven feet above sett level in the event of
a 1O0-ytar flood . Since the ground elevation is approximately sea
J.evol or belovt the projected depth of flooding is eleven feet or
�Or�•
In 10ebruary, 1983, the City of Huntington Beach was required by the
Federal Wkergency Managa sent Agency to adopt floodplain development
regulations for now construction in the flordplain . The regulations
(0284A) wll-
�J
Ty t f i r.ar..
j�
I
i
r
require that residential construction he slevated r with the first
habitable floor at or above the projected flood elevation. 1
Co maeraiwl and industrial construction must either be elevated or
flood-proofed to the projocted flood level..
'. oince the white hole area lies within the doepest portion of the
City' s floodplai.n, construction in that area will be impacted to the
reatoot extent by the floodplain development regulations.
smidentiel construction will need to be elevated eight to eleven
feet above grsde. This situation essentially dictates the use of
first level parrking , which In turn dictates medium density attached
unit construction. The Seabridge condominium project at Beach
Boulevard and Adams Avenue, and the Breakers apartment project at
Beach Boulevard and Atlanta Avenue, are both examples of residential
construction in the floodplain which have utilized first level
s parking to attain adequate elevation.
L
Since cosanorcial and industrial construction can be floodproofed
rather than elevated , there is a wider range of design options
available for this type of development in the floodplain.
Ploodproofing does, however , tend to limit the provision of window
and door areas on the first level of construction.
It is important to note than the Federal floodplain development
regulations as adopted by the Cityy do permit construction in the
floodplain without risk of liftbility if the proper standards are
met. Compliance with the standarde, however: , may not be
cost-effective for smaller or less expensive projects and will, in
fact, increase the overall cost of any project in -the floodplain.
Before any project can be constructed, even in compliance with the
standards , it will also be necessary to show by means of a hydrology
study that the proposed project will not increase the depth of
flooding by more than one foot elsewhere in the floodplain. Due to
the wide area covered by the floodplain, howeverr r and the fact that �
the white hole is located at the lowest end of the floodplain, this �
requirement is probably not a significant constraint.
2. 1. 2 Local Flood Control System
r r iw■
rite 100-year floodplain constitutes only one set of flood related
issues in the whiter hole area. Another important set of issues
involves the flood control channels which pass throagh the area
(Figure 2. 1 page 13) . Huntington Beach, due to its coastal location,
lies at the receiving end of much of the flood control system of
northern Orange County. Specifically, the Huntington Beach Channel
(001) and Talbert Channel (D02) traverse and converge in the study
area . The ocean outlet for these two channels is presently located
on the west side of the Santa Ana River mouth.
The flood control system in and around the study area was designed to
accommodate 65 percent of a 25-year storm. This capacity was found
to be Inadequate during the winter storms of 1983 , when the channels
spilled over in several locations causing substantial flooding of
horses, businesses and vacant property. The flooding was compounded
by high hides which moved into the Flood control channels and reduced
their ability to convey water into the ocean.
(0284D) -12-
1 �
� M
O
I
cp
' a
• 411
1�
� w
4444F`i
e,
r' 1
r
}
1 •• ri r u
14' rpono to the flooding which occurred in 19831 the County of
W#rch has jurisdiction over the flood control channels , has
O add f►, plan of channel system improvements intended to increase
i ky to th4t needpa to safely convey the water from a 100-year
s. teak. - TelprovOments, to be made include retarding basin construction
_. re in upgrading of pump stations, and lining and/or reshaping of
f 'ged ntro channels on all reaches of the system. After
considerable debate, the County has agreed to retain the ocean outlet
in its present general location. The outlet will be moved slightly
to the west of the Santa Ana River mouth in order to allow upgrading
of the river mouth in the future.
The County has indicated that most of the proposed flood control
channel improvements can be made within the tax i at ing channel
rights-of-way . Marking those improvements, however, may involve some
E destruction of wetlarn:; along the south side of the flood control
channels in the white hole area. As a result , the County has
recognised the need to restore some of the wetlands as mitigation for
the destruction which would occur during channel construction .
Apart from the County' s plans for channel improvement and mitigartfonr
the Coarstal Conservancy has also examined opportunities for wetland
acquisition and restoration. Their acquisition efforts to date have
focused on the 17 acree of property located between Brookhurst Street
and the Santa Aria River presently owned by Caltrans. past actions •� �
haryP indicated that the 17 acre area is easily restorable to a viable
wetland if tidal flushing is reintroduced to the area . Culverts were
uci.lized for tidal flushing in the area for a short period of time in
the 1970 ' s , and considerable recovery of the wetlands was observed.
In recognition of the Coastal Conservancy' s intent for acquisition
and wetlands restoration on the 17 acres, the County has recently
proposed an alternative flood control channel improvement on the
property which would achieve both ende. The County has propcsed
removing the south side of the flood control channel between
brookhurst Street and the Santa Ana River and constructing a
perimeter berm along Brook.hurst Street and Pacific Coast Highway, A
small guide channel would be retained in the location of the present
channel to convey normal rainfall and runoff .
The perimeter berm would protect Pacific Coast Highway and Srookhurst
street from flood water inundation and would likely be narrower than
the existing channel levee which would be removed. Islands could be
fashioned in the middle of the 17 acre area to provide habitat for
nesting birds . The remainder of the area would be subject to tidal
flushing and would become a retention basin in times of heavy rain .
The Coastal Conservancy and their hydrology consultant have
tentatively endorsed this as a workable and desirable methud of
conveying flood waters and restoring the wetlands , Since it will
utilize the entire 17 acres , however , implementation of this plan
wild require acquisition of the area from Caltrans , the present owner.
( 02840) - i4-.
l'.
1
• caglusion
All three of the land use alternatives under consideration in this
anolyeis involve use of that 17 acre area next to the Santa Anrr River
for wetland restoration., Alternative One features wetlands on all
portions of the rhite hole area except the corner of $each Boulevard
and pacific Coast Highway. The other alternatives feature varying
amounts of davaloMent on the areas went of Brooktiurst Street. The
types of land uses selected for theses areas may impact the type of
flood control channel improvements which are made.
The County and the Coastal Conservancy have indicated that perimeter
berming and removal of the southern channel levee ( as proposed east
of Brookhurst) would be feasible for other portions of the white hole
area as well& Implementation of this measure# however , could likely
require acquisition of this property as in the case of the 17 acrea
to the east, If residential, commercial or industrial designations
were placed on portions of the properties west of Brook;iurst, then
wetland restoration could be implemented through the construction of
flap ga=es or culverts where removal of the channel levee is not
feasible. Perimeter berming would still be necessary as a flood
protection measure for surrounding land uses.
i
(0284D) •-1 -
�;.�r� `" 6 r
•„rM `
r�r�,, 1;� ����rh .�' �'�' 1', i ,� r�'. ' yry r'x, v ,,. �' iw -; , ,41� �' , w.� r' Fr• � i'' (,, �il;�,� '1+14••,.
f n ss - LL
9 `•b,�V� , ' r i'S r1�,
17
J:
1
, r
I 1Y
�{ , •��
r
Condit tone
The Huntington beach wetland is a remnant of what was once an
0 extensive' coastal marsh system along the southern California
:. cwotline, , The coastal salt marsh is a highly atterssed environment
!... for both. plants and! animals. Only 17 to 11 Southern Califocniar- pia>nw
otisp con, ,tolarste hypersaline conditions and ►inpr~edict:ablo po&Aods
nu scion and 4toaght. Tidal . flushing, homwer; is vital ,ta the
�er.r Egnctioninq of. t;tr r >lo►ersh� Dui 'to 'l.o�v se�asohal precipitatt 1
auk,$90.0 .*rat, 4roughter I flushing. .is especially isparrtant in doutho t1,.•
Cs106 cn$a ,beaus* It providos';rthe major sourrc a of nutrients stod soil �
Molout . . 1'urtho.0 tefular flu®h•ing oontrals .soil saliftitj
q!1► , +�*,P
**ire favdvablt conditions for ' any of the: plant s peoi#a�
,
Vh* Huntington beach wetland once received tidal flushing via the
Sewell inlet, In approximately 1946o the State of California
Department of Parks and Recreation acquired what is now Huntington
01tach State ,park and closed the inlet ext;erAirW through the beach#
ellain.ating access to the sea. Subsequent improvements to.-Pacific
F: Cc4gmt Righwayj remo L%l , o€ the railroad line, construction of the
Southern California Misan Generating Plant and construction of the
Orange County FlorA 0)ntrol District: (CCFCD) drainage channels all
Wed to the isolation of the .area from any direct connection with
surface crater from the ocean.
i
(02840) ..17�
1�, rMMrl i M •
1� 1
� nN
a I,
1
jg
,1
As a result , the area is now classikied by the Department of F .h and
it Game primarily as a degraded wetland . Vegetation is supported by '.P
salt water intrusion through the soil from the ocean and flood
control channels and a limited amount of fresh water runoff . Marty
plant species have become locally extinct . true to its ability to
4 wfthatand the broadest salinity range, pickleweed (Salicornia
vi,xginica ) in the dominant species and covers the majority of the
area. Salicornia virginica is a perennial plant which grove all year.
long, Growth slots in tha Wii.ter months and the plants urn a
i' reddish cilor.
Coastal wetland veyetation provides a unique habitat for a vanity of
wildlife- This habitat acco-mmodates more. species and larger
coi;centcations of birds per unit area than any other ecouyster, in
North America. Herons , egrets, gulls, terns , shorobirda, ducks ,
geese, Boots, gallinules and rails c&n be seen in southern California
wetlands throughout L•he year. The Huntington Beach wetland is part
of the Pacific flyway, a North American migration corridor .
Southern Californ�.a wetland provides a habitat for three endangered
bird species: Btlding ' s Savannah Sparrow; the California Least Tern
t and the tight-Pooted Clapper: Rail . All three s ecies have been
declining in number, along with the loss of wet and habitat . Both
i the California Least Tern and Beldins' s Savannah Sparrow have been
i fund in the Huntington Beach wet landg . The Light-Footed Clapper Rail
in found in adjacent areas but is not found in the Huntington Seacii
wetland becauee of the absence of cordgrass , a species shich requires
tidal flushing to survive.
3. 1 . 1 WetlAnd Preservation
A literature search was pei•formed by staff and the California Coastal
Conservancy. There is ganeral agreement among all the sources that
,wetland- relateJ species are found throughout the area, and that some
,wetlanai values do eXist. However# there remains a question. of
precisely where the wetlandsc .are viable to preserve or restore versus
rere the .wetlands are tao badly degraded to be feasiLly restored.
e r nt of risk and Game Wetlande .Determi.nation and Ah
"eeo a On
to o Cerra n Prapert es Ownedby Mills Land.,,ena,11a
�a� ed n State f al ormi- rl the Cie of Huntington B ,
ScOtt oc a►tee, arc: analyzed below.
3 . 1 .2 De agent of -Fish tad (;eme Determination
Due to their significance an a sensitive and vanishing ecosystem and
II as a haven for migratory and endangered birda, the preservation of
(t Southern California• wetlands ha:) become a high priority. In 1976,
the. California Coastal Act was passed, declaring the coAstal zone a
valuable resource. Wetland areas were identified as sensitive
ecosystems which should be preservw:!rand restored .
0. py jj l l
J' I
i 1 q
y
J
Pursuant to Section 30411 of the Coastal Act, which gives the
Department of Fish and Game authority to study degraded wetlands , the
Cepartment studied and claosified the Huntington Beach wetland.
Wetlands ace identified ir, Suction 30121 of t1ie Coastal Act as
follows:
" lands within the coastal zone which may be covered
periodically or . permaneantly with shallow water and include
saltwOer marshes # freshvster mairshes$ open or closed brackish
water ioarshes, swamps, nud flats, and fens. "
The Q. g . Fish and 14ildlife Service definition is ae foilow.at
"Wet:la.nds ' are: lands transitional between terrestrial and
aquatic systems where the water table is usually at cr near
the surface or the land is covered by shallow water . For
purposea of this classificatiorif wetlands must have one or
more of the following three attributes : ( 1) at least
periodically, the land supports predominantly hydrophyteast ( 2 )
the substrate is predominantly undrained hydric soils ( 3) the
substrate is nonsoil and is saturated with water or covered by
shallow water at some time during the growing season of each
yea
Wetlands as defined have include lands that are identified
under other categories in some land use classifications. For
example, wetlands and farmlands are not necessarily
exclusive. Manny areas that we define as wetlands are farmed
during dry pericass but if they are not tilled or planted to
crops, a prr,ctice that destroys the natural vegetartion, they
will support hydrbphytes. j
Drained hydric soils that are now incapable of supporting
hydrophytes because of a chai�ye in water regime are not
considered wetlands by our definition . These drained hydric
soils fuiCnish a valuable record of historic wetlands# as well
ass an indication of areas that may be auit&ble for restoration.
h,• The uplsAiid limit of wetland is designated as ( 1) the boundary
between land with predominantly hydrophytic cover and land
with ptedoninantiy mesophytic os xerophytic cover: ( 2 ) the
boundary bet:weae4 soil that is predominantly hydric and soil
that is predominantly nonhydric; or ( 3) in the case of
wetlands without vegetation or boil, the boundary b%tween land
f : that 3s flooded or saturated at eotae time each year and land
that is not." (Coxarolin et 1. , 1979)
The Department of piah and Gas* intorfaceed thq two definitions and
developed the following classifications:
Coastal Salt Mar-sh - A wetland, as previously defined ,
e
w�,�.wwwwww�w�
xhibiting a water and salini'�y regime which maintains
vegetation characteristic of an estuarine system. For the
.,1 purposee of this report, the "coastal malt marsh" designation
( dl$4D)
JJA'rAr r!'I
r
includes areas which are At least 304 vegetated and where sailt
marsh indicator plants ppredominate . Salt. marsh indicator
plant species include pickleeweerd (Salicornia virr,inica and S.
subterminalis) , alkali heath ( Frankenia grandifo:lia ) t
sal;-grass (aiettahlis spicata) and others.
f'
Coastal salt Flat - A wetland, as previously defined, where
eta on Ji acking ( lean than 304 coverage) and soils are
poorly developed as a result of frequent or rtlatively drastic
surface water fluctuation and/or high concentrations of salts
�y in they water or substrate.
Frea h Bracki, h Wate3r 'marsh - A wetland, as previously defined,
exbibiting a water regime which maintains vegetation which is
typically adopted to fresh or brackish +wa}.eer conditions . For
the purpposes of this report , the fresh/brackish water marsh
designation includes areas which are at yeast 30% vegetated
and where fresh/brackish water plants predominate.
f Fresh/brackish grater marsh indicator plant species include
spiny rush fluncus acutus ) , sedge ( Cxpitrus sap. ) , bulrushes
(Scirpus sap. ) , cattails (Typhe sep. ) and others.
Based on the definitions above, the oeapartmfant of Fish and Game found
i . Wt , of the 161.6* acre studied in Huntington Beach (Figurer 3 .1 page
r there are 114 . 7 acres of historic degraded wetland, 35 .2 acres
of former• wetl.abd which have, been so seve,:ely degraded that they no
longer function &* wetland and 12.7 acrer, of historic , upland . The
tent -"regraded wetland" is defined by Fi bh and Game as follows: i
tr
"A wetland which has been altered P1 man throu4h 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 ."
According to Fish and Game,, the de waded".' wetland determination is not
Meant ' to isply that thesee non-tidal wetl•?:nds do not provide
significant wildlife values, nor that they are not highly
prod,%ptiv* «, ; Zn' fret , pickleaweed dominated salt marshes are one of
the' ew.t . p raductiVo natural plan,`. communities. In addition , the
degraddd Wtt#asds provide significant habitat value to wetland
e 19106 acre area studies by Dept . of Fish and Gaue included some
hand that has Already been aertl.fied by the Coastal Commission as
part of the City's Local Coastal. Program. The already certified
parts of the study area are not addressed in this report; therefore
acreage figures used elsewhere in this report will differ from
those used by the Departmont of Pish and Came.
(0284A) •-�o-
` 1 ►i •'
I . .
� r ' •r
.• .; _ 1 ;
pia• .,�• ••.:``►��' �� ��;
' 1•• {�� � � , .i •fit f''
■ 1
� � l
••�� y
Loo
jk
dP
If
a 1 pa
t 411
I � �, ' ` -
QQ � • ,
r
...�,
'Irm
4f.'7
_..
i
y
Ono# determined that 136 .6 acres of historic wetland 3.n
ffohtingkoa beach are feasibly restorable. "Feasible" is defined by
titre coastal Act an follows:
"Capable of being accomplished in a successful manner , within
a reasonable pelriod of timer taking into account economic ,
*nvironmentatl , social and technological factors" .
rAirteen and three tenths acres of historic wetlands are not yasibiy
r OrabXe by virtue of their being adjacent to active development,
is magnitude of fill disposition and/or their size and shape. These
aces$ 4Vj�,not vegetated by wetland species nor du they provide
signifidAht value for wildlife.
Of the 12 .1 acres of historic upland, 8 .7 acres adjacent to Pacific. �
Coast Highway and downcoast from the power plant are composed of
coastal dune habitat and are environmentally sensitive pursuant to
Coastal Act Sections 30107 .5 and 302401. They constitute
approximately 351 of all remaining coastal dune habitat in Orange
County. The remaining 4 acres of historic upland located upcoast
�. from the power plant are not environmentally sensitive nor do they
operate as effective buffers to the wetland system because they exist
primarfly between Pacific Coast Highway and active development such
as the power plant and mobile home perks ( Page 10 of Fish and Game
Wetlands Determination) .
�., 3.1. 3 014016 and Associates study.
h, Mill•$ Land and Water Company, one of the property owners in the white -�
hole area, hired Scott Soule and Associates in 1980 to prepare are
independent study entitled "An Ecological Study of Certain Properties
Owned by Mills Land and Water Company and the State of California in
the City of Huntington Beach." The report evaluated four parcels
located on the inland side of Pacific Coast Highway from Newland
Street westward to and including a narrow strip bordering the west
side of Beach Boulevard . The parcels are owned by Mils Land and
Water Company, State of California Department of Tiansportatioh
(Caltrans ) , Sassooni -Mayefrt and the Ctty of Huntington Beach. Parcels
owned by Sasson-Mayer and the City of Huhtington Beach are not part
of the white hold area .
The Soule Report states that the study area presently . supports a
partial Bali: marsh, incomplete in str cture' and funC&ioIL# a
declining remnant of a once extensive ecosystem. The fiuding is
,f;• supported by the following observatione by Dr. Richard Vogl ,
Professor of Biology , California State University, toe Angeles:
1 . The vegetation on the Kills rand and Water Co. lard
represents a remnant of a once extensive salt marali.
2 . The preAent vegetation is similar to the middle littoral
zone of an undisturbed salt marsh , but is decadent and no
longer functioning normally. ( As of October 19R0 , almost
all of the pickleweed appears to be dead. )
( 0294t,) -22-
IYf1r .w.'w 'A 1"
1�.
,r
3 . Only one out of four plant associations or xoneE , and
only 8 out of the 21 species that are common to southern
California salt marshes , are present on the Mills
property .
4 . Almost all of the thud dwelling animals are currently
= absent, probably because of the long period of isolation
from see water flow &ad exchange.
5'. The endangered aelding ' s Savannah Sparrow was observed on
tbo prop►*rty, but the recent (unauthorized? ) * openings ire
the Orange county Flood control levee have apparently
resulted in the temporary setback and possible
Destruction of almost all of the gelding ' s Savannah
Sparrow habitat (stands . of pickleweed) . Other adjacent.
parcels undergoing development have (or had) similar
endangered species habitat, some of which is in better
condition .
6 . The land is primarily :Ased as a resting and loafing area
for mig-�atitory and local shorebirds and gulls . Foods for
most of these and other birds are largely absent in the
marsh.
7 . The Mills parcel contains wetlands that are comparable to
t the State,, City of Huntington Beach, and privately-owned
parcels that have been or are committed to development .
Although Dr. Vogl feel& that restoration would benefit the wetlands,
$mule stapes an page 33 of his report that the feasibility of
restoration is questionable.
3 . 1 . 4 other gtudies
Appendix F lists other studies which were undertaken in the area .
Since they gener:lly agree with the DPG determination, they need not
be diacubssd in 6tail until more specific restoration plans are
devei Med.
3 . 2 Restore tian
conolu; ..V6 evidence of the possibility of restoring the wetland areas
was ataahst=ated on the 17 acre caltrans parcel between, Srookhurst
&Ad the Santa Ana, giver, where culverts wore opened to allow tidal
flushing. Agcordingly to Fish and Game , once tidal flushing was
to-ektib iahod, a large and diverse complement of fish and
invertebrates recolani zed the: area within six months. Similar
results can be expected in the remainder of the study area.
Note: Since the conaletion of this report, the openings in the
flood control channel have been closed. The present condition of
the pickleweed is not known.
( 0264D) -23-
-l-
77
::. J ,,r�
fie.,
rl v
1
The following methods have been proposed to restore tidal flushing : r
A. Removal of the levee wall .
o e possibility for wetland restoration would involve the
removal of the levee an the south side of the Talbert
channel . Diking mould be constructed to protect the
mobile homy part at Pacific Coast Highway and Newland
x St qet as well as the Edison Plant, Pacific Coast Highway
and the other arheria:ls . This alternative would allow
waximum tidal range and , by allowing freshwater inflow as
Will, would closely approximate original conditions , The
removal of the levee would create 8 . 33 acres of
additional wetland ( Figure 3 .2 page 25) . The channel
mouth would simulate an ocean inlet .
` Grading would be required to re-create the c;levations
necessary to establish all the salt marsh zones . Care
could be taken to assure preservation of sufficient
pickleweed ho-bitat for the gelding 's savannah Sparrow.
The Orange County Flood Control District is tentatively
e b e to this alternative . Removal of the levee and
��gre � 1 r
the construction of protective dikes around the perimeter
of the marsh would be cheaper than the present playa to
widen and reline the channel . Further, the .e'.itored
marsh °will act as a flood retention basin UA peak flows
down the Talbert Channel , reducing the flood hazard
upstream. Finally, maintenance costs would be minimal
when compared to the cost of maintaining culverts with j
flap gates in the channel levee . This alternative mpy be
the most feasible and is preferred by the Coastal
C .inservancy and the Orange County Flood Control District
B . Construction of culverts with selective water control
devices in the channel levee .
section 30411( b) ( 1 ) of the Coastal Act requires Fish and
Game to determine whether major r-entoraticn effortc would
be required to restore the identified degraded wetlands .
Pieh and Game found that tidal flushing and reatorati,on
could bb feasibly and easily achieved by the construction
of culverts with selective water control devices ( flap
giteo, slide gates, flasbboard riser$, etc. ) between the
wetland areas and the Channel . This method was 1.tsed
succesOully in the past on the 17 acre Caltrans parcel .
Protecti-re diking world again be required, but the
culverts could be constructed to allow a controlled
amount of inflow into the marAsh . The height of the dikes
could be set accordingly. Again, %the restored marsh
could serve as a flood retention basin. In this case ,
however, the OCFCD would still need to improve the ,
( 02841)) -24- -
IFr
�f
!
P. 0
r \
. ,, 0 't
M 0o
w '
J�
k • i'Y
Y
A�
N.
1. 0 k. .0
L Irmo
ter. i 'x
r
r
�, S
{ 1
' Aft
channel . The cost of the installation of the culverts
and continuous maintenance to keep them free from debris
make this alternative less feasible, both Mechnically and f
economicalJdal.
, than the removal of the levee . In
addition, flushing would be less efficient and less
tidal range would be expected .
c. Construction of an ocean inlet .
The Soule report states that the construction of channel
culverts as described above would not provide sufficient
tidal flushing. The only effective way to restore the
degraded wetland, according to the report , would be to
reconstruct an inlet similar to the original Gamewell
inlet .
Due to economic, engineering , social and political
considerations, this alternative appears to be the least
feasible. According to the Coastal Conservancy, the cost
of constructing a similar inlet its the Holea Chica has
been estimated at $50 million . Construction of a bridge
over the channel would be necessary on Pacific Coast
Highway. The channel would cut through Huntington Reach
State Pack, disrupting recreational uses and disturbing
sand deposition . Finally, an ocean cut would only �
allow salt water inflow. Presh water is also needed to
provide the wide salinity range normalcy found in a salt
marsh.
3 . 3 Summary
All three alternatives would restore tidal flushing to tl:e degraded
wetland. Alternative A seems to provide the greatest tidal range at
the lowest cost, but more detailed feaeibili.ty studies should be
completed before a method is chosen. Past restoration efforts have
demonstrated that a fully functioning marsh would re-establish itself
provided that the marsh design allows the elevations that are
necessary to establish the tour salt marsh zones. Care must be taken
to preserve -an adequate amount of pickleweed for the Belding 's
Savannah Sparrow.
The Alifoxnia Coastal Conservancy in currently discrissing the
feasibility of the above alternatives with City staff, the pzaperty
Ownera, OCFCD, the Coastal Commission, the Army Corps of Engineers
and other agencies, and Will develop conceptual plans for permanent
restoration of the Caltrans 17 acre panel between Brookhurat and the
Santa Ana River. These conceptual plans could be applied to the
restoration of the remainder of the Huntington Beach wetland .
( 0284D) -26-
p `y JJ l
''� M'V.' ./rYF:,i1 �" F;r r" 'VA, fwr i r ' ',.Ih'�'` . - •'?: � '��. F
F rl
M
r• 1
t,l
7� Y
f?'
. fdrr, 'U '1
i
�.w
* IBM ra " MYYr.ri+..1 gym■
N Y1�lV �d�ti1.►1ns
'rho white hoie' area is located in a coastal plain within the greater
Toos Ango4ox Basin. The ground surface consists of relatively flat
1harsh sOO ads* upland which is located along Brockhurst and Pacific
, Coast ,Hi,11hway and along ,Beach Boulevard and Pacific Coast Highways
4 . 1. 1 Soils
10eear-suErfaco earth characteristics within the area result from
¢aelogically �rec*nt* alluvitl and tidal aarsh sedimeftt deposits .
Tbrese dep"its are primarily caused by Ptream charna,61 and fl•oodplrin
`' • s.tieity within the Santa Anna Gap. General characteristics if the
r Oil are:**
Unconpolidated channel deposits composed of generally
costs 61--graintd sands and gravels.
hloodplain doikVite composed of fine-grained sands and silts
i. with numerous,'slurs of peat. Concentrations of peat , one hslf
to five feet t&ck, have been identified at the southwest
eorn*r of *eadh Boulevard and Pacific Coast Highway and the
southwest corner of • Nagnolia Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway
(see Pigure 4 .1) .
* PgrEhin the facet U'xears .
a* Source : Geoteuhrical Inputs, Huntington Beach Planning Dept .
i� ��r7, r l � •1a`
! iY
� i•
r. .
�i. .......
' � I
%
1, S`
Y 7 ,
'
f
. � &/o daR 406 rAM Oft goo 'm air
Ho
1
•
i
I
.s
4
V
R
JV
W.
may,
V r i
. ryirsg $ones of clayf soft to firm silty clays and clayey
gilts mixed with significant amounts of tine organic mud.
i
For fgampl4, a geologic survey in 1983 of the site that now contains i
the ul g k�ers Apartments" ( an area on the east side of Bench
11pg 8 , *p rosimato1Y 3, 000 feet north of Pacific coast Highway ) ;
t~ P this ollow$ s
rl Jr
Vacyiniq_ X000 Of and send to a taaxitnum depth of 71 toete
give to seven feet - soft to fins silty clays
Lost 'strangth
Noderate compressibility
High expansion potential
High Mpisturo content
. High clay content
Under clay loose to medium dense fine sands with intermittent
And discontinuous zones of clay silt to a depth of about 10-23
feet
.R.
4 . 1 .2
iR rY1F
The "8teakers" -geology study also reported that ground water levels
Vore wlightly above sea level and when heavy equipment began work in
the low areas of the site, water percolated to the surface.
Significant engineering geology properties found in the white hole
area Are:*
Cheri jol deposits form important fresh water aquifer confined by
overlying relatively impermeable floodplain and tidal deposits.
Shollow aquifer subject to artificially Caused water quality
i. dog rids, t ion.
Peat lenses coMPresaiiblle under moderate static loaid$*
ghollow ground stater from highway runoff and sea crater
percolation.
Fault Lcca!t-lone
The white hale area is within two miles of the train branch of the
Newport-Inglewood fault atad approximately five miles northwest of
the epicenter of the 1933 earthquake, which was on the north branch
ource : Geotec n ca. Inputs # Huntington aeach Planning Dept .
(0?84D) -39-
i 4 ••
1
of the Newport Inglewood fault and had an intensity equivalent to
6 .3 on the Richter Scale . During the 1933 earthquake the zone of t '
rupture spread northwest from the epicenter in a direction that
included the white hole area.
Various studies have depicted the Newport-Inglewood Fault and its
numerous branches. A 1957 study published by the State department
of Oil and (;as 000) (see Figure 4 .2) p depicts the north branch o&
the fault# e 'routh branch (which crosses the eastern portion of the
'1 white hole area) ani a fault titled the Aldrich Fault (which
parallels the south branch and also crosses the white hole area) .
The DOG study was Lased on oil Company analyses of the west Newport
03.1 Field which are disc:ussci in the following section on oil
production.
In 1973 , Leighton and Yen (now Leighton and Associates ) conducted an
extensive geotechnical anal $is of the City . One of the maps in
that study depicts North an South Branches of the fault plus six
other faults ( see Figure 4 . 3 ) . The Aldrich Fault, which was brought
to staff 'a attention by Mr . William Curtis , does not appear in the
Leighton map nor does ft appear in more recent mass produced by the
State Division of Mines and Geology. One explanation for this could
be the methods of field analysis used by the oil i:orpanies, who are
interested in sub--surface; geologic features, versus Leighton , et al,
who are more concerned with surface features . There is also a
possibility that the Aldrich Fault could be the South Branch fault .
In the subsurface croLos section of the 1957 DOG study the subsurface
curving of the faults is il -istrated (Figure 4 . 2 ) . The curve or
Angle of a fault could mislead someone studying those faults . For
example, an oil company test drill could encounter a portion of the
fault at 1200+ feet ( subsurface) while the surface feature of the
fault is 340 to 500 fees: away from the drill site .
Within the last Live years varying opinions have been expressed
rege.rding the existence of the South Branch of the Newport Inglewood
I` Fault . Woodward and Clyde, who prepared the geologic studied for
the Balsa Chica, * have stated than, they found no evidence of a South
Branch . Bill Bryant , with State Mines and Geology, who has done �
extensive studies of the North Br. anc:,, has stated that he could not
rifle out the existence of a South Branch. Mr. Bryant stated that
there: has not been evidence of seismic activity in the Santa Ana Gap j
(which incluO-- 3 the while hole area) d»ring the Holocene eras, within
the last li,c years. Richard Lung of Leighton and Associates**
has expresses %is co)ncern about the South Branch anti future
development i the vicinity of that brands of the Newport Inglewood
Fault . Mr. lour �i has started that there is enough evidence to �
indicate a subsurfaces South Branch Fault , parallelling the fault we
rhow in Figure 4 . 4 . He is basing hie opinion on old aerial photos
and private geotechnical subsurface ( boring) # investigations .
WoaH-war 'c' y e ansu aria Prel imi� Evaluation of Surface
Faulting Balsa Chica Local Coastal Pro ram, January 1984
** Phone conversat or., Novem er IT,
- 1985
( 0204D) _30--
i ■ ra*e���t11 bR L 1if00TIJ1 N KLPETTO frOPMATIOU plea FOAMAyeals
'i�elel "!' .... _ -MNfeIK'C �eM�fpf'�' •n+tfaelr •a• _
H_. s -'4 -_ •�'•• ,,,,�,.. �.Ji ��..1►�_..�.t_11 � � �' "' I!! ufR am"r •--- _--yell ya� i
riOWN
116
1 � •
t�bo i �
` s L I K it
ppOv*,
f r f• 'lam- — _ _ -- _ r JWPU cL jib
+ Ty
♦! � W'1
n-
•tt A
a - !VW&
s i er or
Ado
_ u it P
_
I (L m
I
1
tit
/f
�� 11
. f
t!
1
1
W
r
MM1Y
�"��
�•9f1Y.F�11A.1.'ls'W�.h:nL �.. - �ilfp'�',.1��.z,li��#.i"� �. + _�_.._. — -__.�.�...,�nsi��.>�1"-' — __ a
l_
F
_F• \' -
�-�.J TILLArr.W71 per
dO
� V � 4%y, _crc.L sv-
W �
LRIGN"n-m Assoc.
�-1-73
FIGURE 4A-
? IACTAiiMAS TO U(IME +iCE ••i••••"� HC4*.ST SEISMIC FMK AppFoxkymte Location of a
OR EnENSM OF FAULT GREATEST SURFI CE RUPTURE Possible South Branch
POTENTIAL wITHiN'Cif'f of the Me+w wt bVkn+ood Fruit
BURIED TRACE OF FAULT Adft N ONCERTFIED 1
(WITHli~t 400' ZONE) '~
COTAL AREAS _
i
f
amok
r '
Li uo-faction
_-� .
Suriace rupture is not a significant risk , but liquefaction is ra
high r. isl: in the White Eiole area . With ►inconsol. idated channel
deposits of clay, , silt and sand combined with peat ( Figure 4 . 2 page: j
31 ) and subsurface deposits of water , liquefaction is probable in 1
the area during an earthquake .
During an earthquake, the resulting ground shaking will tend to
compact loose deposits of eohesionless soils . Xf the soils are
saturated, the compaction process will result in an increase in the
pore water pressure in the soil . with the increased ,,ore pressure ,
the wager within the sail will tend to flow upward which may turn
the soil deposit~ into "quicksand" ,due to loss of rhea_ strength .
Flow to the ground surface may be manifested by ground cracking and
lurching . Lurching is a sudden sideways motion of the ground j
surface, where the surface stays essentially intact , due to a loss
o 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,
4.2 Impacts
4.2 . 1 G eotechni.cal/Land Use Capabilities
Seismic and soil conditions present important considerations for
potential development in the white hole area .
Although the existence of the south branch of the Newport Inglewood
fault through the white hole area is in dispute , concrete evidence
of a fault ,could greatly reduce possibilities for development in the
art,&. Usinia the criterion of the Alquist-Priolo Act , no structures
for human occupancy, other than single family homes of wood frame
constr«ction, are permitted on the trace of an active fault .
Fault rupture, however , is currently not the major issue in the
area. The greatest amount of damage from an earthquake would result
from ground shaking . Ground shaking contributes 4o soil
liquefaction, which is the major seismic related concern in the
white hole area.
Bitter Water Lake Properties, which has a purchase option on Daisy
Thorpe Piccirelli ' a property ( area 3 of this study) , hae given the
City a copy of a geothechnical study that their consultants Leighton
ar.d Associates prepared . The summary of the study is shown in
Figure 4 . 5 and support- - staff research regarding risk of
liquefaction in the white hole area (see point number four which
statee that the potential for liquefaction is "very high" ) .
r
* Preliminary Geologic Evaluation of the State (Alquiet-Priolo) •�
Special Studio"- Zone Maps , Related to the Newport-Inglewood
I p t Sono, City of Huntington Beanh , California, April V ,
( 0184D ) -34r-
I
I
f '
I
4 . 2 . 2 Mitigation Measures
Measures to mitigate the Orasequences of liquefaction have been
recently proposed in the Bolsa Chica and Breakers geologic studies .
Those measures include :
Design provision3 that permit st r Lictures t•a withstand
liquefaction without .serious consequences .
Bulkheads can he constructed such that little or no lateral
movements occur . This can be accomplished by extending
sheet-piling well, below elevation -20 and by constructing a
"dead-man" supported on deep piling . Sheet-piling is a type
of bulkhead that is made of interlocking steel panels, about
ane 'half inch in thickness , The "dead man" is a support that
anchors the sheet-piling similar to a guy-wire that
stabilizers a telephone pole .
File foundation systems for all structures .
Deep densification , such as vibraflotation, to densify the
underlying granular soils . Vibraflotation is "a process of
compaction in which a sifting and shaking of the material
j allows the heavier particles to settle , forming a firmer or
denser base .
Site improvement that increases the resistance of the
underlying cohesionless soils to liquefact�,on. Dynamic
consolidation and compaction piles appear zost likely to
provide the necessary means to increase this resistance .
Placement of fill across the site . The fill , underlain by a
rock blanket 12- 24 inches thick, will serve as a means tc
mitigate excess porn pressure during a seismic event .
Remove the upper one foot of the underlying natural soils,
which is rcmpressible clayr that is located beneath building
floor loads.
4 . 3 Conclusion
Discussions with the State Geologist (William Bryant ) and City
engineers in Development Services and Public works have resulted in
the conclusion that a variety of development could occur in the
white hole area as long as proper mitigation measures are taken to
reduce ,seismic related risks. As stated previously, liquefaction is
the major soils/'seiamic related risk in the area . proper bulkhead
placement and pile foundation systemsr while not eliminating , will
greatly reduce seismic related risks to structures . The type of
foundation and method of anchoring structures are key mitigation
measures for development in the white hole area .
Based on the geologic evidence regarding the possibility of a South
Branch 0 the fault and the knowledge of liquefaction as a component
of white hole soils , staff recommends t..at thorough geologic studies
he conducted prior to any development in the white hole area .
f�2�4q y --35-
T.I IGHTON AND ASSOCIATES GEOTECHNICAL STUDY
OF THORPE/BITTER WATLP PROPERTY
SUMMARY OF PRINCIPAL GEOTECHNICAL CONSTRAINTS
1 . The South Branch fault trace is considered A major active
fault within the Newport--Inglewood fault zone and it parallels
and underlies the northeastern property boundary .
2 . The epicenter For the 1933 earthquake which devastated the
City of bong Beach was located 3 . 5 mixes directly offshore
from the subject property.
3 . The hazard of seismically induced ground rupture at the site
is very high.
4 . -Phe potential for liquefaction and other secondary seismic
hazards is very high . The occurrence of mpay of these hazards
4t or near the site during the 1933 "Long Beach" earthquake
has been documented in published reports ( refer to "Secondary
Seismic hazards" of this report ) .
5. The subject property is a natural tidal marsh environment .
b . The site is underlain by 1 #000 vertical feet of unconsolidated
alluvial sedimentat which accumulatedth in the lower flood plain
of the Santa Ana River . In additiono peat deposits may
underlie the subject site within the predominantly sandy and
silty alluvium.
7 . Ground water at the site is very shallow and locally ponds ors
the surface. Tt is salt water derived from seawater intrusion
and the ground water level is influenced by tidal Conditions .
8 . The flood hazard at the site is very high due Lc the
inadequate design of the storm drain channel vyhich borders the
north side of the property . , During the heavy rains and high
rides of 1983 , channel waters reportedly overtoppmd the banks
and inuncated the subject property . sedimentation may also be
a constraint during and after flooding.
9 . The ahsite materials have high potential for total a.ne.
differential settlements due to additional fill or structural
. loads,
10 . The salt content of the coils in very high. vegetation
planted At the site may need to be salt tolerant .
Eiqute 4.5
(0264a) -36- _� .�_.....
.K i •rt'�.zrj ,��
I
5 .0 OILL PRODUCTION
5 . 1 E�x�pq, Conditions
In years past, oil production activities have occurred in several
portizins of the study area, as shown in Figure 5 .1 on page 38 and
noted on the following table.
Year Date
Name Location Drilled Doh Abandoned
"Mills" Mfllo Land & dater 1955 7, 520 1955
M. H. Watkins (W. of Newland)
"Myers"
Huber a Myers O.C.F.C.D. information not available
tip of Magnolia)
"Tslorpe" mhorpe 1956 1 ,340 1957
Exxon iN. of Magnolia)
"Thorpe" Thorpe 1953 70,622 1954
Texaco tV. of Magnolia
*Thorpe* 1955 7,889 1955
Dixon ( E . of Magnolia)
''•"� Etiate 1549 Thorpe 1956 "O'ra86 1956
Xxxon (a . of Magnolia)
(0284D) -037-
r
r'
r •
.-sf
i
=A.
•:tit
1.
Year Date
Name Location Drilled De th Abandoned
r
Hook Calt Tans 19.:8 5 , 8 /^2 1958
Beg Gill & Assoc . (W . of Arockhtirst)
"W Caltrans 1935 4 , 586 1935
U .B . oil CO. (W . of Brookhurst)
"S,%:ate 1540. " Caltrans 1956 8 , 695 1957 �
Exxon ( E. of Brookhurst)
"Willow Comm. " Caltrans J943 5, 006 1943
Phillips (E. of Brookhurst)
Each of the ten wells drilled within the study area was abandoned soon
after drilling commenced. No significant amounts of oil were
discovered . In 1984 , Daisy Piccirelli entered into a lease agreement
with D 6 L Investments to permit a gas drilling operation on a one
acre site at the extreme northwestern corner of her property, adjacent
to the Southern California Edison property . The lessee for the
mineral rights for the site has requested a zone change from LUD to
LUD-^1 to allow for drilling .
5. 2 Abandonment
The Division of ail and 3as (D.O.G. ) , a division of the California
State Department of Natural Resources, regulates the drilling and
abandonment of oil wells throughout the State. According to the
D.O.C,,, records , each of the wells was abandoned to D .O .C. standards
which were in effect at that time. However, since the late 19501s ,
numerous technological advances have occurred in the field of well
abandonment . None of the abandoned wells in the project area are
considered to be properly abandoned to today' s standards, according
to enginers at G.O.G. Prior to any development occurring in the
vicinity of these we:lls , each would need to be re-abandoned to
current standards. This most likely would involve drilling out the
old cement plugs and. replacing them with new cer ent plugs per current
D.O.G. standards and procedures. New development should also be
sited so that the abandoned wells do not lie beneath any structures.
5. 3 Conclusion
D.O.G. indicates that if portions cf the 9*udy area were to be
inundated to enhance the wetland areas, any well in the inundated
area would have to be to-abandoned to meet current D.O.G. standards.
fte cost of re-abandaravent of the wells must, therefore, be include
sae A cost of any deveeloPment or wetland enhancement. This cost,
barring complications, can be estimated at $25,000 $30, 000 per b *11 .
(02040) -39-
6. d BA,M�N AVOUR EXTENSION i
6. 1 8xisting. Conditions
IwY W�� II
The Huntington Beach Circulation Pla
n an of Arterial Streets and
. Highways designates Hamilton Avenue as a Primary Arterial . Running
east and weste Hamilton Avenue constitutes one of only two arterials
which presently cross the Santa Ana River in the southern part of the
city. Hamilton Avenue' s value as a cross-town connector is
minimized* howevert by the fact than it presently terminates at
Newland Street. A portion of the white hole area separates the
Hamilton Avenue terminus from Beach Boulevard. At the present time$
through traffic is rerouted via Newland Street and Pacific Coast
Highway to Beach Bnulevard . This rerouting adds a►pproximati�ly one
mile to the distance vehicles must travel in each direction and
increases traffic volumes on pacific Coast Highway.
Although 'Hamilton Avenue presently terminates at Newland Streat, the
Ci.rculstion Plan indicates the eventual connection of the street to
Beach Boul*Varde This connection is intended to coincide with the
extensift of Walnut street from the Downtown to Beach Boulevard.
Togothorg those two extensions will provide an important access
M between Downtown Huntington Beach and the South Huntington
amaoh/Costa *;,na area and are expected to convey substantial volumes
ft
1 .
a
{
The segment of pacific roast Highway between Newland Street and Beach
Boulevard is presently !onveyinq approximately 44 , 600 average trips
peer day . This is well in excess of the design capacity of the street �
in its present P; i.mary Arterial status. . After Pacific Coast Highway
is improved to Major Arterial status , the existing 44 , 600 average
daily trips will place the street at level of service "C" which i.,
generally considered to be the maximum desirable service level . Any
future increase in traffic on Pncifis Coast. Highway will then exceed
level of. service "C" . Because the Hamilton extension -gill serve to
relieve future traffic congestion from Pacific Coast Highway, it is
viewed as an inportanL component of the City' s circulation system .
Preliminary designs for the Hamilton Avenue extension call for a 100
foot right-of-way containing a 4 lane roadway, a landscaped median
and a bicycle lane . The extension would continue in a straight :line
from Newland Street to Beach Boulevard and would skirt the southern
edge of the tank farin in the white hole area. This alignment ,
however , ;could traverse marshland in the White hole area and may
violate Coastal. Act policies for wetla;.J preservation . In order to
reduce the impacts of the extension on the area it traverses , two
alternative: combinations of alignment and construction have been
proposed for consideration . The "no-project" alternative is also
discussed .
6 .2 Pro ect Alternatives
1 . This alternative would consist of the alignment of the
right-of-way through the white hole area from Beach
Boulevard to the corner of Newland Street and Hamilton
Avenue by means of an elevated structure on piles ( Figure �
6 . 1 page 43 ) . The elevated portion of the Extension
would be 2 , 500 in length and would not impede Wetland
restoration . This alternative represents the least
intrusive method when aligning a roadway through a
sensitive environmental area. A small amount of fill
would be required at the bridge abutments, but impact to
any wetlands would be minimal.
2A . The second alternative would be the alignment of the
rig'_t•-of-way from Beach Boulevard to the corner of
Newland Street and Hamilton Aven-ie partially through the
white hole area and partially t:..ough the tank farm north
of the white hole area . This alternative would require a
900 foot long elevated structure on piles from Beach
Boulevard east to the tank farmr complemented by
right-of-way improvements on fill through the tank f:ar;n
( 1 , 700 feet in lengtH to the corner of Newland Street
and Hamilton Avenue .
The construction of the right-of-way improvements on tank
farm land would require the abandonment or relocation of
at least a portion of cne tank farm. The impact on any
wetland would be reduced substantially, an& the high cost
of constructing one third of the roadway on piles would "
be1y artially offset by constructing two thirds of it on
( 0284b) -42-
V ! ;,POP
LL
ui
om fir,.
ow
00
All
1
��.'•' .".. '••� �; �J ��a/ 1/��/pry .... ••`1.�_J/!��/
rt� J
as �. r . / �.•
/ N ,
1 •
-43-
1
1
7 � j
I
,
?.H . A mc,dification of the pzeylou:, alter. nativp, this
alignment as recommended b5� Fi:jh an! WlldliEe would
traverse the northern portion of the tank farm rather
than the souther* port-. [on in order that the connection
I
with Beach Boulevard would not need to divide the wetland
south of the Breakers Apartments complex. Rather , this
alignment w,7uld place Hdmi,lton Avenue on piles on the
southern boundary of the Breakers . Staff has th ee
noncerns with this alignment; ( I ) the more northern
alignment would result in a Deach Boulevard intersection.
only 800 feet from an existing intersection for the W&a
condominium development on the west side of Beach
naten
Boulevard to the north; ( 2 ) the more northern ali t:
� 9
would not coincide with the Citry ' s pzoposed Walnut
extension from Lake Street tra the west; and ( 3 ) a more
northern alignment would not provide additional. access
posssibi,li.t:ies for the proposed commercial and
residential uses along Beach Boulevard.
I
3 . The third alternative is far "no-project" . This
alternative would continue the existing conditi.ors,
routing traffic, around the white hole artN via Newland
Street: and Pac.`,,fi.c Coast 1Ughw•%y to Beach ':.ule:vard,
using the existing street and highway system . No fill �
would tie required and any wetlands would be protected ,
but this alternative does not provide a cross-town
connection. �
6. 3 Mitigation Measures
Three of the proposed alternatives locate the extension of Hamilton
Avenue through areas designated by the California Department of Fish
and Game as degraded and restorable wetlande , Pursuant. to Section
30231 of the Coastal Act., any loss of wetland habitat must be
` mitigated by wetland restoration . Possible restoration plans are
discussed in Section 3.2 of this report.
6 , 4 Coat Analysis
Several elements must be taken into consideration when analyzing the
caste of each of the alterna►Livee: I&Md cost, construction cost: and
mitigation measures cost. Preliminary estimates by the Coastal
Conservancy indicate that the construction of the entire structure or.
Phis (Alternative 1) would be the most expensive method of
construction, The Coastal Conservancy, bas estimated the cost of this
alternative to be approximately *4 . 7 million. The nitinaation
M*Asuree for this alternative, however , nay be the loast expensive,
th*roby balancing the goat to a large extent.
The astablishraent of the right-of--way oii fill through the tank farm
and on piles to Spam over the w'iite hole area (Alternative$ ,U or 28)
appear; to be the least expensive approach from a construction
standpoint . Its construction cost is a t&.msted at; $3 .0 million by
the Coastal Conservancy., but thi,e alternative could be prohibitively
expensivs ih termd of tank f4tva Acguir tIon or relocation .
( 0284D) -44-
""Niq ri')-project alternative ( Altern'--iti_ve would r. !)qulre no
additional expense bit the City beyond minor upgraOinq of some of t.},e
auc r ounr? ' :icy arterials . However , Alternat j.v,�- 3 ",mul6, not. alleviate
crc8s- tow: L af'fic: congestion on other arterl.�-Ils leading to
Downtown or the beetchen .
6 . 5 Colic I 1]01on
it appears that the extension of Hamilton Avenue to Beach Boule-card
can be designed in a manner consistent with Coastal Act policies .
A] tornntives 1 jnd 2 :,.at4.nfy wetland iestora ion and circulation
objectives for the wU to hole area witrnout compromising highway
dosign standards by utilizing Construction can piles to mi.r.imi :e
landfill .
III
I
1
._1
(0284D ( ' �7 �
4
aM
r
i
710 r�� HIGUMV& WIDENING
Pacific Coast Highway k+etween Beach Boulevard and the Santa Nna At,ver �
is pr(�Gtnt.lY 00n4tructed AV a four lane unlivided Fri=',ary Ar::e,riiil
with a night- -of-N&y of 100 feet . Tn 1�e3, however , the highway ' s
arterial designation was upgraded by the C+ty and County to that of
MaJG.r Arterlal . This amtndmen,t slam enai :ted n rwb6ponse t-) Caltrans '
plans fe'r the widening of Pacific Cs LO; Highwny to relieve traffic
congestion.
Widening of Peaoific coast,_;Sid�j'vay will require the use of additional
:3 ght-of-wdy can butte the to.-Man and inland We* of the Highway .
While the bulk f the wi�A,1hg �ritl occur on the ocean aide of
pacifIC Tohot Hic.hwny, approximately five and a half acres will 'uP
taken' from t'!,ie Ait1 hole area on the inli►nd si-ie of Pacific Coast
Nlghway. C'altrane has eatimnt$d that 1 .33 Urfa will be taken
jetw6en the San-ta► Ana Rivc-r and arook'4rnt Street , 1a 6 acres between
Erook:huirst,' a nd Mr.gnol is Streets, 1 o 6 acres between Magnolia and
Nevlond 91, reetso' and 1 . 07 acres between Ntwlanij Ctreet and Belch'_
Utilization . of 186 aCr46 -as, .tsaasta: upland and degraded votiand in
the-white hole arve. four highway p4rposes PUl -oquira mitigation
through wetlands restoration by UltrAwa. It; is largely due to tni.s
reed rcr ,eiti-94tion that. .C""trans is working with the Coastal
ConaerOaney fro restoraclon of the 17 acres between "Mnokhurst and
�- rho Santa Ana River,
M 4 ._ Y
1
R'
I
Fj .0 F J CAi. ANALYSIS
i
8 . 1 1t:ernaLive3
Four: land use scenarios were developed to assess revenues and cost
impacts to the Cite f r.:�,�� c1ev�].olr)m-2rft in the white hole area . The
scenarios range from r!inifnrll to i n-ense development ,, Figure 8 . 1 o)-1
page 50 the land use: �nar :ios , including acreacje aad, general
location . In addition to staff discussion regarding teasibltr land
user, in the area , development concepts were acquired from the
Loastal Conservancy and Bitter Water Lake Prope,- t-Acs ,. The
Conservancy provided the hotel. concept used in Alte),nat- ive 1 , and
Sitter Water* agreed with the condominium cconcept:s staff developer
fl)r the area oetws?en Sr. 00khurut and Magnolia used t,r Alternatives ?.
and 3 . D4n sreni.an , City real estate appraiser , was al.ge consulted
regarding estimated lance and development coEstb for portions of this
analXsis , '
The land area urged in this analysis is a total of 147 net acres .
Right-of-way allowances for the widening of Pacific Coast Highw-iy
and acreage lost because of the extension of Hami lt:cn Street: were
deducted from the gcoss acreage in order to arrive at the above
figure . For this reason these acre4ge figgres may not be completely
congruent with acreages elsewhere in this report .
Source: tton D+ePe cue a7-Fitter Water Lake Properties . Bitter
Water Fake Properties currently has an option to
ppurchase that site from the owner , Daisy Thorpe
Ficcir+elli .
R-49-
•
?ISCAL ANALYSIS OF LAND USE SCENAR10S
C>>�r erC4 =r=.f--s= :nai
�}p}. }� ��^{�'ris- _or S }��:.n _ RTe�siden i .1 �ntc�:� t.ri�:� :�ff_��
et'Aand aJGaci, & Ma-no,-1--, a
LaJC rl��/ f.`
Alternative Re�tarati�n pCH CB _ Beac, PC i''.` a noii a �rc�cLcticn R-5
1 124 120 0
acrezp room a aC==
5 acres
2 78 400 Commerci?l Condo ' s Con,do ' s G
acres r0rpM 3 acres ;5 23 cr=Z
hotel acres acre
pl.ys
c
retail
10
acres
3 1 -1 BOG Com m_r. iai Apart- Condos 17 of essiona
acres Loom 5 acres rei:ts 55 ,.cres acre Gffi^e
hotel and acres •'���
rIus condos i� a =es
retail i.
10 acLFs
acres
r�
:Z
f �-
The a sumpt. ions used `'or each stfE�Wl r 10 al (-2 as 011
Alternative 1
o n s(-. r v a r. ion : 124 a c r-I ri It: i .,; t: jizjt- the wot id area
—ep 11 M '-' C t I-U..1 I C-0)(.1 cl 116 i S h P r e f 0,Y L!X('Hk 1:011TI
property tax .
hotel : 1.80 r,-toriis on a Live ive T�at:Cel &t Lho. northeast *11F2r
7-1�,-each S.oulevard and Paci f is Coast Hi h1day . The lintel 1. --1oM.--,-
would �,,envrjate an average roori rent of U0 per night with a 73
percerit occupancy rate . tissuming th(-- developer retains
c)wjjci::jh.ip of Llii-, hot-ttlj Lhe conij!-::u:-'L ion cto:it j on which
property tax would be applied , WOUld be " 13 , 420 , 71.0 . The
construction cost includes an undergrouA parking structure and
ground level amenities such as tennis courts and a poolt PILIS
restauran' and bi- riquet facilities . In comparison ',:o the
const.ruct,.Lori costar Lhi "- hotel development scenario , provided by
the Conspi'vancy , showed a LoLal development cost ( including
profit ) of $1914-516+ 416 ,
C . Fneirgy-, P oduct ! on : 17 acre parcel adjacent t0 Lhe Southern
c�ilifornia EdU�oF plant . Public utility land and improvements
tion . T h e m a o r
are asses-----�d by the State Board of Equalizza
poction of the 17 acre site is assessed at "'44 , GC7 per., acre ( 15
41
acres assessed at $670 , 000 ) . * The balance of the site ( two
acres) , is within a five acre parcel that is assessed at
$J, , 000, 000. The 17 acre site is currently generating
approximately $1 #, 740' p annually, in City property tax revenue ,
The Edison Company liaL, no immediate plans to develop the site ;
therefore , for the near future, the site will remain vacant and
there will be no major change in property tax revontie . This
revenue analysis auEessez new or additional revenue based on
development , so the revenue discussed above is not included in
this analysis . Howelrer , if the CILy rezones a portion of the
entire 17 acre site tc conservation , the net result could be
less property tax revenue generated by that site .
D . oil Production: one acre site . AL the southeast corner of the
,Iloc-J control, channel and the Edison Company property liner
William Curtis has surfAce rights for an oil production drill
site on Piccirelli ' s land . Currently the property is assessed
by the Orange County tax assessor at 138 , 000 an 'acre. For the
Purpose of this analysis it will be assumed that this site does
not incur a change of owner , the property ins not reassessed to
current market value for oil prodUCt ' .-)n and , therefore , the one
acre site will not. generate additional or new revenue , If oil
is discovered the City could , in the future , collect revenue
from oil production in the form of a tax per barrel of oil .
*Source : Gene DuPaulo Valuation Division, State Board of
Rqualization . See Appendix A for addilh---iona! information .
( 0200)
since " h-r(,
produ ch ion on the i te at: the p.1 ur-tent.
time an ostAmoto or barrel revenue Will. -.-I(.)t ht.- included in
t h i.9 a n a I y t; i s - T ff oil is discovrrc-d the cit , could , in the
future , col. lect 1*f,1VP-tILI ' 011 Oil
hlt.ernat ive 2
A Conservation : 70 (-]c r e s As In Altornalk- ive .1. , this would be
i)—L,6 r-c l:ru.yt lane i n d e x 1,in p t from T,-j r n I?c- r t y t a x AI o , with t-.I i e
Exception of the 16 acre ( riet ) site 1-',etweetl the Santa Ana River
,ind Brciok-hurst , this alternativc- integrates wetland and
v v 1 o r.m(7 n t- .
S . Hotel anti Vj. Sftor Serving Commercial : 400 rooms on a 10 acre-
parcel at the northeast corner of P--icific Const Highway and
bea,7h Boulevard . U.-Ing factor!- p.-(-- ,,rided by the Conservancy and
Laventhol & Horwath . * this, hotel WOL11d have a restaurant ,
coffee shoo, banquet facilities , conference- facilities and
retail shopi .
I' t is, assumed thi ,-, hotel. would generate an average room rent of
$80 per night with an average annual oc,.,upancy rate of '73
132 , 000, 000 ,ercerit . The tot '-I] con9truction cost is estimated to be
C. Three Acre Commercial Site : at the northwest corner of Magnolia
and Pacific Coast Fighway . This development is assumed to have
both the components of a neighborhood center acid
visitox-serving Commercial. , The buildings will cover
approx-hrately 32 , 670 square feet . The construction value is
estimated to be : $80 per square fnot for the Structure** and
$30 per square foot for the land, totalling $6 , 534 # 000 .
1). Condominium Development : on a 115 acne parcel. in the
northwestern corner of the white hale areas on ReacAl Boulevard
adjacent to the Breakers Apartments . At a density of 15 units
per, acre there would be 225 condos . Thc- aver age unit value is
estimated to be $200 , 000 resulting in a total project market
value of $4 .0 C
1000 , 000.
E . COTidominium Develo ment : at the northeast corner of Magnolia
�Lreet and Pacific Coast Highway on a parcel consisting of 23
acres. At a maximum density of 15 units per acre there would
be 345 units . �t is estimated that the average unit, value
would be $230 , 000, with a development unil%- value range of
W5, 000 to *250p000f resulting in a total development value of
, 110, 000 .
In addi6- to the Laventhol & Horwath publication , "Hotel
Development # " the City ' s hotel feasibility study prepared by
Laventhol and Norwath was also a resource.
This estir,ate is low because the costs associated with mitigating
goil,a/ligaefaction were not available .
(0294D) -52-
F Tndult rii.a.1 - Ene�ruy I'* ndurt nl) : ( S':" /i1 t:,�`I:cl :t: lt'1? .
L
1'
C. Oil Pre:)ducticn : ( Seep Alt erri ativg- .l .
ti
Alt,ernar:ave 3
A. Conservation ; :'.l acres . In addition to the between) the
and Brook1juL'�t Street , approximately Seven
Acr.efj of wrt:tlandj. adjacent- to tl-je }<ot- :1 site .at Pacifie +.oast:
Righway and 8,2aCh Uaulevard , WOUld be re-stored and integrated
int.(- t:k,e dt ve.] rpm(,nt- pl in ris vel l as: four ncrr." %t3 jnr,; lt: t.c) t:h(,
t".dison pi-operty .
B . Hotel ajid visitor Servinq Commercial : 400 rooms on a 10 acre
parcel at the northeast corner of Pacific Coast Fiiol,way and
Beach Boulevard . Using factors provided by the Conservancy and
Laventhol & Horwath, the larger rotel would have: a restaurant ,
coffee shf)p, banquet facilities ,s , conference facilities and
retail shops . It is assumed this hotel would generate an
average room rent of $80 per night with an average annual
occupancy rate of 73 percent . The total construction cost is
estimnt ed to be $3 2 , 000, 000 .
C . Five Acre Visitor-Serving Commercial Site : at the northwest I
corner of Magnolla Street and Pacific Coast Highway . Assuming
a 25 percent site coverage with a one ,itory structure , the
building area would be 5.4 , 450 square feet; . i'he cost of
construction is estimated at: $80 per square f.00L- , combined with.
a .land cost of 00 per square foot , resulting in a total
constructed value of 101, 890 , 000 .
D . Residential Development : on an 18 acre site , on Beach
Boulevard, at the northwest end of the white hole area , bounded
by the Breakers Apartment r,omplex and Lhe 400 roam hotel.
discussed earlier in this alterna.tive . For the purpose of this
analysis this site be divided evernly into a nine acre
apartment Complex and a nine acre condominium development , at a
density of 15 units per acre . The apartment complex , with a
value of $70, 000 pe; unit ( 135 units) , would have an estimated
market value of $9 , 450, 000 . The condominium development would
have an average dwelling unit value of $150 , 000 resulting ir, a
total estimated market value of $20, 2501000 .
E. Condominium Development; on the 56 tare site between Brookhurst
and Magnolia Streets . At a density of 15 units per acres ( 940
units) and an average unit value of $238 , 000 ( with a range of
225 , 000 to $2500000 ) the total a 6timat:ed market value of the
evelopment~ would be $199 , 920, 000.
F. Industrial. - Energy production : ( See Alternative 1 . )
�,. Oil Production : (Seta h1ternative 1 . )
(02040) -53i
ti
I
�i . pro fes3si.onaI Office : on ► 13 acre site tin(Ie A on the south t:y
the flc)o'concro— channel , can Lhe east by flewland Street:, on
the north by extension of Hamilton t"+v,)nuc ( -(nd the Tank
Fjr. m ) ar►d on we,;t by ru identi a,l clav .,.upmeuL anal t;h�a flood
control channel , o.,stabl, ish a Resfr etrc+h in.nd Design Ly . it:
is assumed that this type of d,. ve.lopmernt would have., a ntr ur.ture
that covered 60 rercont of the site with Ei. rst: tic',or, patting to
mitigate the fJ -.,)od risk . The structure 1.0 ac-sumed , therefore ,
to have 339, 76P squal7e feOU of building area with an e.�-Limated
construction cast: of $80 per ayuace foot . Tjie Jand value is:
to ho (uporl r^rirsi^ ) : 20 %i -.qunro foot~ , rentilt;iI g in -i
const:.ruct.ioii value of t3E , 507FO40 .
staff Alternative
A . Conservation ; 11.3 . 5 acres . ?assuming a transfer of these acres
t7-a Pu is trust entity , such as the conservancy , would result:
in zero property tax revenue .
B . Hotel. and Visitor--Serving c:omffe. .ial : This scennrlo would be
the .game as Alternatives 2 and 3 , a400 room hotel with �
cornmrcial uses within the hotel c:ompJex . The property tax
revenue For this comnl.ex is estimated to be $64000(1 . i
C . Commercial : complani.on development to the hotel complax . III'h �s {
two and one half acre site, the balance, of the 14 acre
visitor-serving commercial, would have 27 , 225 square feet of
c.cmmes:cial building . Assuming similar construction considera-
tions as the commercial uses in Alternatives 2 and 3 , this
center would have an estimated construction cost/value c;f.
$5, 445, 000, reGul Ling in property tax revenue cif $ 1 0 , 890 .
D . Condominium Develo ment : on a two acre parcel on Beach
Boulevard between the proposed four, acre commercial center and
the existing Breakers Apartments . At. a density of 25 units per
acre these 50 residential units woould have an average market
value of $120, 000 . Therefore , the estimated property tax
revenue would be $14 , 000.
E . llisitor.-SEry. ins Wornmerr:ia.l : service station with mini.-mart at
t ie northwest corner oT Magnolia and Pacific Coast HiChway .
Based on an analysis of existing stations with mini -marts, this
development would have 18 , 900 square feet of the site
developed, including a mini-mart consi .ctincg of approximately
2 , 000 square feet . Again , based on existing sytat. ions, the
construction value of the serIlic:e station wou.le be $200, 000+
and the remaining acreage would have an estimated market value
of $53, 406 . The est:.mated property fax revenue from this site
would be $507 .
F . Oil Production . (See Alternative
*TW estin�te includes the structure plus gasoline tanks and
e u coon
(02840) -54-
64..
Results
This anal.*,,sis i :; bast�d on a one year cninparison , of reveriLler,
generated to and serv,! cf- cost impacts; u-poill Hite CILy Of HUntinghon
Heach from. each 3-and use The cafegofieL, t,,,-,c-d irl thIs
an a I ya is are major revenue and cost fact:or�, . The purpose iof this
analysis is to examine on--going revenues VE'rSLIV, therefore
one-t im d(,
e %V elopment fees ar ., not: i-ncluded . ThiL; analysis j.,s not.
.1
-intended to replace r-r be used as a detailed markeil
study .
Pour altct:ailLive; C11:C C(,vip:ired on Lhe basis of their relative cost
and benefit impacts . By --omparing re.alive revenues and costs (see
Figures 8. 2 and 8 . 3 ) the renults of Lbe analysis , as shown below,
Ve
indicate Alterjjat 4 A. generates the most revenue , while. Alternative
2 has the highest reventie to co-.-,)t ratio and generates the 1 -, ast
revenue ( also. the lowust costs)
REVENUE COST SUMMARY
Revenuo to Net
Revenue costs Cost Ratio Revenue
Alternative 1 282p2O3 j 12 , 012 23 . 419 270pJ91
Alternative 2 OrO94p4j.4 $199? 553 5 . 48 894f861
Alternative 3 $1 ?560 ? 019 $451 , 39-7 3 . 46 1 , 108 , 622
:staff Alternative $ 7 31 Q. P 105 $ 3G , 734 20 . 1 '2. 702 , 371.
At the present time it: has riot been Feasible to accurately
inco.-porat-e economies ojl-- sacle into this analysis , yet it is
important, note that the consts estimated in this report are
expected to be modifLed by economies of scale . Specifically
referring to the difference in costs between Alternatives 2 and .3 ,
economies of scale would modify or r-.�duce that difference due -1--o the
following :
Economdes of scale enab.' (, a functional unit to expark] Its
capacity at marginal cost : . The methodology iipplied to this
fiscal analysis allocates costs for each additional new unit by
the average cost of existing ( in place ) units . Realistically ,
ally ,
since most capital improvementp are already in place , and
increases in many budget areas are affected by many factors
( I . e . inflation , changev in technology , automation ) other than
Increases in population/development , any new unit aeded to the
system would have, on the average# a lower cost impact than the
averagE existing units ,
in a "real world" situation , therefore, the costs per alternative
are expected to be less than the estimates shown . The revenue to
cost ratios are also expected to be greater than the estxmatee
calculated in this analysis.
See Appendix 8 for a detailed discussion of the methodology used for
this analysis.
(02040)
f ,
f,AH ) U:F A L'1 M NA'J.'I:V I.
Revenue Estimate.;
Revenue Facture .I.teritative 1 Alterative 2 Alternative 3 Staff
AUZ,- native --- - ___ _ _
Property $2o , 841 $331 , 288 $622 ,034
Sales Tax 14 ,400 302r786 179, 277
Transient;
Occu ancy Tax 226r32-,1 5.11 , 58�4 511, 584
I ' Utilfty/Cable TV Tax 1IF236 81 , 022 133 , 290
pusl.na3r, License 1 , 40,E 2 , 94 '7 3 ,014
Fines . Forfeitures
I' and Penalties N/A 1.3 , 496 23 ,088
Cigarette ilax tl/A 31363 5 ,753
Motor vehicle i
Tr.- 1ieu Tax I1/A 28 , 147 48 , 146
(,as Tax Fund _ N;A 1 779 33 , 833
i
Tvta1.s $282r 203 $1 , 094 ,414 $.1 5601019
I
I
I
I
a
F.TrIhATED COSTS ,!EFL ALTERNATIVE
Alternative
B . Hotel Development - 5 aores
Costa
C,erle. ra l/Adin1.17i f31: rat io)j, t. 3 y 201
Fire Department :3 , 221
U
Public Works i 59 ()
Total
Alternative 11
B . Hotel Development - 10 acres
C . Commercial -- 3 acres
D . &F . Resider':ial , total poprilatiori estimate is 1 , 140 .
Residential acres developed are = 38 .
Casts
General/Administrative 32 , 968
Fire Department 33 , 177
Police Department 54r000
Community Services 22 , 390
Puhl- c Works
Total 199 , 553 �
Alternative III
B . hotel development - 10 acres
C . Commercial. Development 5 acres
D . &F . Residential development: 74 acres end population total of
2 , 193
G . Professional Office Development - 13 acres
Costs
General/Administration 65 , 93'i
Fire Department 66 , 353
Police Department 162 , 000
Community Services 43 ,071.
Public Works 114 , 036
Total f451 , 397
Staff Alternative
B . Hotel Development - 10 aces
C . C%. .,amercial - Hotel Companion - 2-1/2 acres
G. Residential - 2 acres and a population total. of 100
� . Commercial - 2 acres - service station and mini-mart plus oil
production
Casts
g General/Administration $ 9r25C
Lire Department 9j, 309
Police Department 0
Community Services 1 , 96-
Public works 16 2 1
Total r
(02040) -57-
a1
8 , 3 F►ut71. i_ nenef its_ of _0pen S'Pi:(_'e Cornse}'Vai--icnn
wilile the conservation areas t.hnt: co"ipr itit! f"0!:1_- of _Alternative 1
;.i�. ?i.f I ,11. ern�ative ��r. r� expected to have public: benet`its , Chose
trenefi,ts are not L7�iily tillant:ifiLd . For examplc , Pau1 (;Gnzales , a
biologist'. with CslTrans , hao stated that- portions of tho wetland �
which are opened to t: trial flushing may function as a "nursery" for
some agnatic animals . 211(e wet.l;azjc3 could provide an area were
certain species of fish could develop and theoc fish would have the
potential of cont:ri.htzting dir.er:tly to the sport ?old commercial
f ishing industr. ies . '!'hose industr ie?s do genet ate economic. !benefits .
Also, property that is placed in pi;hlir! trust; For restoration and
conserva` i0li purpcaes , while not generating property tax or sales
tax revenue , does enhance the value of adjacont properties , The
National Association of Home Builders ( NAIM ) has stated that: in t-hFt
vicinity of park and recreation areas values of building sitez are
enhanced up to 15--2.0 p-�rc,ent with a level of su:,tained value over
the years . * A variety of studies have been Produced throughout the
United ,States supporting the findings of NAHB . The subjects of the
studies range from tradit:ionaL narks to wetlands . It is common
knowledge , for exannla , th-it hornes located ad jacenL to Ceiitral. Park
in Huntington Beach or the Upper Bay in Newport: Beach nave higher
property values becau,3e of Lheir proximity to these open spaces .
II
in addition to enhancing adjacent nr. oper•ty values , open space areas
also generate rAnimai city service costs . The Coastal Conservancy
has found that minimal costs plus hot,efits such as .Flood plain and
catch basin areas in wetlands make these area:, more attractive when
assessing costs verso., benefits .
wetlands and esti1ari e.) also draw visitors , who generate retail
spending and additional sales tax revenue in the local.
Jurisdiction , Figure 8 . 4** lists thirteen coastal estuaries and
wetlands in California zinc] the number of visitors or " users" per
! year .
A conclusion one can draw from the above information is that
undeveloped land in a community is not necessarily unproductive .
I,ow costs, enhanced adjacent property values , flood benefits ,
potential fishing benefits aria visitor generated revenue associated
with r wetland area can produce positive fiscal impacts .
i
e Source: 0 en S ace Pays . : The Soc:ioenvironomics of a en Space
Preservation, Darryl F . Caputo, New Jersey Conservation
Foundation
Source : State Coastal Conservancy ancy
( 0384D) —58—
Nook
�;
f
Figure 8 . 4 .ANNUAL V15Y'_ LJR 0S ()F C(DhIc I'AL E,!7-'1.11JAI MI ANT, WY; TTj,AND._
+.� ~e AIr -fiur�tiii�i tip w s:s i rii.1) -- �_.�.
YEAR I'1't; INCr',F.,S COUNTY USERS/YEAR '
1984 Arcata Marsh 90 11umbOIdt ] 12 , OQOa
1977•-81. point Reyes National Sc:.irhnre -2 3.30 Ma r in 11 610 , 450b
1970 Rr%elf g-,� llny 7156 Mriritt h
1981 San Francis-o National 170500 Alameda 91 , 71;>b
Wildlife Refuge
1984 E:llrhorn Slough area 2 , 000 MonLe-rey 95, 400c
average Nat: Tonal. Estuarine Sanr. tuTry 22, 490c
S?ough 73 , OOOc
10, 84 Bvlg3 chica 1, , 200 Orange 48 , .150d
, 984 Upper Newport Bay 1 , 200 Orange: 250e/tour
gOO , 000E
( estimate)
.19R4 Buena Vista 350 San Diego 65, OOOd
1980-B]. Los Penasquitos Lagoon 385 San Diego �119r000g
( estimate )
1984 Satigttitas Lagoon 580 San Diego 12, ( ood �
J.984 Ilan Degui to Lagoon 269 San Diego 8, 000d
1984 San E.li jo Magoon 500 San Diego 101 000c1
1983-1985 'Tijuana River rlat;ioral 2 , 0
00+ San Diego
average Estuarine Santuary 57r3OO-72 , 300h
Border Field Park 42 , 30011
North End 150 000--30, COUn
( estimate )
*Fi.gutes reflect total acreage . In most cases , the acreage accesa'.ble i
to visitors is considerably less . For example , of the 1 , 20C acres at
Bole& Chica 150 acres are accessible to the public.
at Dave Hula,- -City o � rCata
b. ESA/Medrone, Wetlandn Polidy assessment ; California Caae Study
1982
c. Ken Moorer Dept . of Fish and Game
d. Annual Use Report 1984, Wildlife Conservation Board
e. Fr itnds of upper Newport Bty
f 4 Pon stein, Dept . of Fish and Game
g. San Diego Coastal State park System General Plan : Tocrey pines .
1981
ht Paul Oorgensen, Dept . of Parks and Recreation
02800) "'S'�-
h`
! *��
i
i
9 .0 PUBLIC INTEREST
when the California voters adopted Proposition 24 in 1.9713 ,
preservation of the State ' s shoreline and coastal resources war a
major goal . Later the Calitornia Coastal Act of 1976 incorporated
these concerns into legislative policies which specifically protect
all coastal resources , including wetlands . The Coastal policies
pertaining to wetland protection %re. sutr.m,,rized in Appendix. h an
fsage 103 . Since the California Department of Fish and Came has
designates: almost: a.l.l of the white hole area as restorable wetlanclso
:state policy would seem to dictate that the city must designate the
area for conservation. Prior to making a decision on .land use ,
however , the City should examine regional and local impacts .
This report has addressed a number of planning issues previously
identified by the City Council , None of the issues studied presents
insurmountable obstacles to desfgnatiou of any land uses suggested
in the alternatives . Perhaps the most telling argument in favor of
development in the white hole area is the enhancement of the local
tax base. Its this post Proposition 13 era, responsible fiscal
management is increasingly important . However , even in the fiscal
' arenas trade-offs exist . A large restored wetland could enhance
" surrounding property values , and thus somewhat offset any lose of
tax base due to remtri.cted devtlopiaent . Restoration of existing
wetlands to full function could also have positive impacts on local
fisheries and tourism, which would indirectly provide positive
tcononic benefits to the City.
Porcior, 3 of the. City ' s auiopr-ftd C-Prier -il pert,clin to th , study
areal . The Ope;i Space and C.'onservatior. Lhat
preaerw. tion of th(,- Santa Ana River Marsh is ,, F medium priority in the
Oper, Space Plan , The accompanyi,ig map ( Fj.(jure 9 . 1 page 63 ) dejActs
t h ITIl I., L,!l a I Va C, X N F,d i n t
Riiyor . In addition , the C,'JaSLal E'leillOrlt coriLail'1.1.1 poliCit-N to
anti rnhance wetlands arid other habi tars .
( 0204D)
i
`a of, F
ID
!{ •� � � ram! � ��Jl _y/`
�. Rvimars,- h-,*rrr Rrser c-P adurfi er. 4• -
OPEN " PACE AND
_
�J Rim-ali—o Arra • 3 (Y,�rl►�io.s Plan A,.
: \ri;,,�,i�rxl:ro'd Parl. ;1�.irK+�.•�Ir,:'r;+r.,l�;
Wale Air: -W--om S.:r C{Enpo!ffi.Y 42bk ■yONCERT D
Cam' •. SAS
WWASM" MOID: C403ow
_ - 74
10. 0 FOR PRIVATE LANMKNERS
On;a of the mosL difficult affecting land use designations in
tree white hole avea is the proble.: ot'. private property rights . The
maJorif-v of the white mole area is undar. private ownership. These
owners have paid property tax an their land for many years ill the
expectation of eventual financiDl reward from develapnin-11t . 3",f the
CityO in response to the public interest , designates the white hole
solely for conservation purposes , the eypected financial rewards to
the property owners will to greatly reduced .
While there is a market for wetlanC property which is in need of
enhancement or restoratinn, the value of land for this purpose is
con3iderably leas than the value of land which can be cleveloped with
housing o7 commercial centere . The Coastal Conservancy# based on
its experience in wetlands acqui, : Uan -In Southern California , hac
fourd that comparable values for wetland acreage range from $7 , 500 -
$10, 000 per acre. Land values for residential or commercial
development range from $300400 to over $1 million per acre.
ftis conflict between private ar,d public interest is not new, and
indeed, has bean faced in many other coastal areas. Sometimes the
public interest hat prevAil �d and private lands have been designated
for very .taw iistensity uses .
The California Coastal Commission hag successfully defended a number
of lawsuits on th-'.s point , It Is li%ely. given the Coastal Act
mandate, that such a OefenzF. would prev4il in the case of Huntington
Beach ,
(0284D)
-Mimi
On the ether hand , :�ometimess public interest and private property
rights have compromised , with a resultant portion of the land
devoted to development and they remainder preserved for the public
benefit . The recent conditional apprc�. I of the Bolan Chid band
Use Plan , or the Ballona wetlands development Y.n Playa Del Rey are
examples of such compromise.
10. 1 Lana Swa
One method for r:ompensating proaerty owners for not permir,: ins
development of their land is to give thAm other propety to develop.
This might take the form of an outright land swap , with developable-
land held by a public entity exchanged for the land needing
protection. For example, the City could trade land it owns in other
parts of the City for private property in the whit: hole area , thus
providing the owners with another place to develop. i
10 . 1 Transfer of D+eve]..opnent Ric�hrtss
Another method of swapping development privileges is known as a
" transfer of development, rights" or `!'DR. With this method , the City
would grant each property owner a certain number of develcpment
credits ha led on criteria related to the size and location of their
holdings in the white hole area ,, These credits could be sold to
property owners in other locations; and used to increase the amounts
of development which could otherwise occur there. Usually a
receiver area is designated , where intensification of allowed
development could reasonably be accommodated without negatively
impacting surrounding areas .
TDR schemes are intricate , and only Et few have been successfully
implemented . They have been used to pv. eservc: hi�•toric buildings, in '
older dow►titownt and to maintain sen 3iLive oc%en space . A IPDR program
would require that the City locate and designate areas where th-3
development credits could be used . The value of the r, redits would
depend upon the desireability of the receiver locat.iuns and the
economic feasibility of intensifying development th:_re .
10. 3 Restoration with Development
A third possibility for a c;ompre-imise solution is to locate some
development within the white hole area itself. To accomplish this ,
a number of agencies would have to agree upon the amount of acreage
to be developed , as well as .its location . Even within the white
hole area, some font of TDR may be necessary to balance development
possibilities with restoration priorities . acreage which could be
developed might include zmall areas of highly degraded wetland and
areas recla4med after th.40val, of the southern flood control levee ,
�.►ese could be consolidated with the non-restorable acreage and
located where restoration woo-A be least feasible. Authorities have
all agreed that the most lik,:ly and productive rest uiati:?n grew; are
those closest to the Santa Ana River . Thus, the ;areas least
feasible for restoration would be those between Beach Boulevard and
(02840) -66-
h
A'
r
■
Newland Street. The consolidated acreage for development couid be
" located adjacent to the existing developable land at Beach Boulevard
and Pacific Coast Highway , creating an economically viable
development node. The remaining areas could be bermed and restD.red
to a functioning wetland .
10. 4 Outright pcirchase
Perhaps the simplest method of compensating owners for the loss of
development rights would be the outright purchaFe of their property
by the City or the Coastal Conservancy. Although this method is
straightforward , the difficult part would he establishing a purchase
price. The appr, lsed 1ralue of land is highly dependerat upon the
allowed use of the land . Since land uses have not yet been
established for the white hole, an appraisal would be very
difficult. Based upon the highest and bast economic use of the
land , the value could be very high. Considering the constraints to
developme.;t , however , and the mandate of the Coat.tal Act to preserve
wetlands , the value might be low .
The Coast:a-- Conservancy has already talked wilith Daisy Piccirelli ' s �
about the p )ssiblity of pUrchasing her property at fair market value �
as determined by an approved appraisal . ;Uthough no offi: ial offers
have yet been made due i:,. iack of interest on the part of the
property owner , the Conservancy has Stated that they are Interested
in acquiring all. the rroperty ■oo ithin the white hole for wetland
restoration and protection , Their interest i.ry pUrchasing will
pr. oba,b] y cantinue a;a the C:ity ' :: 1. 3n6, use designation process
procef�ds.
I
(02841)) -67-
{
l
li W 0 RECOMME14DAITION
This report has presented three land use al.ternativEr, for the white
hole! area. Alternative 1. featured almost 100 percent wetland
restoration, Alternative 2 featcrid substantial amounts of
development along with restoration, and Alternative 3 featured
nearly 100 percent di v elopment. r"h-i intent of the analysis was to
examine the range of extremes of development versus restoration
which could conceivably be applied to the area. In realitye
however , sooe comprarsiee between the three alternatives will be
necessary. Such com-promise is needed in order to comply with
Coastal Act policies lor wetland restoration while still allowance
property owners to realize a return on their investment.
in selecting a comprcmise, perhaps the most immediately pressing
constraint involves the Coastal Act policies which prevent
development of r*st:or:able wetlands. if the City' s selected land use
alternative io not i•rr substantial compliance with Coastal, Ar.t
policiese, the latid use plan will not be certified and *.he wt;ite hole
study will have beer, a wasted exercise. W h i.l.e Alternative 2 in the
white hole study is certainly a compromise mAway between
Alternat ' •Pes 1 and 3o staff believes it still allows more
development than could oe found to be consistent with Coastal Act
policies. this determination directs the City to examine a
compromise between Alternatives 1 &nd 1.
(0$84a) =69--
,
one rationale for selecting a land use compromise involves
identifying non-restorable wetland acreages throughout the white
hole area and transferring and concentrating those acreages into one
or two cohesive areas for development . Section 3. 2 of this report
discussed the possibility of remo%Ping the channel levees on the
south side of the Talbert and Huntington Beach Channels in order to
restore large areas to acti.v- wetland . Staff has conservatively
estimated the south side of the channels to compri.se approximately
8 . 3 acres . since this land is now developed as channel levee , it is
not classified as either wetland or degraded resterable wetland .
Staff proposes that the development rights for this acreage be
transferred and reassembled elsewhere in the white hole area .
Apart front the channel levees there are also additional non--wetland
or non-restorable weti nd designated acreages in the white hole ,
There are presently approximately 2 . 0 acres located at the mouth of
the Santa Ana Raver which are zoned LUD-fP1 ( Limited Use District
comhiried with Floodplain Development. Regulations) . This property
has been identified by the Department of Fish and Game as
nont r. tstorable former wetl,!.nd . Additionally , at the northeast:
corrser of Magnolia Street: and the: Huntington Beach Channel. are 1 . 2
net acres of City-owned land which are not wesignated wetlands by
the State . Tocether , these two areas comprise a total of
approximately 3 . 2 acren . When combined wit:, the 3 . 3 acres contained
in this channel. levees , there are approximately 11 . 5 acres of
potentially developable property in the white hole .
All three of the land use alternatives addres:.. :d by this report have
featured 5 . 0 acres of Commercial at the northeast corner of Beach
Boulevard and Pacific Coast: _Ii.ghw��y . The development potential of
this property has never been in c,:,ntention and, in fart , the State
Coastal Conservancy has proposed a commercial use for this argil .
This 5 .0 acre site , in conjunction with the 11 . 5 acres identified
above , produces a total of 16 .5 acres of potentially developable
property in the white hale area . .Since most of this acreage is
dispersed in otherwise non-developable fragments throughout the
white hole area , however , r.taff proposes that the development rights
for these fragrnentws be transferred into two cohesive areas .
As indicated on Figure 11 . 1 , staff is proposing development of a
total of 16 . 5 acres divided into two nodes in the '.:nice hale and in
return requiring the restoration of 130 .5 acres to productive
Wetland. The smallest development node contains 2 .0 acres of
Commercial at the Northwest c:o;ner of Magnolia Street and Pacific
Coast Highway. The intent is to allow a 1 . 5 acre service station
with convenience market in conjunction with a 0 . 5 acre oil/gas
production facility. The gas facility, discussed in Section 5 . 1 of
this report , is preuently planned for a one acre site generally
locst vd further to the: north. Staff feelo that the impacts of the
production site could be minimized it it were c-educed in sizes and
moved to the south in conjunction with a small commercial center .
With proper landscaping and architectural treatment , the two eases
could be combined into one attractive and compatible package . The
convenience market would serve beachgcers as well as neighborhood
residents to the North .
( 02840) N"70-
With the 2 .0 acre site at Magnolia Street and Pacific Coast Highway ,
14 . 5 developable acres remain . Sta;°f propt:ises that this acreage be
located on the east side of Beach Boulevard north of Pacific Coast
Highway. 5 . 0 acres of this area would remain as the Coastal
Conservancy ' s proposal for a hotel/:dmmercial center extending
eastward along Pacif{.c Coast .Highway iron Beach Boulevard. Staff
would then add an additional 7 . 5 aches of Commercial along Beach
Boulevard to the north of the hotel . This expanded commercial area
could accommodate an enlarged hotel in conjunction With restaurants
and other related facilitio3 . The combined commercial area would
total 12. 5 acres and would extend northward as far as t)e Hamilton
Avenue connection to Beach Boulevard , The remaining 2 . 0 a-res north
of Hamilton Avenue would be designz.ted Medium-High Densir.y
Residential and would abut the Breakers apartment project .
Discussion of staff ' s land use recommendation must also addreRs the
Southern California Edison Company ' s undeveloped 17 acres of
property to the southeast of their generating plant . Althoogh this
area has been designated wetland by the department of- Fish and Came ,
the Coastal Act provides for expansion of existing energy facilities
in wetlands under certain conditions . Staff , therefore , recommends
thmt this property by designated Conservation/ Industrial Energy
Production . This designation will accommodate i� t:erim leasing of
the propyprt:y for wetlands enhancerr.ent without precluding future
expansion of Southern California Edison ' !; energy facility.
rn summary, staff 's recommendation is for 'i tots;?. of 2 . 0 acres cif
(Medium High Density Residential , J 4 . 5 acres of Commercial and 130 . 5 ,
of wet- land restoration w.it� 17 acres of that retained for future
Edison Company expansion . Staff feels that this proposal
constitutes a realistic compromise between the interests of wetland
restoration and return on property investment . While much of the
proposed 16 . 5 acres of development certainly are located in areas of
potentially restorable wetland , the fact that approximately 130 . 5
acres of degraded wn :land are proposed to be restored elsewhere
constitutes a realistic trade-,. `f . This trade-off is Enhanced by
the restorati.,ii to highly functioning wetldrid of the 130 . 5 acres
which are ,presently degraded and continuing to deteriorate . This
proposal, is further bolstered by the fact that the 16 . 5 acres are
salvaged entirely from existing non-restorable or non-wetland
designated properties . Front an economic standpoint , even though
16 .5 acres Fill provably riot appear to the various property owners
in the white hole area as a substantial opportunity for development ,
it will allow them a much better returr on their property than a
straight sale for restoration purposes . Further , since staff ' s
proposal does focus development. at one end of the white hole area ,
there should be some type of transfer of development right.
agreement prepared to all ►w the major property owners to share in
development of the 16 . 5 acres in a pro-r-vwa amount based on the
percentage of the white hole area they own .
( 0184b ) „71-
�Toaapw��.'T+_'_�.� —..�� ........ __._ •; Fin ,;.�w�.r�r.:Rl�-
rr
` oa a 03 ai �° a In I I
Ixo
� � II
°a a -C P a ti 9f►e
N,
� r• r
N r
N mil VI.1M �
ri
J • '� �� \
A.
ana
► r ♦ }' \
f �- f;
C!
46
I Ell
Ap
\]�F 1. �\\'•• t •
►, ' i
- l
a
�E
i:µ�'
K1
Spy ..., •
l
li
;f
UWAh
1
APPENDIX A
;i
EDISON PROPERTY - PROPERTY TAX REVENUE
Although public utility property tax is not reported in the County
`Pax Assessor "ells it is hosessed in the same manner as private
gxOperty # one pF;rcent of the assessed market valuation. Public
utility land and improvements aro, assessed by the State Board of
Equalization and reported in a special document seat to County tart
assessors. For example , the 17 ar . e Edison site discussed in the
sport has an 1985-86 assessed rp et valuation of approximately
i
10535, 992 . The City is cuzren' collecting an estimated $:3 , 072 in
propprt;y tax revenue from that acre parcel .
The resource for the above information was Mr . Gene Du Paul w;i+ h the
Valuation Division of the State Board oi. Equalization . * Mr . DuPaul
stated that the 17 acre site we are assessing is part of a 20 acre I
vacant parcel that the State Assesnox has placed a value on . The
State has divided the 20 acres into two parcels : a five acre parcel
assessed at 01 , 000 , 000 and a .15 acre parcel assessed at $670 , 000 .
The five acre parcel is adjacent to the flood control channel and
the assessed value is based on an estimated current Ynar�:ett rate . In
contrast , the 15 acre parcel which is adjacent to Pacific Coast
Highway, along its southern boundary , is assessed at a lower value
because of "Coastal Commission interest. in that parcel as a
,aetI and. " The "Coastal Commission interest . . . " are words used by
the State Asses3sscr in explaining his rationale for placing the lower
value on that parcel . This lower wetland Jalue could afft!ct City
revenue if the entice 20 acre site is zoned as `cnservation . It can
be assumed that the trillion dollar , five acre parcel would be
reassessed at a lower value and , therefore generate less property
tax revenue.
While the property tax eevenue currently generated by the 17 acre
Edison property has esaer `_ ially the same value, aj• it relates to
each alternative in the report , adoption of any of i (,f the
alternatives has the potential of reducing part of that paccel ' s
value.
Phone Conversation March 6 , 1986, and follow-up
correspondence d-Ated March 19, 1986 .
(0200) -73-
T
vrty� �y
r.'
w
•
v
J'•
a,
APPENDIX B
WHITE HOLE AREA REVENUE ANALYSIS :
f�
i
E
I
y
rG'
I'.
( 02040 ) -75—
' •apt;'• cti " ;;';
Ty jY
;,
WHITE HOLE AREA REVENUE ANALYSIS
� 1 . 1 PrOpert:Y, Tex
'the County tax aaseasc)r collects one percent of the market valuation
of new development in property tax. Of that one percent , the City
of Huntington 'Beach collects , In tax rate area 4-001 , 20 . 0 percent
in property tax revenue .
s Using the assumptions discussed for each alt.erantive, the esti.mriated
property tax revenue generated by i.hose alternatives is described
below :
AAernative 1
F�. Hotel , 180 rooms on a five acre site . Constructior, cast
$13 , 4201 •11.0 . City property tax r_ evenui. =• �26, 341
To►gal property tax revenue estimate for. Alternative I = $26, E41 .
Alternative 2
H . Hotel and visitor-serving commercial, 400 roams on a 10 acre
site . Estimated constructed cast is $32, 000 , 000 City pruperty
tax revenue would equal $64; 000 .
C . Commercial - neighborhood center/visitor.-serving, 32, 670 square:
feet of b+.ileling area on a three acre site . Construction coot's
are estimated to he $61534 , OU0; City prOpet•ty tax revenue
estimate is $1.3, 068 .
D . Condominium development , 15 acre site ; 225 unii.s with an
estimated market value of t45, 000 , 000 ; City property tax
revenue estimate is $90 , 000 .
E. Condominium development , 23 acre site , 345 units with an
estimated market- value of $82 , 110, 000 ; City property tax
revenue estimate in $164, 220.
F'
'dotal property tax revenue estimate for Alternative 2 - $331. 288
� s�re►t ive 3
' to Hotel and visitor-serving commercial , 400 rooms on a 0 nore
site. Estimated construction cost is $32 , 000, 000 and City
property tax revenue estimate is $64, 000 . �
C. CommerclaIr visitor--serving, on a five acre site containing a
54 , 450 square foot building which would have an estimated
construction ►a►lue of $10, 890, 000 and City property tart revenue
of $2: , 7M 14
I,11'
I1
4/\
( - a
01 Residential - apartment and condominium development ( total 270
unite) with an estimated market value of $29, 700 , 006 resulting
in City property tax revenue of $59 ,400 .
E. Condominium development on a 52 acre site, totall. i.ny 840 units
at a market value. of *199020, 000 generating *399, 840 in City
property tax revenue.
G. professional Office, R-5, research and design facility with a
building area of 427, 846 nguare! feet resulting in a
construction value of $38 * 507, ®40 , Thy City property tax
revenue estimate is $77, 014.
otal esti.matQd property tax revenue for. Alternative T11 is
622, 034 .
Staff Alhernative
I
A . Conservation Land uses tot._Ili.ng 11.3 . 5 acres . Assumir)g a
transfer of these acres to a public trur:t entity, such as the
Conservancy , would result in zero property tax revenue .
B . Hotel and visitor-serving commercial . This sconario would h-R
the same as Alternatives 2 end 3r a 400 room hotel with
commercial uses within the hotel complex . The property tax
revenue for this complex is estimated to be $64, 000 .
i
C . Commercial companion development to the hotel complex . Tnis
two and )sae half acre site, the balance of the 14 acre visitor �
serving commercial , would have 27 , 225 square feet of commercial
building . Assuring similar construction as the commercial
entities in Alternatives 2 and 3, this center would have an
estimated construction cost,/value of $5 , 4450000, resulting in
propect;y coax revenue of $101890 .
D. Condcminium development on a two acre parcel on Beach Boulevard
between the proposed four acre commerc:al renter and the
exieting Breakers Apartments . At a density of 25 units per
acre these 50 residential units would have an average market
value of 01208000. Therefore, the estimated property tax
' revenue would be $12, 00 0.
E. Visitor-serving commercial - aervice station with mini-mart at
the northwest corner of Magnolia and Pacific Coast Highway .
Based on an existing station 4it:h mini-mart , this development
would have 18,900 square feet of the site developed with a
mini-mart consisting of approximately 20000 square feet .
Again, based on are existing station, the constrv -:tion value of
tbo Sorvice station would be $200000* and the remaining
acreage would have an estimated market value of $53, 406 . The
estimated property tax revenue frcn this site world be $507 ,
F . Total Property Tax Revenue $87 , 397
* This estimate includes the structure plus gasoline tanks and
equipment .
f
1,
1 . 2 Sales T&x
state sales tax revenue , six cents on every doll-ur, is collected
from retail sales in the City . Of that revenue , the City receives
one perce^t , or one cent of the six cents . In this analysis , sales
tax t:ev+enues will be generated by the hotel development , commercial.
(neighborhood and visi.tor.'•serving ) and From new residents who would
occupy residential unite ( apar. tment6 and condominiums ) .
In addition to Lave,it:hal & Horwarth ' s hrt el ;study, another Urban
'r ;'and Institute publication ( aollais and Gents of Shop ing Centers )
was used as a resource for tN1s "sue a�n--o—r-ie analysis .
Alternative 1
D. The hotel. would ccntrain a restaurant , coffee shop and banquet
facilities . Anneal food and IDzverage sales are estimated to �
tonal $1 , 440 , 000 braced on a 7 , 500 square foot facility
generatin� $192 per square feet . Retail. saleb tax revrenue
would be /$14 , 400 .
Total sales tax revenue generated by Alternative 1 = $14 , 400 .
Alternative 2
H . The 400 zoom hotel visitor servhng commercial r(-tai 1 is
estimated as follows :
Food and beverage sales based on a 16 , 665 square foot facility,
including restriurant , coffee shop , banger,=t: apd conference
facilities , is estimated to generate $192 in taxable sales per
square foot: per year totalling $3 , 199 , 680 and generating
$31 , 0, 97 in sales tax revenue .
The hotel would contain boutiques , gift shops and clothing
stores requiring approximately 2 , 000 square feet cf building
area . it is assumed these retail stores would be in a
com;3anion structure adjacent to the motel . It is A-.timated
that these stores would generate $200 per square feet per yea-
An taxable retail sales, generating $4 , 000 in sales tax revenue.
C . Commercial - Neighborhood Center/Visitor-Serving . This mixed
use center consisting of 32, 67C 7quare feet is estimated to
generate $150, per square foot , I-er year] in taxable retail
sales, The annual sales tax r,?venue generated by this center
would be $49, 005.
D./
3 . The 225, $200, 004 per unit condominiums and the 3450 $238, 000
per unit Condominiums in this alternative are estimated to
generate similar sales tax revenue per unit~ . An annual average
income for a family of two persons needed to purchase a
$100400 unit is expected to be $80, CQO = for the $238 , 000 unit. �
!01040) "7$`
a
Kr+
�-
r.
c
a
an annual income of $71 , 400 would be needed . The 1RO Optional
State Sales Tax Table est mates that a family o two persons
with an annual income of �165pOOO will generate �45& dollars n
sales tax revenue. The City would receive one sixth ( 17
percent ) or 078 per family in gross aales tax revenue . For the
570 units,, the annual revenue is estimated to be $440460.
1 It is assumed that a major portion, 60 percent , of .sales tax
revenue generated by reai.dent:s in Huntington Reach is collected
by neighboring cities; this revenue loss is referred to as
"leakage" . Because of this "leakage" , the estimated net: gales
tax revenue collected by the City for the residential portion
of Alternative 2 would be _�17, 784 .
ota.l estimated sales tax revenue generated by Alternative 2
Alternative 3
B . Hotel -• This ; r the same scenario as Alternative 2 . The total
.estimated sales tax revenue generated by t-he hotel and
affiliated facilities is $35 , 997 .
C. Commercial--Visit.or--serving , The 54 , 450 square font fac-i; xty ,
supported by bath seasoaal customers and Year.-round residents
in the adjacent: 840 units , is estimated to generate t-20n per
square feet per year in retail sales . 114, * City sales
tax revenue w•.)uld be $108 F 900 ,
E. . Residential - The 1RS sales tax table was also used as a
resourt.e for this alternaitive . The family size will be the
same for all units, one to two people , acid the sales tax
revenue is shown in the following table :
IRS Ci ty
Estimated Estimated Net
Family Sales Tax Gross Revenue
Type and Value Income Rel?enue ( 40% )
Apartments
*70,O00/unJ.t $24, COO $270 $46 $18 . 40
Condom
B $150*000/unit $45, 000 $399 $63 $27 . 20
Cendoe
0 $238, 000/unit $71 , 400 $494 $84 $33 . 60
(02840) -79-
sales tax revenje per type of residential :bevel op►nent is :
135 apartments 10484
35 c�ondominiunis t.30 672
840 condominiums t281224
Tonal .370.7Y6 i
Total estimated sales tax revenue for. Alternative 3 is $179r277,
Staff Alternative
B . Hotel , the same as Alternatives 2 Find 3 . Estimated aales tax �
revenue would bi $3 5 , 997 .
C . Commercial center ad j�icent„ tu the would have an, iia l sa Ies
of approximately $200 per sciu:; rsL- t :got: (.,or.rrr►tAnkj .nnudl retail
sales tax revenue of $51 ,1 450 ,
ID . ReLidential . The condominium complex would require an average
family income p pl?z- unit , of approximately .$4 0 , 000 . Using the
IRS/sales tax tabl •>s fr-,r a family of one to two p(tr. sons the
following sales t:a;; revenu,' is derived :
C i. t v
Family IRS Cross Sales City Net
Income Estimate Tax Reve,lue Reven►le
$40, 000 $380 6`) $26
B . Service Station with mini-mart . Service staF;,ons generate
sales tax based on gasoline sales , & portion 04 the items sold
In the mini-riart and parts sold in conjunction with any vehicle
repairs performed on t-he premises . ,Stave Shelton of the
Southern California Service ,Station Aszociation states , * "that
the shove type of station genrates annual sales r. ariging froni
$6001000 to $3 million. " However , Mr . S►,elton could not
provide an estimate of the sales that would generate sages ta'x
revenue,
Mr . Richard West from the State Finance Office said 'Chat the
percent of sales tax would vary according to the extent of
vehicle repair and type of parts sel d in con Aunct i,-�n with that
repair . Because or limited data this analysis wil.) assume than
tLe hypothetical station generates $600 , 000 in annual gales and
that 80 percent of those sales generates retall sales tax
revenue. The City ' s sharp of that sales tax revenue would to
$4, 800 annually .
Total sales tax revenue $905, 547 .
*phone conversat i.on$ March 5 , A86 .
( 0284D)
v
k
"y
1 .3 Economic _Pkin-Offs/Additi.onal Sales Tax Revenue
The Lae khgeles Visitors and Convention Bureau published a study
that assesses the economic spin-off effects from the establishment
of a rtw hotel . The hotel gueet can be expected to frequent local
business entities within the City, generating additional sales tax
celvlonue. ?)*pending an the available amanitiees, the City of
puntiigtom Beach would capture 25 to 60 percent of each dollar spent
by the hotel guost.
The distribution of hotel guests spending is as follows:
Source Percent
Food anti Beverage 26
f:. Lodging 26
Retail purchases 14
y. Local transportation 11
Snterta-ameht/xecreaition 15
Miscellaneous 8
Although the data is not available to ostimate the "spin-off"
eef acts of sales tax revenue from tkie -iotel scenarios discussed in
this. anailysi.s, it is reasonable to assume the City will in tact
' Collect additional revenue.
1 .'4 - . Iransient Oc�►ucancv Tax
the City of Huntington Beach collects a six percent Transient
Occupaney Tax on hotel and motel room fees .
Alternative
The 180 room hotel would charge average room fees of $80 per night .
using an average occupancy rate of 73 percent the annual revenue
vould be $3 ,805 ,344„ , Transient occupancy tax revenue collected by
the City would be $228 , 321 .
1Alterna►&vc 2 ! and 3
The 400 room hotel acenariu used in both of these ii.ternatives would
generate $8 ,52fi a40') based an an average room fee of $80 ner n;. ght
and an srjnual occupancy rate of 73 percent. Transient occupancy tax
revenue collected by the City would be $511 , 504 .
Staff Alternative
The 400 room hotel , like Alternatives 2 and 3 , would geneate
$511 ,584 in annual transient occupancy tax revenue .
( 0284n ) w�l..
1
fI
I r
4
r
'4 1. . 5 utility and Franchise
Beach collects a five percent utility user to tke
Huntington g 1 � 1 Y er x an ,
#nnual riles of electricity , natural gasr telephone and cable
teleVision Services in the Cizit
A franchise tax of on* peri:ent of the annual electricity sales and,
four percent of the annual natural gays sales is collected from the
respective utility providers in the City .
Factors used for this section of the anal.ysia are as follows : i
i
According to the California Enetgy Commission µ- average electricity
charges are: {
Residential m- 038 . 56 par unite per month
Commercial $. 0754 vents per kilowatt hour, using 12 .2 KWH per
square foot applied +:cj both hotel , retail and professional.
office.
Average natural as char -ts are:
9 g 9
Residential �+ $31 . 91 per unit , per month
Commercial = 05 . 53 per million BTU 's, using an annual rate of
. 42 BTU' s per square foot applied to hotel , retail and
professional office
General Telephone Could not provide an average service cast for
'I residential customers in the City, therefore an average charge of
$40 has been used in this analysis .
Annual phone charges for commercial retail and professional office
entities were not available and , due to the differences in phone
usage per business, an average gill or use could not be calculated
at this time .
For cable T.V. service in the City, the basic rate paid by re31dentij
Is $12. 50 per month . Ii is assumed that all new residents in City
will subscribe to the cable service. This would also apply to hotel
development .
I
Alternative 1
The 180 room hotel, is estimated to have 129, 900 square feet of
building area plus a parking structure . The building square footace
is La3ed on 650 square feet per room ( total 117, 000 square feet ) ,
! 1, 500 square feet of food and beverage service and 5, eOO square feat
of office and ancillary space.
(02840) -82-
-T
,r
5�
1.04
10
WX
i
City Reversue
s�*c.trlaity Annual sale• rarnc se
• . Ci tz R*Venue
rA�u�o do#- TU P Annual e
rrv;+
Cable + T ail. IGO r roo:a Annual Sales � cityRevenue
Ali. ' s WIM000 #10 350
Total utility related revenue for Alternative 1 a $11 ,236 i
89 The 400 roam hotel is estimated to have 290F600 square feet in
building area plus a parking structure. The building square
footage io bases on : 260,000 square feet for roons, at 650
svtCe t4#+r/roomp 16 , 640 square feet for food and beverage
service, 11,960 square feet for ancillary space and 2 , 000 square
foot for retail shops.
City Revenue
Electricity KWH anagal Sales t t ra se
rifle-51320 , PO fj
L,
City Revenue
Utural at$ ,B C�•,�a Annual s UT111t, Franthiise
122, 052 7, 495 3, 375 21
Garble T .V. 100 Rooms' ' ' Annual Sales _ C,- revenue
400 T.V. s 6 , 000 ,000
C. Coemervials 32, 670, square feet of neighborhood center/visitor
servin4 uses.
r
City Reve e
electricity •SWR Annual Sales utility ranch
f9ra. I , 574 , 2 T� '3W3
Citz Revenue
Natural 3aa BT� Annual Sales It t ra►nc
13, 721 V7. 56 379 t'4
(0184a) �83-
7.
I W'1
J
r
�; wt"�•1'�;r � .is
;L
r
r
M.
D, Residentiall Combining the residential scenarios
results 3n 570 units from which average utility related
rl revenues will be calculatede
City Revenue
r ale tR�•citY Annual Sa ee 11t t: Franc se
ti City Reve u
Natural can Annual Sales Mlitt Trancilise
city Revenue
Telephone Annual Sales ti t Franc
0
City Revenue
Cable T.Y. Annual Sales U z N Chi e
Total utility related revenue for, Alternative 2 0 $81 #022
Al6ernati
I
S. The 400 room hotel is estimated to have 290, 600 square feet in �
building area plus a parking structure. The building square j
` footage in based on : 260,000 square feet for roomer at 650
square- feetlrocm, 1 6 r 640 square feet for food and beverage
servi'Ce, 11, 960 square feet for ancillary space and 2r00O square
feat for retail shops.
City-Revenue
Electricity WH Annual Sales Uti t ranchise
3r545, 320 f '= ► ; i ; � �....�
city Revenue
Natural Gas STU Os Annual Salen Ut li Franc se -
Cable T .V. 400 Rooms Annual Sales City Revenue
C. Commercial , 54, 450 square feet of visitor-serving uses ,
City revenue
Electricity RWH Annual Sales utility Franchise
664 r 290 50 , 06 2 , 03 4 - Sol
Cit Revenue
Natural Gag BTU ' s Annual Sales Utility � n hi�e
( 0284D) -84-
1A
+
c.l
'y
i
i b
Residential Combining Uio residential SCenario4
results in 10110 units from Which average utility
' related revenues will be calculated. a
City Remp-
Mal sales ranch se
}' rsi6tai rN
,041 r
a25 17,002
h 1
'TO1010borsi 800 ,640 N/A
Cable Tev. 1500 ,325 N/�►
? Total utility related revenue for Alternative 3 $133 ,290*
Staff Alternative
Using , the+ $&me methodology a$ applied in Alternatives 2 and 3 the
;r
estimated City revenue in as follows:
' utility Franchise
Electricity 17,396 $3, 479
Natural Gas 5,05e 40, 045
r:
Telephone 10,200 N/A
Cable TV 30, 375 N/A
' Total Utility/Fra►nbhise revenue $34,553
1 . 5 B sineas License Fees
For commercial and office uses professional business license fees
are based on the number of employees per businse . for hotels, the
fee is based on the number of rooms , a flat rate for a restaurant
with dancing and the number of employees per retail shop.
Alternative l
. • B. According to the City ' s business license office, the 160 room
hotel. with L staurant/dancing will pay an annual license fee of
$1, 405 = $6 per room per year and $325 for the restaurant .
Alternative 2
B . The 400 room hot tl with restaurant/dancing and gift shops will
pay an annual license fee of $2,766 = $6 per room per vear, $325
for the restaurant and $41 for the gift shops estimating four
enloyee$ rat one emplroyee per 500 square feet of floor area) .
i
(02840) -g5�
L
'fir,.{4'''i,.• ',•, i ,j
ago
a Gi
C, The 33v$70 square foot cata�narcial center In eskista�ted to raged 65
at-
annual employee er 500 • u�are feet remulting in an
4, euplo 41*o,, aP q
annual fee of 181 .
'total business license fees for Alternative 2 m$2 ,947
• ��terriati�r�r 3
y,
he hotel scenario, a duplicate of Alternative 2 would generate
;. 2,766 in annual license fees.
C. The 54# 450 aquaire foot center would require an estimated 109
y, employees , at one f.mployee per 500 square feet , resultingin an
annual license fee revenue of $248 .
Total business license fee revenue for Alternative 3 $31014
Staff Alternative
B . As in Alternatives 2 and 3 the annual business license fees
generated by the hotel would be $3 , 332.
i
C. The 270225 square foot commercial center would generate $614
'' based on an estimated 54 employees .
8. ''c'he service stakton and mini-mart would generate $45 in annual
business license, fees based on five employees .
F . Oil production - The business license fee associated with oil
production is based on a fee per barrel of oil . Since an
estimate of the potential oil production on the Curtis site is
currently not available a business license tee could not be
determined at this time.
'cr Total Business License Fees Revenue $3, 341
t` 1.6 AdA tional. Rettentie
Additional revenue is received from new residential development on a
per capita b;ksis. In the preliminary City Budget, Fiscal Year
1905-8°6, four major revenue items are applicable to this Analysis .
Based an the -January 1985 State Department of finance population
estimate* for Huntington Beach of 179, 9251 the revenues are
collected as follows :
Pines Forfeitures and Penalties are $2 ,131 , 000 divided by
3790 equals 411 .64 per capita.
C_ i.gairette TaX is $530, 000 divided by 179, 925 and equals $2 . 95
per capes
;Is of this draft edM_6n f the report , Ap:it 1986 , the 7anuary 1986
Population estimate was not av41.6lable from,, the Department of
Finance.
-86-
A.1 r• Y' 1'�•A �y'11, � a r .
fir, � R,. I •�
E• �,'6� �O+t',l�i1 n t 'r'w Crt ! r, 11 r, r r"�
1 '
f
Yn'
r�
L'••
Ono
Y o n- *u 'fax is $4,442,000 divided bar 174, 925 and
equ s per dap tw
.; + 1210 and 210765) *to W 121 , 000 divided by
r 7 3 5 eqUaling $17 .35 per capita.
'Y' �1�rtio.B
it is assumed that the apartments will generate a population based
on 1.8 ersons per unit and that the condominiums will generate a
populat mn based on two persons per unit .
Alternative 1 will not generate new residents .
Alternative 2 is estimated to generate 1, 140 new residents .
Alternative 3 is estimated to generate 1 ,950 new residents .
' iltaff Alternative is estimated to generate 100 new residents .
Revenue Consideration
in addition to sales tax revenue generated by the service station
I with atni-mart, gasoline sales also generates gan tax revenue
Approliimately aright and nine tenths cents per gallon of gasoline is
` gas tax, also referred to as fuel tax. A portion of these funds are
returned to the City in the form of Gas Tax Funds. Two of the Gas
Tax funds reported in the City' s budget lieu revenue returned to the
Cit based on population . 06a Tax fund revenue listed under
"Additional Revenue" is derived from Fuel. Tax revenue, based on
population.
some of the Fuel Tax Revenue is divided between the City and the
County. After a lengthy discussion with Agnes Dactolero of the
States Beard of Equalization* , it was determined that, at this time,
it was not feasible to calculate what portion of the 8-9/10 tart per
gallon of gasoline would return to the City in the form of
speci.fically identified funds. This is, therefore, the reason why
further revenue associated with service stations is not included in
this analysis.
r
Table B-1 contains the list of revenue factors and dollar amounts
per alternative.
* Phone ccnv, ,3t ion, March 5 , 1986.
r
0284D
Table 9-1 -
WRITE ROLE LAND USE h4'S'MATIVES
Revenue EmUma es
Revenue Factors Alternative - 1 Alteratfva 2 Alternative- 3 Staff Alternati
Property Tax $26,$41 $3318,280 $422,434 * -87,347
Sales Tax 14,400 102,T84 179,277 94,547
Transient
Occupancy Tax 228,321 511,584 511 ,584 511,584 -
Utility/Cable TAT Tax 11 ,236 610022 133,2+90 34,553
Business License 11p405 2r947 3,014 34p341
Fines, Forfeitures
and Penalties Nj� 130498 23,088 1,184
Cigarette Tax N/A 3,363 5 ,753 295
°' Mote- Vehicle
co -
In-lieu Tax N/A 281?147 48,144 20469
Gas Tax Fund N/A 19,779 33,833 10,735
Totals 282 ,203 $11,094o,41T $10560,019 39,Ia5
y'
e
E � v
1
'17
E
'� • C !7AA
Development in the white hole area to expected to have some impact
on Ci q sggv*pss and expenditures, In assessing possible coat
is0o re rosentatives from five departments were consulted
r Oing1heir dspa rtmtnt functions, possible cost impacts from the
at d«velopment discussed in the four white hole scenarios and
41V they could t►epiat 4eveto anent services in measuring coat
impact�c•j The discussicas and reserach with each department has
risul�ed in ,sligbtly different methods of assessing relative costs *
Thesis results Aepended on the amount of data available and the level
of automation in each department. For example# the police
department has the most sophisticated data analysis related to
activity by type of land use. Working with the police department
computerized archival data it was possible to assess the number of
cads, for particular types of land uses . The number of calls has a
direct relationship to number of officers needed and ultimately a
recommendation for the hiring of additional officers based on the
impacts from development .
Ease tially, each department has been treated on a case by case
bass: ratter than applying a standard methodology to most or all of
the factors considered.
` SeVeral of the pr osed land uses discussed in the white hole
r: scenario wit adsftional . discussion : oil production, conservation
and the. Edison plant vacant land..
0 1 production activities have been identified as having a ,ninor
Impact on police and fire department services in the City . ' For
okampl.e, in the "Piscah Impact of Oil Operations in Huntington
;each, " a City energy series study, oil operations contributed six
tenths of one percent to annual fire department calls and less than
two tenths of one percent to annual police department calls .
Bedause of the minimal impacts from oil production, costs will not
be assigned the proposed oil production site .
1
Conservation or open space areas also have minimal impact on City f
services and expenditures. Although measurements are not precise ,
reportings of police activity in the white hole area in calendar
year 1985 resulted in 13 calls . These galls were coded for public
lands and open fields; five of the calls were in the summer months
of June and July. Also, the data available is not specific enough
to rule out beach activity that generated the call as the police
reporting districts ,include wetland area and beach .
Although the Edison plant , at some point in the future, may expand
its operation into the 17 acre vacant parcel discussed in this
report, for the purpose of coat impact analysis the 17 acres will be
included in the conservation land use , Therefore, because of
minimal cost impacts and minimal available data , conservation land
uses will only be included in police costs.
i
( 02840) ..8g-
:
�gy�� . t ;q;,•, •.
Cart Assuet�kiar�s
a
Th Runt n too 94ach Preliminary Budget , fiscal Year
y� $ 1416f
y was u as the primary source for this section of the
Cajo*t expendikures were excluded from the budget as they
"S ago; Ot a HOW* to future or propoSOA •development . The applicable
As adat each budget item can generally be assigned to privately
6 oped aerea a in the City on the following basis : Residential
,hand uses compr se 78 percent of privately developed scree , commercial
laAnd uses comprise 10 percent and industrial land uses comprise 12
percent . There appropriate, this land use distribution will be used
to assess cost impacts.
2.2 General anAdministration, Expenditures
While While this fund includes numerous programs (a total of 20 ) , white hole
de,vtelopment would measurably impact only one : non-departmental .
Wren-departmental activities mange from ity utility costa to liability
program costs with a 1985--86 budget of $Sp002 , 080. Residential
rebated impacts would be W 241 , 622 and commercial related impacts
would be $800#208. The most equitable method to distribute this
expenditure was based on the relationship of proposed land use acreage
to developed acreage, by category ( residential or commercial ) . The
results are as follows :
There are approximately 9, 534 acres developed for residential
land uses arnd; 1 ,223 acres developed for commercial land uses in
the City.
Based on the proposed acreage in each alternative the costs per
alternative were Calculated and presented in the following table.
t . 1 Alt . 2 Alt . 3 Staff Alt .
S Cost a _ Cost $ Cost I Cost
Residential 0 0 0. 4 $24 , 966 0 . 8 $49, 933 0 . 0002 $X ,•248
Commercial 0. 4 3 201 1 . 0 8tO021 2 . 0 16 004 1 . 0 $8,, CO2
Total $31201 $32 , 968 $65, 937 $9, 250
2 . 3 -Police Aopa r tment
From surveys of similar land uaes police calla per type of
development were derived. Calls relate to additional officers per
ear . One officer ' s average annual salary , including benefits, is
54 ,000. Five or more officers would result in capital expensitures
such as a vehicle. When calls per year result in 1 . 0 officers than
the police department would recommend hiring sn officer and the
annual cost would be $54, 000 .
( 0204DI _90-
i* G 'CC t
r
ti''''`d'• i• '''
t-
t
Calls 60 officer tie* involved per alternative are shown in the
foil toble. The determining factor 'ts that 53S calla equals
� irrna� �fflaery
A It 2 A 6taf f A}t .
Calls 188 975 302. 9
Witt aV
Office . 19 1 . 15 1 . 83 . 55
Based on the above table; Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 impacts on
police caller would reavit iz recommending that additional officers be
added to the depa-rtmert.. S" 'Table $_2 for the table that details
F' police analysis .
2.4 Firs DeEpykjoent
•
at the present, time the only feasible method of measuring cost
impacts uipn the fire department is to use the same methodology
applied to administration costs. Although the fire department
functions in a similar manner as the police department, responding to
calls foe service, the fire department does have the level of
automations that police does and therefore is unable to prepare a
computer program to analyze calls for service by type of land use.
With a Modified budget to more closely refelct development related
"y rpenditutree, the annual total expenditure used for this analysis is
a8,053, 634. Residential development would he 78 percent or
d,2810055 and commercial develepmen would be ld percent or
805,263 . The cost estimate for each alternative are an follows :
Alt . 1 Alt. 2 Alt . 3 Staff Alt .
REsidential 0 $25,1.24 $504, 248 $1s256
Commercial 8sa53 16L 105 8. 053
Total $3,221 $33f177 $66, 353 $90309
2 . 5 c2mmunity Services
community Services is primarily impacted by new residential
development , Self supporting programs such as adult recreation were
excluded from this analysis. Fees collected from those programs
were also not included In the revenue section of this analysis
because of the direct and tractable application of the revenue
collected . The 1985/86 budgeted expenditures applicable to this
analysis ere jte
4, 530, 343 . Based op the January 1985 population
estima of 19, 924 that annual per capita cost is $19. 64 .
( 0394D ) -91-
7-7
Table g--2 _ '_
WHITg SOLE POLICE DR RRVIUM A14ALYSIS
CALLS GENERATED BY T 4W LAM USE
Total 7-alls/Recomendod Mumbec +oaf
Total Threshold For Otf€icerj aad - -
Land Use Calls Ca llplYear Additional Officers leverage hamal CAdft -�}
Alterna%'--ive l _-
Hotel - 180 rooms .5/room 90 90/535 .17 officers
Conservation -
141 acres 1/10 acres 14 14/535 .02
Totals 104 .19 officers/
zero cost
`O ]alternative 2
i
Hotel - 400 rooms .5/room 200 200/535 .37 officers
Commercial -
32,670 sq+ft. 1/2,745 sq.ft. 11.90 11. 90/535 . 02
f Residential - 570
Multi-Family,
Medium Density 1 .44Eunit 821 821/535 1.53
k
onservation --
95 acres 1/10 acres 9 . 5 4.5/535 .02
Totals 1042 .4 1 .94 officers _
One officer w 4 000
Average annual cost
F _
Table B-2 Mmtinueda
Total Calls/Recommended Ifumber of :;
Total - ThreFhpld For Of f icet-B
Land Use Calls Calls ear Additidnal Of€icera AyerM bftM1_C2d = -
Alternative 3
Hotel - 400 room . 5/room 200 200/535 .37 offl-eirs
Commercial 54, 450 sq.ft . 1,2,F745 sq.ft . 19. 94 19. 84/535 .04
4
Residential -
975 Medium- _
Densi-y 1 .44/unit 1g,404 l y 404/'535 2.62
135 High-Density 1 .83/upit 247 247/535 .46
Conservation
44 acres 1110 acres 4 4/535 .007
o Totals ItB74 .84 3.1-97officers
' $162,000 annual cuts
Staff Alternative
Hotel - 400 room . 5;'room 200 200/535 .37
Commercial -
27r225 sq.ft. 1/2,745 sq.ft. 9. 9 9. 9/535 . 02
Residential -
50 units -
Medium Density 1 .44/unit 72 72/535 .13
Service Station _ .
Mini-Mart
18,900 sq.ft . 1/2f316 sq.ft. 8 9/535 . 01
Conservation . .
130 acres 1/10 acres 13 13/535 .02 ,
Totals 302.9 .33 offifers
zero cos
n r +
4 a n4, •
•; ')!' � �� 'fix . `" 'a,;
a
r•flai,'�.Y1fr,..r.,,,.. .,.,..d., ,w.lrMnu ••;,, ,r; .y.. 'r
_ T
V N
bli,a Works bud et was reduced to $13,6660 ,j4 by eliminating
*me that that `��o *D�f suQporting, ,
According to Public Works staff ,
41 144kaughoUt the City is essentially the some regardless of
„
Pe• be land use. T'horefore, the per acre cast for all
tivee would be
ed Costs gar Alterngive
Hat .1 Development - 5 acres
Costs
erieral/Administration 3 , 201
Fire Department 3,221
Police Department 0
Public Works 5 590
Total -12 ,1012
A' ernottive II
F
81,7• Soto! Development - 10 acres
C. Commoraial - •3 acres
Dogs* ha#idontial, total population eatimrate is 1,140. �
Ites;i'dottrial acres developed are 38.
yf , eneral/Aftiristrative $ 32 ,968
Fire Department 33,177
police Dernar,tment c4,000
Community Services 220390
Public Works 57 018
Total f1990,553
Alternative III
8.0 Hotel development - 10 acres
+C. Commercial Development - 5 acres
D*69 . $4sidential development - 74 acres and population, total of
r193 �
Professional Office Development - 13 acres
casts
General/Administration $ 65,937
Fire Department 66, 353
Pol i et Department 162 , 000
community Services 43, 071
Public storks 114 036
Total f,451t397
;•6A" -Alter"ative
iJJr
f�1
a, Rote) „DeveRlopmont 10 acree
C% Commezcial - hotel Companion - 2 1 2 acres
D. Residentizl 2 acres and a population total of 100
$. commercial 2 acres -- service station and mini—la"rt plus 'oil
production
Costs
eeaeeral/Admini.stratiorn 90250
Fire peppaz:tment 9 , 309
Poll e i epaitment 0
Community Servl ores 1 , y64
Public Works 16 23. 1
Total `
360 Re venugZCogt summa r y
e�ree�ue 282 , 203
costs 12 012
R*Ve nue to Cost Ratio is 25 . 49
alCrcitiive 2
1ter+ree�ue $1 , 094,414
Casts 199,553
Stevenue to cost ratio is 5, 48
Aeveenue *1, 560, 019
Costs 451 , 397
Revenue to cost ratio ire 3 . 46
,tee�nwe d 739, 105
36, 734
'.,.' ROIVOIMue to cost ratio is 20,12
' 1
r
(0294a)
c ,
r. ,t
k.
}I r.
O a
Y
CY
ri
r •
APPENDIX C
r PLANTS ANP ANIMALS OF THE HUN7CYT GTON BEACH WETLANDS
A survey was undertaken of the plants &ad animals in the Huntington
Beach We`l,anda by Harold "cunt , Water Research and T,%sting Unite
CALTIkAAS in July of 1984 for the Facffic Coast Highway Widening
Project EIE . Included in the ceport was a table, taken from the
1902 Department of Fish and Game Wetlands determination , which lists
311 the wetland Plant species found in the area.
a.
K}
•,f
r
(02849) '-47-
46. -
s
i - s- -
LaAd net 3�t atian Prs *.�.je4# � -----
L29end =
-
State of California i. Santa- An& Riier to Sroa churst St. 1 8 la 1 Salicorn;a virginica
2. Brockhurst St. to Magnolia St. 1 3 # 6 -8-" 11 2 Salicornia subtorsinaUt
3. Bast of beach Boulevard 1 2 8 9 12 13 3 Frankenia graridifo) _-t
City of Buntington
Beacb I. heat of Beach Blvd. 1 3 9 6 7 9 9 4 Juncus acutus
So. Calif. Edison 1. nest of Magnolia Street 1 $ 5 Scr.ipus olneyi
Thorpe 1. Bast of Ragnolia Street 1 3 8 6 Scripus caiifornicus
2. West r f 14agnoli a Street 1 3 4 12 7 Cyperus. sp. i
Mills Lands 1. Worth and east of the fl.oad
Hater Company control channel 1 ? * 8 Distichlis spicata
f
2. West of thE'-rlood control
channel 1 3 4 has .
Z`YL� F
10 Ruppia martima
F
11 Jausea carnosa
12 ScripuEs robustus
13 ^otula corenipifolia This list is not intented to be exhaustive but rather represents most comtaon wetland indicator spec169
present on August 23, 1982.
* ;1ostly dead vegetation as a result of discing
rras T:FG. 1982
1�w
N,
J /
k
invertebrates
The following invertabrates are characteristic of the Coastal
Dune-Coastal Karsh Habitat Complex of the white hole areet
Water Boatman (Trich6qoe;ixa reticulata)
Pamselfly ( Ish op. )
Seed Shrimp (Subelasa Ostracoda)
jAk
Amphipods (Order Amphipoda)
k
Back Swimmers (Family Notonectidae)
Mosquiton (Family Culicidae)
Salt Plies (Family Sphydriaae)
Near the leaking pipe that is on the blind end of the Huntington
Bleach Channel near' Beach Boulevard, there are small populations of
the listed' Shore Crab Pachyaraj2sys crassivea and the Salt Marsh Snail
"Imms glivi6auge In the marsh area adjacent to Seminauk slough
exists a pemulaktion of the California Horn Snail (Cerith9des
siglifornic; Along the channel within Lhe parcel .of degriZed
coasts marsh between Brookhurst and the, Santa Ana River there is a
g population of Fiddler Crab (Uca crenulata) .
Vertebrates
So reasanabty cooprehenstive survey of amphibians, reptiles or
ma ►als has ever been undertaken in the Coastal Dune-Coastal. Marsh
Complex of the 02 i , Generael,ly, these animals are more secretive in
tooir habits than sro pony birds. Doing a survey of the area would
requiro the establisAment. of a trapping network and night
obsetvati.onsp things which were precluded by cost and time
euristraints. However, it is known that at least one coyoie (C�
latr ) anal. pvpulatiotas of Audobons Cottontail Rabbit (Wyi aeus
au g ) , and Baochy' s Ground Squirrel are present..
Airds
ing bird sSwiss are known to occur in the sub jet wetland
or**. the list is iiot intended to be exhaustive= it 1.3 based on
actual field observation by the Department of Fish and Game and
other ,reliable sources (DFC, 1982) .
(0284D) _99-
1 'h(rfro
4 y
� r
'^Y��'•, 1. �{ 'r
;,T",,r'•',Y ti�.n ��y�'.; .. r, • arc i
F' ,',�,f'1 fir• ` A
I
FI•
great blur heron Ardea herodi, s
Ora�t ayxeR� asmar us us
Snowy egret to r at u a
cattle egret B e s
Black-crowned night heron ,WyOtIcaraz nygticorax
fit! B. duek�s
MSlIard Anas 91181tyrhynchos
t,.. ;• Northern Pintail. 1�h�an acu a
4� green-winged teal A a crecca
Blue-winged teal Anas d so ots
,1 Cinnamon teal. Nii avanopteral
American wi.geeon Anas er cane
Morthein Shoveler Anas c ypea„ a * i
Diving ducks-
,, .... .��
Leaser scoui) Aythya a f f in i s
4' Supr,f scoter Me: an tta gerigicilista
BRifflSh*nd ftoephala albeala
ducks :
Ruddy duck OxYura iamaicensis
91teag ha wka„g- jalcM (observed foraging in wetland areas)
$Lack-shouldered kite Bl nus caeruleus * ��
Rid�t�ileed hawk r� a sma, cend s
'+ ;Vfoth, rn had*ie rc s c r,eus
.4,
an kestol 71100 s28ryer uS
emlpolmated plover Ch r rius sew ]s►atua
itilld+r�a� a a► r uerus
t Black bellied plover JtjVi&ljM yetar�a
Low billed curlew uses us caner mial
llbiibrel p s pus
icabooltegborus 8=120matus
r ` ter yellowlegs Tr }aga nol,aria Bugg
ono es fie�sikive Species
(02840) --Yo0-
r
n
i
Mi
Shorebirds
Least sand ---per Calidr is minutilla
1; Durilin a lAris a IPIna
W eatern j andpiper a r s maur
MArbled godwit L MC a oa
, R� rY gra m ricalla
Amer iban avocet
elate-eked i) MaAt d Mex comas
`'.. .-pecked pholarope aro us 10DILtux
y DoWftcher smaro stn romus opp.
ii 114on' s pha larope s� aro us tricolor
San4orlin9 tar s alba
Leser. allowlegs Tr n a Sl as
Xes+aer golden plover P uv aleaw ofi pica
Spotted sandpiper Act ns ;narcu ar a
Gullsand errs:
Western gull Larus. occidentalis
Herring gull Larus ar entatus
California gull arcs caforn�cus
Ring-billed gull Larus delawarensis
Bonaparte' s gull Larus h a e a
Heerman' s gull Larus eexmann
Forster ' s tern Sterna forateri
California least tern Sterma ant l:arum br�owni*
Caspian tern Stiirna casg a
Miscellaneous wetland-rela ted t ecies:
American coot Fulica americana
4 Belding ' s savannah sparrow Fassercu ue san wicheneis beldin
Red-winged blackbird A ela us ghoeniceus
Bared Grebe Podiceom nigricollis
Double-created cormorant F a acrocorax our tus
Belted kingfisher Cer e a c on
Marsh wren istot .or g palustr is
s� -,aneous-P-Pecies not directly related to watland h.abitst:
j
Mourning dove Zenaida macroura
American crow Corv�c�ach ►r y�nch�oo +�
Northern mockingbird RIMUS oX9ttus
Europpean starling Sturnue vu ar s
Lngliab Sparrow _aiser domest cus
Western meadowlark Stur.nella ne rcta
House finch Car ud&cus mex canux
American goldfinch Ca r u is t r st s
Lesser goldfinch Caiduelis peala
Song sparrnw Me os ,sae odxa
Cliff swallow H run o pyrrhonota
Barn swallow Hour: a rust ca
Violet-greet': swallow Tsch c neta_ th lasses
r
(0284D)
L yyyy'
t. J
1
art• ,�� :i, , '1 ,
i 1'Ai
�� i 1 ane4us a ecie$ not directly related to wetland habitat -
(don 't. ) . '
Northern Rough-winged
Ulow Stel dt� to x e rri ennis
nk R Ow R. ar a Ya
go, a .. shtC�.ke a�- u 10doVid1lonus
gker C ': sit" •ra us
J►Y P491e fWMmingbird. "-
k, Black phoabe Sa otrt s n riL-& �s
rx:, • �*van lock 4*ve Colu� '�� ivia
...
coorvuS corax
White-crowned sparrow ZnnotrTc�ia-leucophyrye
�1UCer ►igit Ant ue g irtc�letta
t'1 Yellow romped warbler Den ro ca coronata
k Brewer ' s blackbird Eu a us oyanocep alus
Brown towhee �
t
P o usCus
;4r
r
* nonotes Sensitive spies
10284D) -�o�-
y� r
a '
.:K
•
r"
k
APPENDIX D
SUMMARY OF STAIR AND FBDBR.AL RBGVLATORY INVOLIMUNT
REGARDING WRTLA ND AREAS
E The alteration of wetlands associated with development , such as
diking , dredging or f1,11ing, is subject to the regulatory
re uirenients of several federal and state agencies. For development
in wetlands to occur, permits or agreements by the California Coastal
Commissift OCC) , the California Dgpartment of Fish and Game, and the
Corer' of Rhglneerr must be obtained . Additional permits or approvals
may be needed by the state Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and
the Re ional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCS) depending on the
operation proposed] and the State Lands Commission (SLC) if the
project is proposed on land that is owned by th6 State .
A. Coastal Commission
Decisions regulating development in the coastal zone made by the
Coastal Commi.ssio:, in permitting and Local Coastal Plan certification
are based upon policies in the Coastal Act of - 1976.
1 provisions for;. protecting and enhancing wetlands..
1 . Environmentally sensitive habitat areas chall be protected
a9sihst sit niticant disruption of habitat values (Section
30240-a) .
2 . Development adjacent to environs mentally sensitive habitat
aces shall sae designed to be compatible with that continuance
6f such habitat areas (Sector 30240-b) .
a,
3. Costal--dependent developments' shall not be sited in a
wetland except as provided (Section 30255)
4. Marine rein' urces stall be maintainedr enhanced and, where
feasible, restored (Section 30230 ) .
5. The biological productivity of wetlands appropriate to
maintain optimum populations of marine organisms shall be
maintained ands where feasible , restored (Section 302.31 ) .
(0284D) -103-
Leo
•,�'' • ''qy�; AIM t ►r ,*
19
Types of development permitted in wetlands :
1 . wetland restoration activities ( Section 30233-a ) .
1. Mature studyo aquaculture or similar, resource-dependent:
activities (Section 30233-a) .
3 . Incidental public services which temporarily impact the
resoarcee of the area, such as burying cables and pipes, and
mainteaaaco of exist..ng intake and outrfall lutes (Section
30233-a ) .
4 . Entrance channels for new or expanded boating facilities may
be G6nstruct4id in wetlands ''( Section 30233•-a ) .
S. In dograded wetlands, as identified by the Department of Fish
+and` Game$, boating facilities other than entrance channels may
be constructed under a`pecial circumstances (Section 30233.r) .
6. Coastal-dependent industri'&l facilities, such as commercial
fi-sh'ing facilities , may be constructed or expanded (Section
7. $nergy facilities may be constructed or expanded (, Section
.30233-»0 .
8. Port: facilities may be constructed or expanded (Section �
30233-a) .
g. Exitting degraded depths in navigational channels , turning
ba<Sins and boat bunch areas may be maintained or previously
dreged depths may be restored (Section 3023.1-a) .
B. California Department of Fish and Game
-puraueot• `to 'seotians A601. and 1603 ' of the Fish and Game' Code, . the
be)pitrtsent of Fish ah Game (MM ) regulates wetland alt:arations. A
written agreement issued by the DFG satisfying Sections 1601 and . 603
Is required prior to any development in a wetland. The DfG. is
diirectod-, by the State 'Endangered Sjp' eci,es Act and State Native Species
Ccamwrtrattion arA, Zhhencem4nt Act to protect the State I m endangered
CaAatUir#at, Usolut:ion So. 28 (September 13, 1979 ) has given
than DOG the responsibility of proposing plane to protect, preserve ,
restore, acquire and manage wetlands. In - addition, the DFG reviews
and comments err ,de*i 2dpmment permits issued by the Coastal Commission
and the Corps of Engineers.
Seth the Coastal Commiseic,n and the DFG take under advisement: the
Stke Resources Agency basic Wetlands Policy which states:
( 02041)) -104-
ah t
_�,. fir' 'dy ',�,o•
:+"•fir 1 'I
N1
f/
M'
it is the basic policy of the Rerource Agency that this Agency and
E itp ttepartwiant, Boards and Commissions will not authorize or approve
prajecta t%at fill or otherwise harm or destry coastal, estuarine , or
inland wetlands.
Exceptions to this policy may be granted provided that the following
conoitionc are Met:
1. The proposed project must be water dependent or an essential
trmnsporttt on, water' conveyance or Utility project .
�. Z . T ere Yquet �'' no feasible, less environmentally damaging
` g t•ernative location for the type of project being considered.
34, The public trust must not be adversely effected .
4 . Ads'gt!ate cor.1pensat ion for prolect-caused losses shall be a
parrt of the project . Compensation, to be considered
adequate, must meet the following criteria :
a. The compensation measures must be in writing in th' form
of either conditions on a permit or an agreement signed
by' the applicant and the Department of fish and Game or
the Resources Agency.
be The combined longterm ' wetlands hab i C a{ value' of t
he
lands involved ( including project and mitigation lands )
must not L%e less after project completion than the
... ` combined ' wetland habitat value' that exists under
pre-project conditions. "
Y . C. " Corps of Engineers
The Armin Corps of engineers (COE) regulates development in the
� wetlaude, Section 401 , Rivers and Harbors Act, requires Corps
appOra , c any alteration of the Canals.
Section 1 4( ) , 1413( a) and 404 of the Clean water Act regulate fill
in the wetl d as follows :
�y
Bectiori 1359(c) requires permits for the disposal of dredged or
fill Oateziajs into navigable waters . The secretary of the Army
•` is. ,&Uthori4ed to deny or restrict the use of any disposal site
for fill . if the discharge of fill into the area wi it have an
• unacceptable adverse effect on wildlife or recreational areas .
1. Sadtior, 1413(a)atf�e authorizes
o the
ortan3tytary of the Army to for public hear issue ingsfor the
permits after n pp
transportation of dredged material for the purpose of dumping it
into ocean waters, where the Secretary determines that the
" dumping will not unreasonably degrade or endangers human health,
welfare , or amenities, or the marine environment , ecological
systems or economic potentials.
1
i
ri
S
1 . section 404 requires pprinxts for any
that would
he United « '
discharge dcea ed or fill materialy
Stites, inClua ng wetlands.
The Corps of Engineers wetland policy guidelines state :
The purpoot of a structure or work will be examined with a
afd avoidfroposed
ng siting in wetland areas. If that purpose is not
at 'pb..Waterftont access# or can be satisfied by the use of an
a•. t.Otngte site or b use of existing public facilities, the
application will ordinarily not be granted. The applicant wi3l be
r* t uiked to demonstrate that a feasible alternate site does not
e�tieta the inability to finance or acquire an alterna l*e site is not a
factor in the determination of feasibility.
Unless the public interest requires otherwise , no permit shall be
granted for work in wetlands identified as important unless the
District Engineer concludes, on the basis of the analysis required in
. ( the public review) . . . that the benefits of the proposed
alteration outweight they damage to the wetlands resource and the
proposed alteration is necessary to realize those benefits . (33 Code
of Federal Regulations 209. 120) .
The guidelines mandate the denial of Section 404 permits unless the
applicant is able to demonstrate bath of the following : ( 1 ) that
the 'LdtiVity associated with the fill must have direct access or
proximity ta, 'or be located in the water resource in order to fulfill """
;its basic purpose or - that other sites or conettuction alternatives
are not practical; and ( 2 ) that the proposed fill. and the activity
associated with it will not cause a permanent unacceptable disruption
to the beneficial water quality uses of the afected aquatic ecosystem
(Becton 230. 5 b--8 of 33 code of Federal Regulations) .
b. United states Fish and wildlife Service
C
{ The United States Fish and wildlife Service (U .S.F.w. S . ) , under the
Fish and wildlife Coordination Act, National Environmental Policy Act
of 1969# the Estuary Protection Act, and other Federal lawe, reviews
p 404 permits before they are issued by the Corps of Engineers.
Although these permits arQ issued by the COE, responsibility is
shared 'with the U.$•F•ti.8. and permits must be consistent with
guideYinee issued by than U.S. F .w.S. + the Environmen.al Pootection
Agoncy and the California Coastal Management Programs
E. Other Federal Legislation
F 1 . Executive order 11988 - Floodplain Preservation
Each federal agency is charged with tbe `reaponsibility to avoid
the ]song and short term impacts associated with the occupar.c;; and
modifications of floodplainct and to avoid direct and inilirect
support of floodplain development wherever there is E- practicable
alternative . Each agency must take action to minimize the impact
of floods on human safety , health and welfare and to restore and
preserve ti-e natural and beneficial values served by floodplains.
it
1• ( 0284D)
^ OL '
i
. '�11"; •^�'RT T17rT7'VylM i "�iJY Y�,• fl i, ,'1 .. ♦�
1
A
P
•i
• 0xtcutive Order 11990 - Hetland Preservation
04ch f0der41 agency is charged with the responsibility to &void
thy► logg and short term iNPacts associated with the destruction
and eo ificatian of wetland nhd to avoid direct or indirect
w art Of n8V construction in wetlands wherever there is a
'�; f p tiebla �lkernative� Each agency must take action to
40* doetructicn or laSs of Watland
#0*hem th* natural and beneficial value aof wetFreserve And
1n '
�ttII
a'1•
t�
r•I ' f
i
�Uroe: e It A ors: The
a vlator �Cos v of thv.
_Army
oneanagment Journanumbor urle
10284D) -107-
i f
V!t
y
X
r
.i
APPENDIX B
GLOSSARY
Alluvial : of or pertaining to alluvium
Alluvium: sediment deposited by flowing grater, in a riverbed or
. floor plain.
Aquifer : Water-beating rock formation or group of formations `.
Biological the rate at which energy is stored as organic
productivity: mater{al . Factorn which indicate the quality of
prodMAivity include the efficiency of the transfer
of stored o&ganic material as food .
Brackish marsh : magah area receiving an influx of batty +salt and
fresh water.
Degraded wetland:- , wetland altered lair Impacts asaoc4.a ced with Man,
rapulting in reduced vigor and productivity of
the marsh-wetland systtm.
Donee: sand f6reAtions located in the uplands .
Bcobystem : the cQmpleX of a natural community and its environment
functioning as a unit in nature$
Environmental ' ,Section 30107. 5 of the Califo;:nIa Coastal Act .
sensitive are ". . .anf a�tea in which plant or aniMaal life or their
habits ore either rare or especially vai.nable
because of their special nature oc role in an
e+ 0010tee And. Vhich could by ozasily disturbed or
degraded by bviran activities and development. "
Feasible : Section 36168 of tbe, California Coastal Act . " . . .capable
of being accomplished in a euccessful manner, within a
treasonable period of tune, taking into account economic ,
environimentral , social and technological factort. .
t V 2$40 / ' V r •
;1
Y,
M,
16
logo
y
Fresh water marshes: marshes where the water haG concentrations of
salt less than fine parts per 1000.
Hydric soils : soils that arc saturated with water at or near the
surface and &,re deficient of oxygen long enough
during the growing season to result Ii1 prcperties
th4t reflect dominant: wetness characteristics near
the oci 1 surf ace .
Fydrophytic plants: Vlants which grow in or rear watery wet
habitats or hygric soils .
Levees: embankments to protect floOdi,ng .
1 Littoral zone : area between the lowest tide water mark and the
highest tide water mark.
Mud flat , muddy or sandy coastal strip usually subi,.erged it high
tide.
1
�.. pickleweed z primary salt marsh vegetation that provides a feeding
• '' ground for the California Leaet Tern . .Ias the broadest
distribution of any salt marsh plant .
flays : flat area.
Pore pressure : pare - a small. opening, or pacssage# admitting �
absorption or passage of liquid .
ail nificant pore pressure de4elops mast commonly in cohesive
so le axaocia►ted with intake of water a,id volume ehanges.
Riparian habitats: areas exbihiting ve etation characteristic3 of
,. those which grow adlacent to frshwter wets:
courses and the associatbd animal species.
Salt flat : salt parj, phallow bare spot with bad drainage. water
.' evaporated l.tatving salt behind .
Saltareha a marsh in which too aster is salty or brackish
containing salt tolerant vegtltat,ion.
Spa avatar atubte�rtanen •se'w*tent that passes through
• Percolation: porous 801.148 sEeping' .:p to around level .
Shear Strength : as used in • so ile engineering shear strength.
Usually refers to the total siearing resistance (an
action or stress rtsulting from applied forces that
Causes of tends to cause two cont-igunus ,part" of a
bc'dy to elide relatively to each other in a
direction ;.arall.el to their plane of contact ) which
a specimt •_ or element of sa .l ' is capable of
developing under given candihions .
•;1
(OZ$4U I _110-
. 1
Tidal influence : an area that is of fecced by tides vial suLf ?rranean
or surface connection to the ocomn .
Uplands : area above and adjacent to the level of the highest
tide . Includes the dunes .
Wetland : Section 30121 of the California Coastal Act . " . . . lands
within the coastal zone which may be covered periodically
or permanently with shallow water and includes saltwater
marshes open or closed brackish w<< c:Qr marshes , swamps ,
mudf.a ats and fens , "
Wetland Section 30233 of the California Coastal Act .
development ; " . . . the diking, filling or dredging of open coastal
waters , wetlands , estuaries and lakes shall be
permitte n accordance with other applicable
provisions of this division , where there is no
feasible less environmentally damaging alternative
and where feasible mitigation measures have been
provided to minimize adverse effects . "
I
I
(0204D) -111-
r
AePBNDIX F
ANNCITATED 9IBLIOGRHCHY
Barbcur, M.G . and J . Major . Terrestrial vegetation of California .
New York : John Wiley and sons, rrfK T 77—
Brandman, Michael and A3soc . "Biological RAsources Assessment,
Talbert valley Channel Flood Control System Project , Orange County,
California" . Sept . 1984 .
Essentially confirms the 1993 Department of Fish and Game
Huntington Beach Wetlands determination , finding 115 acres of
weetl&nd habitat, almost entirely salt marsh within the larger 167
acre Huntington Beach wetlands.
California Department of Fish and Game , "Determination of the status
of the Huntington Beach Wetlands" . Feb. 1983 .
Wetlands mappinc; of 162 . 2 acreo at HuntingL-on Beach . DQG
idogntifies 114.1 acres an viably fuactxaning, but; degraded, 21 . 9
acres not viably functioning as a wetland, but restorable and the
remainder not restorable.
California ,Department. of Fish And Came . E'Prealit.iinary determinations
irecardinq the Wetlands lying within the City of Huntington Beach
between ,leach Blvd. and the Santa Ana River" . 1901 .
This report is a brief affirmation of the Department ' s earlier
�. wetland det,.-rminatiom study in 1979 .
: C41iforn,ia Depa►Ytmout of Navigation and Ocean Development* .
"Comp r0onsive 000an Area plan, Land Ue-Coastal . " Aug . 1971 .
Designates tsie Huntington beach ve3tlands as saltmarsh.
fir;
Appendix F )
Page Two
Garner , Ron ; Wang, F.obert ; and Kern , John . Marine Animals of the
Santa Ana Fiver any Adjacent Channels , ( p. 2 ) . �.
Describes marine animals found in the channel .
Highlar. Geotechnica]. Consultants, Inc . 1983 . 3tiP21emental
Geotechnical Investigation .
Soils analysis of the Huntington Breakers property which is
lofdted on the east side of Beach Bouleveird, approximately 1000
feet sau;:h of Atlantic Avenue.
HL 't , Harold. "biological report for the orange 1 widening project
( 7-Or. a-1 -19.U/25. 91 " Cal Trans Report . July 1984 .
Cal Trans Conducted a detailed analysis or the site from the
Santa Ana River to thy! .Southern California Edison Plant,
including vegetation sampling and mapping , sediment sampling and
animal counts, Their conclusions concur with the DFG ' s wetland ,
determination.
i
Huntington Beach, City of . "Final EIR 77-9 for General Plan
,Amendment 78-1" . prepared by Westec Services , Inc . 1978 .
Concludes that the 16 acre parcel owned by Mills Land and Water
Co. o dae$ exhibit the characteriotics coautal salt marsh species
and is subject to tidal groundwater flushing . Located 16
breeding pairs of Seldings Savannah sparrow on parcel .
Kaufman# Steve. Personal Communication. Harch 11, 1985 .
Letter from Don Schultze, DFG to Praveen Gupta , South Coast Regional
Coinwilieeinn. Feb. 17, 1981 .
Letter from RalPh Co Piaapia , `�SFWS to Department of Development:
Services, City of Huntington Beach, and attachments . August 1979 .
Later. notes teat the D. S. Army Corps of Engineers exercised
Section .404 jurisdiction oweir Pat of Huntington Beach Wetlands
because the area in "an adjacent wetland of waters of the United
r,
(0784D) -114-
duo
• ,Yr
r
Apperdi x F
F,19e Three
Marsh, Gordon A. and Abbott , Kenneth b,
the Santo Anr. River in Orang Count 1972 . Plants and Animals of
_.1' � pg . 12-1a .
Describe,; modified coastal a-iarsh vEmy:%tation along the Santa Ana
River from Pacific Coast Highway to Adams Avenue,
Massey, Barbara , 1978, pro owed M_ it .' ation for Loss of California
Lea$t :ern Feeding 11nbit�.� ur n on'struct do o ao ..on to
F im ravemer�t�s own,��`- a "� R-fir . _
Describes the feasibility of restoring three parcels of sal
along the p�cJfic Coast Highway between the river and the tmarsh
SCSI.-thern California Edison plant .
'= Mills Land and Water Co . "A factual synopsis in su t of the city
Of Huntington Beach Land "A plan for PPOS.
Of California and Mills Land and Water. pCo�. ati Beach nBd by the Stag
Coast Highway" . May, 1981 . 1 ='d . and Pacific
i The report 78uperseded
;aeetions the .reliability Lnf the DFG wetlands
ass�$sment by the 19483 DFG wetlands
` and the economic feasibility of restoring theMilllse property,
,. property. j
Office of the Chief of Engineers, Department of the Army • 1977 .
�. w Aenort on the ant Ana River Main Stem - tn�:ludin Santiago
-Week and O rain. �
It St ret �
Describes marsh and uplands. States that widening of the river
mouth, would destroy eight acres of remnant marsh .
Radovich, Robert, "An Assessment of Wetland Resources within the C
Of Huntington Beach between beach Boulevard and the SantaAna ity
Department of Oish and Game, Region 5, undated . River" ,
identified wetlanda in study area based on literature
Study emphasized the field survey, and wetland mapping.
ease restoring this are@. of
Ricketts# e.W. and J. Calvin& Between Pacific tevised by J.K. Re�dgpethq Stan ar a idea . 4th ed., ,
preask 1958, am a: Lanford University
80"Ie, Scott and ACIOCiateSp "An Bcalogical Study proportles awned by mills Land a-:a Witex C�►�p and Certain
t'aliforiniA in the City of Huntingtan Beach Cal a State of
19000 � ifornia", November ,
(0294D)
-•115-
wr
Appendix F
Page Four
This ,study analyzed a portion of the Hunting�on Beach wetlands
and -Ioncluded that there sites are salt marshes . The study also
said that the sires provide habitat for the California Least Tern
and the Belding Savannah sparrow, and can be easily restore-] to
n "
r "very good" wildlife potential .
Provide Y g
State Coastal Conservancy , "Regional Wetland Restoration Study : Los
Angeles a-S Orange Counties , Final Draft Report , " September 1982 .
Report cites that there are approximately 300 acres of wetlands
between th-- .Santa Ana River mouth and Huntington Beach,
Vogl, Richard, "Ecological Evaluation of the Mills Land and Water
Company Parcel and Adjacent State Land , " October 1980 .
This study contends that the Mills property supports "a Partial
salt marsh , incomplete in structure and functions .
Vogl , Richard J . 1982 . Letter to the California Coastal Commission
( Exhibit E ) .
Describes parcels owned by Mills Land and Water Company and Cal �
Trans . States that the area is in advanced maybe final stages of
degradation .
VTM Consolidated, "Draft Final Environmental Impact Report for
Southern California Edison Huntington Beach Generating Station Units
6-11 , " July 1973 .
This report concluded that the "vegetation and wildlife on the
subject property (So Cal Edison ) and on the adjacent properties
is typical of the coastal salt marsh community : "
Weatec Services, Inc . 1978. Final EIR 77-9, General Flan Amendment
Describes Huntington beach wetlands.
Sedlerr Joy, "The Ecology of Southern California Salt Marshes ; A
Community Profile," USFWSa Office of Biological Services
(?VS/0BS-8l/84 ) , 1982 .
Generally describes southern California salt marshes .
( 02840 -116-
1
Appendix F
Page Five
r xedlerI Joy, Salk. Marsh Rectoration : A Gui1ebook for Southern
California . f"orn a e.� ra �ollegeProgram , 1994 .
Describes general, restoration techniques .
j
i
1
9
r.
'7
Ir
1 '
1'
Y 1 -117-