HomeMy WebLinkAboutLocal Coastal Program: Work Program - Resolution 4542 - 10/7 i
P
•
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
i INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION
HUNTINGTON BEACH
a• V)QAA* ,
To Distribution From Mary Lynn Norby
Local Coastal Program/
Planning
Subject VISUAL RESOURCES AND Date
SPECIAL COMMUNITIES July 17, 1979
Attached is a copy of a preliminary Background Study of the
Local Coastal Program - Visual Resources and Special
Communities. It will be used as a discussion focus for the
development of coastal policies by the Local Coastal Program -
Citizen Advisory Committee.
Your comments and suggestions relevant to this issue of the
Local Coastal Program would be welcome at this time. If
we receive them by August 1, 1979 , they can be included in
the Committee discussions .
Any policies developed now are subject to reevaluation as
part of the total Coastal Element later this year. Therefore,
your comments would still be valuable at a later date.
MLN/dc
2. 1. 1 Beaches : The beaches provide valuable outdoor recreation,
scenic vistas, and habitat for a variety of wildlife ,
including several endangered species . The sensitive nine
mile stretch of beaches throughout the City where the ocean
and land meet is one of the City' s most significant
resources.
2 . 1. 2 Bolsa Chica:
A. Marshlands: This vicinity contains one of the most
important remaining estuaries in Southern California.
Although oil drillings in the "gap" area have substan-
tially degraded its marshland nature by restricting
tidal flow, this inlet remains relatively undeveloped
and provides valuable wildlife habitat and distinctive
vegetation in addition to significant mineral, archaeo-
logical, scenic, historic and recreation resources .
The open space character of Bolsa Chica is a pleasant
visual resource, however, the detail within i .e. dikes,
dumping operations, oil derricks and tanks are visually
disruptive.
B. Bluff Area: This valuable bluff dominated vicinity may
some day provide a vital open space link between
Huntington Central Park and the sea. Additionally, it
contains archaeological sites , important vista points,
and mineral resources .
C. Bolsa Chica Mesa: Past agriculture, historic and
archaeological sites, and tree stands make this area a
valuable one suitable for preservation.
2. 1. 3 Santa Ana River: Draining both the San Bernardino and Santa
Ana Mountains , the Santa Ana was once the largest river in
Southern California. Though today much of the watercourse
is a leveed sand bottom channel, this river still provides
both water and scenic resources and is planned as a regional
recreation cooridor.
2 . 1. 4 Southeast Marshlands : This open space area, located near the
mouth of the Santa Ana River, provides unique vegetation,
wildlife habitat, and scenic vistas , across from the beach.
2 . 1.5 Huntington Harbour: This marine-oriented community provides
man-made vistas of interest along the channels in some places.
O O
O
5
The City' s policies regarding these identified scenic resources can
be briefly summarized. Regarding the beach and the shoreline, the
City has recognized the need to preserve this area as a recreational
and physical resource. The shoreline has been identified as a
critical area of resource conservation and policies of stabilizing
erosion improving recreational facilities , and preserving blight have
been formulated. For marshes existing policy is one of preventing
pollution, maximizing recreation, and preserving scenic assets .
Existing policy regarding the Santa Ana River is one of maximizing
recreation and preserving scenic potential. Existing policy regarding
scenic vistas and bluffs is one of preventing blight and obstruction
so that scenic views will not be marred.
2. 2 Designation of State Scenic Routes, Local Scenic Routes,
and Landscape Corridors
The Scenic Highways Element has designated various roadways as having
the potential to be qualified as scenic routes or corridors . A
scenic route is defined as a roadrray adjoining property that contains
valuable scenic resources and aesthetic values to be protected and
enhanced. A scenic route corridor is defined as the land area on
either side of the roadway within defined limits . A landscape
corridor is defined as a major access route to the beach that provides
scenic vistas of the ocean and shoreline area. The corridor extends
to the edge of the parkway on both sides of the road. These roadways
are important because they provide the traveler with scenic views of
the identified visual resources or provide access to areas of scenic
significance.
2 . 2 . 1 State Scenic Highway - Pacific Coast Highway
The General Plan has identified the goal to seek State Scenic
Highway status for Pacific Coast Highway. This roadway offers
considerable scenic potential (see routing Fig. 2-2) .
White sandy beaches separate the roadway from the Pacific
Ocean throughout the ten mile stretch in the City extending
from the Santa Ana River to Anaheim Bay. Anaheim Bay, still
a relatively unmodified estuary, provides the estuarine
features now transformed into the marina development,
Huntington Harbour. Situated opposite Bolsa Chica State
Beach is the Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve, providing a
sanctuary for numerous species of waterfowl. Between the
Santa Ana River and Newland Street lies another marshy area
inhabited by waterfowl species , visible from along the
Pacific Coast Highway. These scenic resources offer several
scenic vistas to the automobile traveler driving along
Route 1. Almost the entire length of the highway offers a
view of a vast expanse of land and water combined - sandy
beaches abutting an open sea, with Catalina Island in the
O
. 6
... ................::
gR
fi c
...- ,roowwwascxa.uar.�.a .
EONCkR
i
5 > ....... ............... ... k411
NNRNER
1
gOg
5
..
YA7Hi
e:
j.
x ,
t
r
tt
` f - YORIC IOW
f
H f
................
..: :.>x..x.:. ::.:•.,.v.n :.:.w+,.: ...:....... AEIAMI i..
•gyp.
f
y1
e
y/ ......................._._r..._.,........ KAM.ION
11-0
o:.
v..
x
Z1�
PROPOSED
SCENIC HIGHWAY Figure 2-2
0 0
�OQC�1� (�@)QORQU P7(D5)TQU
huntington beach planning department
distance. The view is interrupted in some locations by high
ground separating the beach and ocean from the roadway and
the contrast of buildings and pier in the downtown area.
The Long Beach-Palos Verdes Peninsula can also be viewed in
the distance when driving north on the highway between
Goldenwest Street and the Bolsa Chica.
Specific viewpoints include the following locations along
the roadway: the Santa Ana River Bridge, the Huntington
Beach Pier, the frontage along the Bolsa Chica Marsh, and
the Anaheim Bay Bridge. Vistas are both natural and urban:
(Figure 2-3) .
a. inland and out to sea along the Santa Ana River;
b. the length of the Huntington Beach pier;
C. the Bolsa Chica wildlife sanctuary;
d. the Bolsa Mesa and bluffs
e. the Huntington Harbour developments;
f. Anaheim Bay.
2 . 2. 2 State Scenic Routes
One of the goals of the Scenic Highways Element is that of
designation of Pacific Coast Highway as a State Scenic Route.
A scenic route encompasses two elements : (1) the road and
its right-of-way; and (2) the scenic corridor extending to
variable distances beyond the right-of-way. The scenic
corridor consists of bands of land generally adjacent to the
right-of-way with the boundaries determined by the range
of visibility from the highway. These corridors vary with
the natural characteristics of the landscape where develop-
ment is limited, and with characteristics of the urbanscape
in developed areas . To achieve scenic route designation the
City would need to adopt a zoning ordinance that would
regulations pertaining to building heights, setbacks ,sign.inr,
and density as well as other criteria that would control
development in the scenic corridor adjacent to the scenic
route.
However, it is improbable that a uniform system of regulations
can be applied to the length of Coast Highway for such
protection. Therefore, it is useful to segment Pacific
Coast Highway into sections to consider the issues which
need to be resolved to preserve the scenic and natural
8
O
LEGEND
• • vista line
' landmark Feature
r
v
��, rR•��,r � i� 4� � • Street Trees
/� ., Plonf �e n
.� a f' • d�9 3 o Media
�' �. ,\ ���' .ate \•�,d
\ /
/ \\x�
Huntington !-.i-
Harbour �.1.�..f-•l'Y '�.. t `. :.1 _�' ( \ .'
Anaheim T' .. i—
Soy Br id to�. --i
!�—
Wotor Tower -- •
• pier" •
Figure 2—3
F 0
aO dOQQ� Q0�3��0 U"�0 C��G�iu Task 3.210
uU� �department LCP
huntington beach planning departme PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY SCENIC FEATURES
quality the roadway provides . The sections are : Santa Ana
River to Beach Boulevard, Beach Boulevard to Lake Street,
Lake Street to Goldenwest Street, Goldenwest Street to Bolsa
Chica Marsh, Bolsa Chica Marsh to Warner Avenue, and Warner
Avenue north to the City limits . The purpose and intent of
this section is to consider various concepts the City may
wish to include in an ordinance to retain view potential
in the scenic corridor as well as provide for aesthetic
continuity along Pacific Coast Highway. The following
segmentation is depicted in Figure 2-4 .
2 . 2 . 2 . 1 Santa Ana River to Beach Boulevard
The scenic resources along this section of Pacific Coast High
way include views into the open space comprising the south-
east marshlands , views of the beach, and views of the Santa
Ana river mouth. Proceeding on the assumption that develop-
ment may be a possibility for this area in the future , the
overriding consideration of regulating such development would
be to insure that views of the marsh are not hindered and tha
development is as consistent as possible with preservation
of the marsh as a natural resource.
2. 2 . 2 . 2 Beach Boulevard to Lake Street
The scenic resources located along this section of Coast
Highway consist of views of the beach and vistas to the ocean.
The City beach extends from Beach Boulevard to Main Street on
the south side of Pacific Coast Highway. The beach and land-
scaped side of Pacific Coast Highway. The beach and land- .
scaped parking lot are partially visible from the highway.
An attractive landscaped road median is also a feature of
this section of Coast Highway. A large vacant parcel exists
east of Beach Boulevard at Pacific Coast Highway and is a
valuable coastal resource because of its proximity to major
beach entrance points.
2. 2 . 2 . 3 Lake Street to Goldenwest Street
Scenic views along this section of Coast Highway include views
of the beach and the municipal pier that extends for 1800 feet
into the Pacific Ocean. However, several restaurants and
concessions are clustered on and near the pier. On the ocean
and inland side of Coast Highway oil wells exist with many
of them still pumping. Between sixteen and twenty billboards
dominate this section of Coast Highway as well .
The near-pier and ocean-front have been identified as deteri-
orated commercial area. Vacant properties await a unified
O O
O
10
•
I
2 .2. la Visual Resources and Special Communities • I
Sections 30251 and 30253 of the Coastal Act require that the scenic
and visual qualities of the coastal areas be protected as a resource
of public importance. Any new development should be . sited to pro-
tect views and minimize alteration of natural land forms. In •
addition any new development shall protect special communities
because of their unique characteristics.
These Coastal Act policies are addressed in the City' s General Plan
in both the Scenic Highways Element and Open Space Conservation
Element. The Open Space ,Plan identifies scenic corridors that are •
linear areas that are tobe protected from disharmonious development
or preserved in a natural state. This includes scenic roadways such
as Pacific Coast Highway; the Edwards Street extension, the pro-
-posed Bolsa Chica loop road and open space greenbelts such as the
Santa Ana River and the bluff line linear park that has recently
been proposed for the bluffs overlooking Bolsa Chica. Development •
adjacent to these scenic areas is intended to preserve the pleasant,
distinctive natural vistas that now exist and provide access to
those vistas through complementary roadway and trail facilities and
development regulations. Existing subdivision controls do provide
some regulation of development layout, public improvements, park
dedication, landscaping and grading. However, additional open space •
zoning and/or specific plans could be adopted to further enhance the
City's ability to regulate development in -the scenic areas of the
Coastal Zone:
To maintain the views along Pacific Coast Highway official scenic •
highway status could be sought. This would require zoning regu-
lations that include architectural review, height and setback
review, land uses, building, signing, screening and landscaping,
undergrounding of utilities and active enforcement of maintenance
controls.
The Downtown area of Huntington Beach in the vicinity of the pier is
a limited but still identifiable "special community" . Its his-
torical heritage, its concentration of surfing related business,
the resident identity and its uniqueness when compared to the
remainder of Huntington Beach are all factors that contribute to •
this distinction. As previously indicated, this area is in need
of revitalization to eliminate the blighted conditions and
deterioration that exist and to enhance its ability to meet the needs
of the area residents and beachgoers alike. The scope of the
redevelopment effortscurrently underway will fully investigate the
retention and rehabilitation of this area. This issue should be •
addressed in the LCP. The major issues are therefore:
34
•
•
•
(1) The adequacy of existing regulations to effectively preserve
the scenic vistas of the coastal area.
• (2) Identification of areas where acquisition of the scenic vista
area may be necessary.
(3) What measures are necessary to insure that the bluff line
park is developed?
• (4) The siting of any residential, commercial or other development
along Pacific Coast Highway to preserve inland vistas .
(5) The extent to which rehabilitation and preservation of the
Downtown area will be included in the Redevelopment Plans.
•
13 Public Works
The Coastal Act Policy S .30254 limits expansion and new public works
• facilities to those necessary to accommodate new development or uses
permitted by the Coastal Act. Special districts must not be formed
or expanded which would attract new developments incompatible with
coastal policies. Where choices are limited for public works
facilities priority must be given to coastal dependent land uses,
essential public services and basic industries vital to the economic
• health of the region state or nation, public recreation, commercial
recreation and visitor serving land uses before other development.
Policies of the Land Use Element of the Huntington Beach General- Plan
affecting this section are: :
(1) 2 . 4 . 2 .4 #6 "Preventing development on the public beaches that
is not essential nor recreation-oriented. "
(2) 2 . 4 . 2. 6 #1 "Providing utility systems to meet projected
demands . "
• (3) 3 . 4. 2 .8 "Promoting hotel and tourist-oriented retail develop-
ment in appropriate locations. "
35
•
•
I
2 . 2 .13 .1 Water, Sewerage, Telephone•, Gas
The Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC)
purchases and delivers imported water from Metropolitan
Water District to local water agencies including Orange •
County Water District (OCWD)_. OCWD manages the ground
water supplies in the 202, 242 acres of aquifer in Orange
County and distributes water purchased--from MID from
California Water Project and tree Colorado River. The
Orange County Coastal Project has injection barrier wells
and extraction wells in and near the coastal zone. OCWD' s
water treatment plant, Water Factory. 21 is in nearby
Fountain Valley. Expansion of the plant is planned to
handle increased demand posed by Huntington Beach and
surrounding areas. Of course, mains would extend out to
the required demand area. The Santa Ana Watershed Project
Authority, of which OCWD is a member, is constructing a
brine interceptor line now -one-third complete which will
utilize the ocean discharge of the Orange County Sanita
tion District.
The Orange County Sanitation District serves most of Orange
County. District #11 and #3 serve Huntington Beach. The •
District Sewer Treatment Plant #2 is located next to the
Santa Ana River in the Huntington Beach coastal planning
area. (See map, Figure 2-8) . Expansion of Plant #2 will
provide 75 million gallons per day of .secondary treatment.
Completion is expected by 1980. No additional land will
be required for these expansions except for supporting
pipelines and sewer connections. The proposed Master
Plan of Sewers, City of Huntington Beach indicates a
trunk sewer is proposed for the ocean side of Pacific
Coast Highway from Brookhurst Street north to Lake Street.
Connecting to this portion is the Ocean Avenue trunk
and a branch draining northern Huntington Beach through
or around the Bolsa Chica. These are proposed to serve
projected need. Additional secondary treatment at Plant #1
in Fountain Valley will increase the flow to Plant #2 since
mixing before ocean discharge is effected at the Plant #2.
There are two ocean outfall lines from Treatment Plant #2 .
One is a 78-inch diameter, 9000 foot line with a 1000 foot
diffuser maintained only for emergency use. The main line
is a 120-inch diameter, 27, 400 foot line with a 6000 foot
multiport diffuser which releases at a depth of 200 feet.
The question whether expanded capacity will induce urban
growth or whether accurate projections of growth are being
accommodated needs to be resolved. In addition, the
36
•
•
•4-v i
s
w"loll
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. ..
. . . . . . . . . . .
•
• •. •� uu.n
mn
•
O.C. Sanitation Dist. No.11
O.C. Sanitation Dist. No. 3
- Coastal Zone Boundary
� Treatment Plant �•
i
Figure 2-8
Adlbk
• ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT
huntington beach planning department
3%
• i
quantity of additional or expanded sanitation facilities
of this region-serving utility which should be accommodated
in the Huntington Beach Coastal Area need to be addressed.
The plans are based on requirements for needs of expected
development. The Orange County Sanitation District is
currently preparing a Master Plan of Sewers for Huntington
Beach.
•
Issues to study concerning sewerage:
(1) What are the effects on growth patterns of proposals
for extension and additional services? Is available
sewer capacity attracting development? •
(2) Can more economical methods of treatment be permitted
which will not critically affect the environment?
(3) The impacts of locating residential development
proximic to sanitation facilities should also be •
investigated.
General Telephone Company and Southern California Gas
Company whose service areas include Huntington Beach will ..
base incremental expansion plans on population and
industrial growth. •
2 . 2 .13. 2 Flood .Control Projects
The Orange County Flood Control District (OCFCD) admin-
istered by the County Environmental Management Agency
operates a countywide drainage system divided into 13
districts. Districts C, D and E have outflows through
Huntington Beach. (See Figure 2-9) . The-City
drainage channels and pumping „ stations connect with the
OCFCD system. A study of opening the East Garden Grove
Wintersburg Channel to the ocean is being made presently
by the OCFCD. •
Because of the hazard identified in 3 . 9 .3 above, the
Flood Control District is cooperating with the Corps of
Engineers in its program to increase channel,
Santa Ana River and Prado Dam capacities . Since a •
flood disaster would have major effects on Huntington
Beach and particularly the coastal area, such projects
as increasing channel and river capacities in Huntington
Beach need support. At issue would be temporary con-
struction inconvenience and expense to gain increased
safety for people and stability for coastal resources. •
38
•
•
•
P WE AN TE
U
a E RI N
_ C5. MURDY CHANNEL
SCENARI') RS•B SA
U
HEILP 5-SC2
w,
SUNSET GO
. I
V
\ CHANNEL COI \'�N LDS PS.
I
M . RIL N PS
• �� R� �N 6-S ANNEL
EAST VALLEY
SLATER .S. a I F NTAIN VALLEY
Sl.!$ D 5
-SC
BOLRE
CHICA
\ FL ER PS.
f _ ; F, TOWN .S-
• \` MS PS.
3C CITY CHANNELS - -
• CITY PUMP SE-ATIONS I A FPS: z RE�CtA .
DISTRICT CHANNELS A P Q
HAMILTON PS.
0
� m
CITY .OF
HUNTINGTON BEACH z
NEWLAND P.S.
• ORANGE COUNTY CALIFORNIA �. NING PS_
ORANGE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT a \IN
CITY DRAINAGE CHANNELS AND PUMPING STATIONS
g-
•
Figure 2-9
•
.39
•
I
i
2 . 2 .13 . 3 Transportation, Streets and Public Works Department
Projects
The Orange County Transit District (OCTD) operates ten
fixed bus routes in Huntington Beach. Some of these
. routes connect to the RTD (Los Angeles) or to other OCTD •
lines within the County. Increased bus service and
transportation centers in the beach area can help relieve
the traffic and parking problems caused by overdependence
on the private automobile. A transportation center down-
town at Lake Street is. being studied Beach-side bus
loading and turnaround areas have been proposed for the •
Huntington State Beach which would relieve. some of the
pedestrian cross traffic. The OCTD future plans include
transportation corridors and systems. The Pacific Electric
right-of-way paralleling Lake Street is located within the.
iaentified mass transit corridor. However, to use this right�of-ws�! •
in the City ' s nearer-term transportation planning will
require expensive acquisition and legal consultation to
clear the clouded title.
The "Recommended Statewide Transportation Goals , Policies
and Objectives" of the California Transportation Plan
March, 1977 has noted that "coastal scenic highways such
as Highway 1 should not be widened to accommodate through _
travel, " Although this applies primarily to rural areas,
there may be conflict with the City' s intention of
improving access to the beach facilities including the
widening of Pacific Coast Highway to accommodate •
additional traffic flow from improved tributary arterials .
The City ' s Transportation Improvement Project proposal
includes lane expansions, parking revisions, bike trail
and traffic signals for Pacific Coast Highway. The phase
having highest priority would be the section from the Santa
Ana River north to Beach Boulevard. Whether the City' s •
proposal will be implemented will depend on State approval
and funding and acquisition of additional right-of-way. "-
Other projects in the Five-Year Capital Improvement Pro-
gram of the City's Public Works Department in the coastal
zone include water line, storm drain and sewer extensions •
to support development, rehabilitation of the municipal
pier, and a possible pedestrian bridge over Pacific Coast
Highway at Main Street:
•
a 0
•
•
The major problem affecting the public ' s access to the
shore line is not pedestrian access from Pacific Coast
Highway, it is rather one of providing vehicular access
to the coastal area while minimizing the adverse impacts
on coastal area residents and businesses . The major
arterials currently providing access into -the coastal
area are [darner Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway.Go-iden--_ -- --.
• west Street, Main Street, Beach Boulevard Maq_nolia .gtrppt,`
and Brookhurst Street. These streets already experience
congestion on peak beach use days. With the increase in
beach usage that is projected the accompanying problems. of
getting automobiles and people into and out of the beach
areas, as well as getting these automobiles and people
into and out of the beach facilities, will also increase. ...
The City' s Circulation Plan and proposals includes several
rearrangements to the traffic flows. When all of these
precise plans of street alignment are approved and imple-
mented, improved circulation for residents and visitors
• alike will result.
A main policy is to allocate the excess traffic from Beach
Boulevard and Main Street to other arterials. While re-
lieving the congestion on the arterials themselves, several
othernodes of visitor facilities, associated -with inter-
sections with the Pacific Coast Highway can be developed to
increase visitor serving capacity. As explained in the area .
description, Atlanta Avenue will be realigned to flow traffi
across downtown on Orange Avenue thus enabling access to
Pacific Coast Highway at 17th Street or Goldenwest Street.
With the Gothard addition and realignment to flow into
17th Street, another route from the San Diego Freeway and
other Orange County cities will permit access to the coast.
In addition, extension/realignment of Huntington and
Delaware Streets to carry flows directly to the Pacific
Coast Highway is planned. The Lake Street widening and
extension to provide an alternate route to Beach Boulevard
as access to the Pacific Coast Highway, has met with certain
complications in implementation. Area residents have oppose
part of this plan and delays and excessive costs in acquirin
the necessary right-of-way are presenting problems. Since
Lake Street is a vital proposal to the Circulation Plan, con-
tinuous efforts to overcome these problems will be necessary.
•
These corridors are intended as traffic carriers and not
to encourage strip development. The relief to Main Street
from the dispersal to several arterials should be helpful
in maintaining and revitalizing the pedestrian community
in the pier and downtown area (see Figure 2-10) .
•
41
..fir
au.
u�
w
Decreased Access •,�
Increased Access
Pacific Coast Highway Access ,
• / nwn
� Proposed Access •
Gothard/17th Street •.•••o.
Q
�tlas�s Lake Street
Atlanta Realignment
Delaware ,
Figm 2-10
VEHICULAR aRCULATION PROPOSALS
huntington beach planning department
42
•
•
These efforts to increase accessibility will also require
assistance from alternate modes of transportation. The
City' s General Plan includes policies intended to provide
additional bicycle and mass transit access into the beach
• areas. The City is currently completing a Trails Imple-
mentation Plan, attempting to acquire an abandoned portion
of the Pacific Electric Railroad right-of-way for a mass
transit corridor and continuing to encourage the Orange
County Transit District to increase bus service to the beach
• The major issue affecting shoreline access is, therefore,
whether all of these efforts will be adequate to meet.
projected demand or if alternative plans will be necessary.
Specific issues include (a) How to meet projected demand
while maintaining the integrity of planned areas within
the coastal zone and adjacent affected areas, and (b)
How to provide public access to the Bolsa Chica while
preserving its resources.
2 . 2. 13. 4 Recreation Projects
• Since the beaches are the major recreation facility in
Huntington Beach, their management has considerable effect
on coastal appreciation. ' The State Department of Parks
and Recreation plans and operates the Huntington State .
Beach, from Beach Boulevard south to the City' s boundary,
and the Bolsa Chica State Beach north of the City' s beach
• at Main Street. The State has submitted plans for im-
provements of Huntington State Beach, including parking
expansion, additional access points, and facilities and
landscaping.
The Orange County Harbors, Beaches and Parks District owns
• and operates the beach at the northernmost part of Hunting-
ton Beach at Sunset Beach. The District also operates the
Sunset Aquatic Park, a public marina with picnic and
camping facilities. The County' s jurisdiction presently
includes the Bolsa Chica territory, part of which in Febru-
ary, 1977, received legislative authorization to be. pu=hased
by the State Department of Fish and Game as a preservation
area from its private oil company owner. The County has
also approved a linear park surrounding the Bolsa Chica
wetlands connecting with the City' s Central Park.
Coordinating the confluence in the coastal area of all the
• actions of these varied agencies is a major action area
for the Local Coastal Program.
2 . 2. 13. 5 School Districts Projects
Due to demographic changes common to the entire County,
• school districts are experiencing declining enrollment
from kindergarten through the eighth and ninth grades.
Aft 43
_ I
A peak is expected in the High School District in 1978
with decline thereafter. Thus the schools are expected • '
to have capacity to accommodate population expansion
without additional capital investment. Their policies are
expected to be favorable to additional residential develop-
ment to fill vacating capacities.
•
2 .2 . 13 . E Public Works Issues
The issues that need to be addressed are:
(1) Analysis of the sanitation system of the entire •
County and the ability to service the coastal area
and monitoring of the additions and changes of the
Sanitation District will require attention in the
Local Coastal Program. -
(2) A major issue concerning flood control is decision •
whether the opening of the East Garden Grove
Wintersburg Channel to the ocean from the north
part of the Bolsa Chica will be worth the pro-
tection this affords from the potential coastal-
damaging flood disaster.
(3) Whether the arterial streets, which already experience
congestion at peak beach usage points and times, will
be adequate to accept the increased beach usage that
is proposed without significant alteration is a key
problem to be assessed. Efforts must be made to pro-
vide alternatives and allocate the projected increased •
attracted usage among several methodologies such as
mass transit, parking, bike trails, pedestrian bridge
as well as spread the burden over a larger portion
of the coastal area. These efforts will require con-
siderable coordinative planning in the Local Coastal
Program. •
(4) In addition, more accurate data must be obtained.
Though traffic counts for Pacific Coast Highway from
Goldenwest Street to Beach Boulevard are up-to-date,
only older data is available for other parts of the
highway and tributary arterials. Updating data •
projecting anticipated usage will be necessary in
planning the comprehensive arrangement of visitor/
recreation services.
•
44
•
(5) Coordinating the actions of. various County, City and
r State Department and Agency activities as well as
those of private individuals, businesses and public
service companies will be necessary in this . coastal
area. This will require a major task effort in the
Local Coastal Program.
2 . 2.14 Industrial Development and Energy Facilities
Sections 30250 (b) , 30260 through 30264, 30232 and 30255
of the Coastal Act contain provisions regulating the
development, location expansion and continued operation
of tanker facilities , LNG terminals, offshore, onshore
oil and 'gas facilities , refineries and power plants as
well as other coastal dependent industrial development.
One hundred forty four acres of Huntington Beach are currently
general planned for resource production. This reflects
existing onshore oil extraction operations that are
anticipated to continue for some time in the future. The
major oil production area in the City is located within
the Coastal zone and extends from Goldenwest Street to
the bluff area on the inland side of Pacific Coast Highway.
i The Huntington Beach Oil Field is a major oil producing
area in California. This area is densely populated with
oil wells and has existing storage and transportation
facilities. A number of individual wells are dispersed
throughout the coastal zone but many of these are being
consolidated or abandoned as it becomes more economically
• rewarding to develop the property with other uses. City
zoning allows these to co-exist with residential, commercial,
industrial and other uses. The City also has a significant
oil storage and tanker unloading operation that is located
near the Edison Plant on Magnolia Street. This operation
is conducted by Gulf Oil Company. The oil tankers are
S unloaded to the storage facilities before being pumped
via existing pipe lines to inland refineries. Two offshore
oil platforms exist whose landfall is Huntington Beach.
Any expansion of any of these operations is of significant
concern to the City.
Offshore oil exploration and development activities are of
major concern. The Department of Interior over the
past few years has been developing plans to provide for
offshore lease sales of land for oil and gas exploration
and development along the Western Coast of. the United
States. Under the Outer Continental Shelf Lease Sale
No. 35, bids .were accepted on 56 tracts off the Southern
California Coast.
4�
a
The City of Huntington Beach in late 1975 was party to a
petition for an injunction against Lease Sale No. 35 filed
by a number of Southern California cities. The concern
was over their lack of involvement in the planning phase
as it related to potential environmental impacts on the
.Southern California coastline. This effort failed to block
offshore drilling and constitutes the City' s only official
action on the subject. f
The State Office of Planning and Research has recently
completed a draft document entitled Offshore Oil and Gas
Development: Southern California. A subsequent dra t
ocument containing OPR s findings and recommendations
indicate opposition to offshore oil and gas development
without proper environmental assessment of offshore and
onshore impacts and is consistent with the City' s position..
Because the document contained the following references
to Huntington Beach, the extent of offshore development
is a vital concern.
t
1. "Onshore processing should be handled in Huntington Beach
or Los Angeles/Long Beach Harbors area. "
2. "Transportation of crude oil and natural gas produced
in San Pedro Bay should be through one integrated
pipeline network.. Huntington Beach is the preferred
landfall area. "
3. "There are no pipelines between the federal leases in
San Pedro Bay and onshore areas. The closest mainland
area already developed for oil and gas extraction is
Huntington Beach. Other possible landfalls would be
in Los Angeles/Long Beach Harbors; however, pipeline
routes to these destinations cannot avoid areas used
heavily for anchorage or are subject to harbor plans
for dredging or fill. "
f-
A unitized plan by four oil companies is being made to
develop two offshore oil parcels on which oil has been
discovered. The tentative plans call for a two-platform
drilling complex and a large pipeline arriving ashore in
Huntington Beach.
A major assessment of each oil company's potentialdevelopment .
plans and expected onshore impacts, e.g. , the need for
additional oil storage facilities, additional pipelines,
increased oil tanker activity and expanded use of existing
facilities is necessary in the Local Coastal Program.
--
46
t
The Southern California Edison Company owns and operates
a major electrical generating plant at Newland Street and
Pacific Coast Highway. Edison. has recently made public its
plans to construct a 1290 megawatt Combined Cycle Generation
Project planned for operation in the mid 1980 's at one of
four possible sites. The existing Edison facility in
Huntington Beach has been identified as one of those sites.
The determination of which of the alternative sites will .
be approved is dependent upon a lengthy review process by
the California Energy Commission. Should the Huntingtcn
Beach site be chosen, the impacts on the use of the
surrounding properties could be significant. Considerable
concern as to the impacts on the beach amenity and
marine resources also exists.
The major issues concerning Industrial Development and
Energy facilities are therefore:
1. The extent of development of offshore oil facilities
and the resultant need for expansion of onshore oil
storage and transportation facilities.
• 2. What impacts .could result from expansion of the- ''
..
Southern California Edison Company Generating Plant
on adjacent land uses and on the beach ocean resources.
3. Because of their nature and the likelihood of their
long term continued use, what additional measures
can be instituted to increase the attractiveness of
existing and future onshore oil facility developments.
4. How can the environmental effects of industrial
development and energy facilities be mitigated con-
sistent with Coastal Act objectives , and how will
the related studies and mitigation efforts be
financed?
5. How can pipeline transportation be maintained and
improved, if necessary to meet energy demands, while
assuring an acceptable level of safety?
2 . 3 Policy Group Check List
Based on the policy group evaluations contained in Section 3 .0, the
following policy group check list is an abbreviated summary form
which succinctly indicates whether local policies, plans, and zoning
are adequate and consistent with Coastal Act policies. A "+"
has been placed in the appropriate column where existing policies,
land use plans and/or zoning are both consistent and adequate to com-
ply with Coastal Act policies. An "0" has been placed in the
appropriate column where local documents do not address all or some
of the aspects of the policies or where further research is necessary.
where there is a possible conflict or inconsistences a "-" has been
entered. Finally, if other types of action are necessary it is so
indicated in the column "other actions" and noted in the remarks
section. � � --47"--
Policy Groups Not Exist Local Local Local Other. Remarks
co Appl. Cond. Policies Land Use Zoning Actions
A. SHORELINE ACCESS (S30210, 30211, + + + + All area from PCH to ocean
32012)
Development not to interfere with publicly owned. Co-
public right of access; provision ordination with State
for dedication of accessways. Parks to increase pedes-
trian access to Huntington
State Beach necessary.
B. RECREATION AND VISITOR-SERVING
FACILITIES (S30212.5, 30213,
30220-30223, 30250(c))
Distribute public facilities; 0 0 0 0 Local policies, plans,
provide lower cost visitor zoning will allow visitor
facilities; protect oceanfront service, recreation
areas for coastal recreation; facilities, but does not
give priority to commercial provide priority to those
recreation; reserve upland uses over others.
support areas; locate visitor
facilities at selected points.
C. HOUSING (S30213)
Protect low- and moderate- + + 0 0 Housing Element, Housing
income housing; new housing to Assistance Plan sets
conform to housing element. policy. Cooperation from
HUD for housing assistance
necessary
D. WATER AND MARINE RESOURCES
(S30230, 30231, 30236) "
1. Maintain, restore marine 0 + + 0 General Plan establishes
resources and coastal these concerns as City
water quality; control goals. Analysis of exist.-
discharges. ing conditions, and adequacy
2. Control runoff. 0 + + 0 of existing ordinances
3. Prevent groundwater de- 0 + + 0 necessary.
pletion, interference with
surface flow; encourage water
reclamation.
4. Maintain riparian buffers and 0 + + 0
limit dams or alterations of
streams.
40
Policy Groups Not Exist Local Local Local Other Remarks
Appl, Cond, Policies Land Use Zoning Actions
E. DIKING, DREDGING, FILLINGS SHORE- Only dredging, diking
LINE STRUCTURES (S30233, 30235) operations anticipated
1. Limit diking, dredging, fill- + 0 0 0 in Huntington Harbor
ing of all coastal waters, channel. maintenance, and
especially certain wetlands; pier refurbishing.
control spoils disposal. Additional research
2. Limit shoreline structures 0 0 0 0 necessary to identify
(seawalls, cliff retaining possible dredging, diking,
walls).. seawall, etc, needs.
F. COMMERCIAL FISHING AND REC- No commercial fishing
REATIONAL BOATING (S30224, harbor. Expansion of
30234,. 30255) Huntington Harbour not
Encourage increased recreational + + + 0 feasible. Additional
boating use; upgrade and pro- marina development re-
tect commercial fishing fa- quires ocean cut, wet
cilities; give priority to
lands disruption.
coastal-dependent facilities.
G. ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE HABITAT Open Space & Conservation
AREAS (S30240) Element identified wet-
Protect environmentally sensitive + + + 0 land areas for preserv-
habitat areas; prevent adverse ation, Dependent upon
impacts from development acquisition by State
adjacent to them. agencies.
H. AGRICULTURE (S30241, 30242) No agricultural resources
. 1. Maintain prime agricultural, in coastal zone.
land and minimize conflicts
by establishing stable. bound-
aries, limiting conversions
in urban fringe areas, limit-
ing land division, etc.
2. Do not convert other agri-
culture land unless in-
feasible or for concentrating
development..
Policy Groups Not Exist Local Local Local Other Remarks
Ln Appl, Cond. Policies Land Use Zoning Actions
Co
I. HAZARD AREAS (S30253 (1) and• (2) Investigation of_
Minimize risks in ggologic, flood, - + 0 0 necessary controls
and regulations
and fire hazard areas; assure required.
stability and not require bluff
alteration in bluff and cliff
areas.
J. FORESTRY AND SOILS RESOURCES
(S30243) No forest land in
Huntington Beach,
Protect productivity of timber-
lands; limit conversions and
land divisions.
K. LOCATING AND PLANNING NEW DEVELOP-
MENT (S30244, 30250, 30252,
30253(3) and (4)
1. Mitigation for development + • + + + Section 9730.31 of Ordinance
Code establishes pro-
affecting archaeological
or paleontological resource. cedures.
2. Locate development in or near 0 0 0 0 Additional work necessary
existing developed areas; or to define City policy
in other areas where services in downtown area and
exist and no adverse impacts; planning reserve areas on
.minimize energy consumption, PCH.
vehicle miles; be consistent
with air quality standards.
3: Limit land divisions outside 0 0 0 0
developed areas.
4. Maintain access to the coast by 0 + + 0 Policies established, recent
providing better transit, non- attempts to implement -
auto, and parking oppor- planned improvements met
tunities. citizen opposition.
Policy Groups Not Exist Local Local Local Other Remarks
Appl, Cond, Policies Land Use Zoning Actions
5. Relate new development to 0 0 0 0 City's zoning ordinance re-
adequate local and on-site rec- quire on site open space.
reation so as not to overload Parks demand in most of
coastal recreation areas. coastal zone not met at
this time.
L. VISUAL RESOURCES AND SPECIAL
COMMUNITIES (S30251, 30253 (5)
1. Protect coastal scenic and 0 + 0 0 0 Scenic Highways Element
visual qualities; site and establishes City policy.
design development to pro- Additional ordinances,
tect public views, minimize specific plans, redevelop-
landform alteration, be ment plan necessary.
compatible. Orange Co. participation
on proposed bluff line
regional park necessary.
2. Protect special coastal com- 0 0 0 0 Redevelopment activity in
munities and neighborhoods. downtown area not final;
key tool for rehabilitation.
M. PUBLIC WORKS (S30254)
1. Sewer and water: Limit capacity, 0 0 + 0 Both sewer and water cap-
service system, special district acity must consider its
boundaries to serve development regional services versus
consistent with Coastal Act. environmental effects.
Where capacity is limited, re- _
portion for essential uses 0 0 0 Flood control :facires ex- .
serve
P pansion also requires
and recreation. - f analysis and coordination.
2. Transportation: Design to serve 0 0 0 0 Capacities on arterials &
development, but maintain rural PCH taxed at peak usage
Highway l as scenic; 2-lanes. hours. With increased
Where capacity is limited, re- usage required must handle
serve portion for essential uses additional vehicles or
and recreation. alternative transp, Massive
management & coordinative
task, Additional data
collection necessary, '
n Policy Groups Not ' Exist Local Local Local Other Remarks
N Appl, Cond. Policies Land Use Zoning Actions
N. INDUSTRIAL AND ENERGY FACILITIES
(S30250(b) , 30260-30264, 30232,
30255)
1. Tanker -facilities 0 0 0 0 Until probable extent of
2. LNG terminals 0 0 0 0 off shore development As
ascertained,' no definitive
planning effort possible.
3. Off shore, on shore oil and 0 0 0 0 Analysis of ordinances to
gas facilities. determine possible aesthetic
improvements to existing
4. Refineries 0 0 0 0 facilities necessary to
improve scenic quality of
PCH.
5. Power Plants 0 0 0 0 City General Plan reflects
existing facility. . . Ex-
pansion plans and impacts.
requires additional
analysis.
•
2. 4 Uses of More Than Local Significance
Section 00041 of the Local Coastal Program regulations requires that
uses of more than local importance be identified and considered in
the preparation of the Local Coastal Program. The location of these
facilities which serve a regional rather than local area is depicted
in the areawide description. Explanation of their operation and
• expansion plans have been discussed where appropriate in the policy
group evaluation. The following list is intended to pinpoint these
uses of more than local significance:
(1) State and federal parks and recreation areas:
• a. Bolsa Chica State Beach
b. Huntington State Beach
C. Huntington Beach Municipal Beach
d. Proposed Bolsa Chica Linear Regional Park
(2) Major energy facilities:
• a. Edison generating plant
b. Huntington Beach Oil Field (includes Bolsa Chica, offshore
and tanker unloading facility
(3) State and federal highways and other transportation facilities
• and public works:
a. Pacific Coast Highway (Route 1)
b. Beach Boulevard (Route 39)
c. Mass Transit Corridor Pacific Electric Railroad Right-of-Way
d. Bus transportation provided by O CTD to beach areas
• e. Orange County Sanitation Treatment Plant
f. Flood Control facilities:
1 . Talbert Channel
2. Huntington Beach Channel
3. East Garden Grove - Wintersburg Channel
• 4 . Bolsa Chica Channel
5. Westminster Channel
(4) Uses of larger-than-local importance:
a. Wildlife habitats:
•
1. Bolsa Chica wetlands
2 . Wetlands areas along Pacific Coast Highway from
Newland Street to the Santa Ana River
3. Beach areas
53
•
•
b. Uses that maximize public access:
1. Downtown Huntington Beach Redevelopment Area
2 . Huntington Harbour boat launching facilities and beach •
areas
2 . 5 Summa.ry of Key Issues
This final section of the Issue Identification lists the key issues
that will be addressed in the Local Coastal Program. They are
identified by policy groups and are as follows :
1. Shoreline Access
•
(1) The key access issue is to meet the demand for additional.
pedestrian and vehicular access particularly in the future
expansion of the City and State beaches, while maintaining
the integrity of planned areas within and affected by the
Coastal Zone.
•
2 . Recreation and Visitor Serving Facilities
(1) A number of significant land use decisions will be required
to determine the extent of the visitor service and rec-
reation facilities necessary to fulfill projected demands, •
appropriate locations in the coastal zone, the types of
facilities desired and how those uses can best be integrated
with existing and proposed beach facilities . City plans
and ordinances will require amendment to give priority to
those uses .
•
3. Housing
(1) The coordination of City efforts to provide. additional lower
cost housing, especially new construction units in or adjac-
ent to the coastal zone, with its overall planning to insure
that alternate lower cost housing is available to those dis- •
placed by coastal zone development activities, should be
addressed in the Local Coastal Program.
4 . Water and Marine Resources
(1) Identification of existing and projected problems affecting . •
water and marine resources, as well as analysis of the
- adequacy of the City ' s implementation alternatives, control
measures and possible monitoring should be addressed in the
LCP.
(2) How to provide public access to the Balsa Chica while •
preserving its resources?
54
•
5. Diking, Dredging, Filling, and Shoreline Structures
(1) Identification of areas that will require any filling,
dredging, diking or shoreline structures that may be
required. Additional investigation of the possible impacts
of these activities on ocean and wetland resources as well
as regulatory measures is also necessary.
•
6 . Commercial Fishing/Recreational Boating
(1) Should additional recreational marinas be constructed
in the coastal area?-
7 . Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas
(1) Resolution of. ultimate ownership and use of the Santa Ana
River Marsh. Essentially the question is preservation as
a natural area or development with recreational facilities
that compliment Huntington State Beach, Santa Ana River
• Greenbelt and the proposed Santa Ana mouth regional park.
Methods of insuring that adjacent development is compatible
will also be necessary.
(2) The integration of uses in and surrounding the Bolsa Chica
with State , County, and Coastal purb-oses.
8. Agriculture
No issue identified.
9. Hazard Areas
(1) Updating of the City' s ordinances to regulate development
in hazard areas is necessary.
10. Forestry and Soils Resources
Policy not applicable to Huntington Beach.
11. Locating and Planning New Development
(1) Residential densities, circulation, the integration of
long-term oil production facilities, siting to preserve and
provide access to vistas, maximization of onsite open space,
and the impact of offshore oil development on adjacent oil
production facilities for the Seacliff Planned Community
should be addressed in the Local Coastal Program.
• (2) The oceanfront residential area from Goldenwest Street :arid
Sixth" Street should be addressed to determine development
intensities, location of development nodes, and lot consolida-
tion.
55
•
•
(3) The Local Coastal Program should carefully examine the demand
for recreation and visitor serving or other uses between Lake
Street and Newland Street to determine the extent to which
these types of uses are economically viable and desirable. •
Implementation vehicles that give priority to visitor serving
facilities over residential uses may be. required. The
integration of the ultimate uses with the beach, existing
visitor serving and commercial facilites, and the surrounding
residential will also be important.
(4) In the Downtown area the key issues are the extent and nature •
of the specialty commercial development proposed for the
area, the manner in which those visitor serving facilities
are integrated with the pier and beach areas, and what imple-
mentation methods will be required if redevelopment is not
approved.
12. Visual Resources and Special Communities
(1) Current City policy reflects the desire to preserve coastal
visual resources . The expansion of development regulations,
the preparation of precise plans as well as acquisition and •
development programs, and the coordination of Pacific Coast
Highway, State Beach and other public and private improve-
ments 'may be required as part of the Local Coastal Program.
13. Public Works
•
(1) Coordination of the actions of various County, City, and State
Departments and Agencies, as well as those of private indivi-
duals, businesses, and public services companies operating
in the coastal area will be a major task of the Local Coastal
Program.
•
(2) Updated information regarding the projected demand for
transportation facilities (streets, mass transit_,_ and bicycle)
will be necessary to insure that adequate access to coastal
resources will be available.
14 . Industrial and Energy Facilities •
(1) Determine the extent of development of offshore oil
facilities and the resultant need for expansion of
onshore oil storage and transportation facilities.
Can improved pipeline transport be utilized to meet •
increased energy demands, while assuring acceptable
safety levels?
(2) What impacts will result from expansion of the SouthernJuses
ifornia Edison Company generating plant' on adjacent lan •
and on the beach ocean resources.
56 AtoRk
•
3 . 0 DESCRIPTION OF MAJOR TASKS
3 . 1 Administration
Administration will be a significant portion of the LCP effort.
The administrative tasks involved are as follows : establishing and
maintaining a filing system; providing information to persons,
groups , or businesses who request it; attending meetings with Orange
County, adjacent cities, special districts, public agencies and
other City departments to insure coordination of Planning activities;
sending for background and other resource materials; overseeing the
budget; obtaining consultant assistance where necessary; scheduling
and coordinating tasks and staff; and supervising and reviewing.
Section 30604 of the Coastal Act requires that development permitted
in the coastal zone prior to certification of the. LCP not prejudice
its preparation. Since several large projects have recently been
submitted to the Regional Commission and others may be submitted
during the LCP preparation period, it is important that the Regional
Commission staff and City staff coordinate on permits that could
prejudice the LCP while it is being formulated. This activity will
require administrative time even though significant areas of
coastal Huntington Beach have been granted categorical. exclusion
status.
57
•
Objective: Provide staffing to insure adequate handling of admin- •
istrative responsibilities.
Major Work Elements: Described above.
Estimated Staff Time: 4 .0 LCP Staff months.*
3. 2 Policy Group Studies
2. 3. 1 Shoreline Access
Since the beach areas from Pacific Coast Highway to the
shoreline are almost entirely in public ownership,
shoreline access is preserved in Huntington Beach. The
primary activity, therefore, will center around coordin-
ating expansion and refurbishing of existing City and
State beaches. During Phase II of the LCP preparation, •
coordination of these activities in Huntington State
Beach will be necessary. The purpose is to insure that
additional pedestrian and vehicular access is provided in
their expansion plans. It will also be necessary to
identify additional feasible opportunities for expanding
public access (beaches, vista points, and boat launching •
facilities) to the Huntington Harbour shoreline. This
will require parcel by parcel analysis of shoreline lots.
Objective: Insure maximum public access to the shoreline.
Major Work Elements: Described above.
Products: Coastal Element will identify vehicular, ped-
estrian and visual access points. Memo to Regional and
State staffs will reflect work completed.
Estimated Staff Time: 1. 0 LCP Staff month.
3. 2. 2 Recreation and Visitor-Serving Facilities
While much data regarding the demand for recreational and
visitor-serving facilities in Huntington Beach is avail-
able, this data needs to be analyzed, interpreted and
updated where required. Identification of parcels that
have recreation or visitor-serving facility potential for
the entire coastal zone will be necessary. Feasible
parcels will be identified and ranked according to
•
* A staff month is defined as one staff member working full time for
one month.
58 /�,
•
• compatibility with Coastal Act policies. Coordination
with revitalization efforts in the Downtown and municipal
pier area will also be necessary. This activity would
require providing input relating to Coastal Act policies,
overall coastal zone recreation visitor-serving
facility location needs, monitoring Redevelopment Commis-
sion and Agency meetings, and insuring citizen participa-
tion. Recent commitments to a bluffline -regional park
surrounding the Bolsa Chica area will require the coordina-
tion of both City and County.
Objective: Determine the demand for additional visitor-
serving and recreational facilities, appropriate locations, .
types of facilities desired and feasible that are consis-
tent with Coastal Act policies, and existing facility
development.
• Major Work Elements:
1. Determine the demand for additional visitor-serving
facilities in the coastal zone.
2. Inventory and rank parcels in coastal zone with
• recreational or visitor-serving facility potential.
3. Map areas.
4. Review of findings with City of Huntington Beach
Redevelopment Agency, Recreation and Parks Department,
• Harbors and Beaches Department, County of Orange
Environmental Management Agency, and State Department
of Recreation and Parks.
5. Coordinate and cooperate with County of Orange to
facilitate the acquisition and development of a reg-
ional park facility on the bluffs surrounding the .
Bolsa Chica wetlands.
6. Determine compatibility of possible sites with
Coastal Act policies regarding special habitat areas,
hazard areas, etc.
• 7. Describe facilities suitable for selected sites.
8. Provide special emphasis on determining parking fac-
ility demand and identifying feasible sites for
additional beach parking.
•
59
•
•
Products:
•
1. All products will be incorporated into the land use
plan consistent with Coastal Act policy.
2. A report will be prepared for Coastal Commission
staff review reflecting analysis.
•
Estimated Staff Time: 6. 0 LCP Staff months.
3. 2. 3 Housing
The coastal zone of Huntington Beach is the location of •
much of the City' s lower cost housing. Because the
residential areas are the oldest in the City, housing is
older, smaller, and in some locations in need of refurb-
ishing.
As pressure to recycle existing lower cost housing in- •
creases, the need to provide alternate lower cost housing
will increase. This is especially critical if additional
visitor-serving, recreation, or high quality residential
or commercial uses are to be provided in these areas of
the coastal zone. •
Objective: Coordinate City efforts to provide additional
lower cost housing, especially new construction units in
or adjacent to the coastal zone, with its overall planning
to insure that alternate lower cost housing is available
to those displaced by coastal zone development activities. •
Major Work Elements:
1. Review and extract existing housing stock data from
City of Huntington Beach Housing Element, Housing
Assistance Plan, Community Analysis Project, and
Orange County Housing Authority reports. •
2 . Identify areas where pressure to recycle low cost
housing is increasing and determine methods of pre-
serving and/or rehabilitating lower cost housing.
3. Identify feasible locations for new construction, low •
cost housing and designate on the land use plan.
Products: The text of the land use plan will contain an
evaluation of the low and moderate income housing and the
map will designate residential land use areas that are •
consistent with Coastal Act policies. A memo will be
provided.
60 AdItl
•
•
Estimated Staff Time: 1. O LCP Staff month.
3. 3. 4 Water and Marine Resources
Background information will be obtained and received
• regarding water quality and marine resources. An attempt
will be made to identify existing and anticipated resource
pollutants as well as their effects on riparian and marine
habitat areas. This will include the review of existing
plans and environmental impact reports as .well as discus-
sions with various local, State and Federal agencies.
Identification of the regulatory powers of local, State
and Federal agencies in .this area will also be conducted.
Existing or potential areas with runoff or sedimentation
and aquifer recharge areas will also be identified. Salt
water intrusion problems will also be addressed. Emphasis .
will be placed on addressing problems affecting the Bolsa
• Chica wetlands, Santa Ana River marsh area, Sanitation
Treatment Plant effluent and discharge. from the Edison
generating plant.
Major Work Tasks: Described above.
• Products: Supportive documentation for decisions related
to water and marine resources consistent with Coastal Act
policies. A memo informing the State and Regional staffs
of completed work will be provided.
Estimated Staff .Time: 1. 0 LCP Staff month
• . 25 Other staff*
1. 25 Staff months
3. 2. 5 Diking, Dredging and Filling, and Shoreline Structures
Research in this policy area will need to examine where
these activities now exist or are planned, the impacts of
such activities on coastal resources, and the adequacy of
existing regulations to meet the standards of the Coastal
Act. Since activities of this kind are generally under
the purview of other agencies, the City will have to rely
heavily on information provided by other agencies.
Objective: Identify diking, dredging, and filling activi-
ties which affect the Coastal Zone and assess the impact
of these activities on coastal resources.
i
•
* Other staff refers to members of other City Departments having
special knowledge in the subject area. 61
•
Major Work Elements : •
1. Inventory of existing and proposed shoreline struc-
tures.
2. Identify areas where diking, dredging, filling, and
spoils disposal are occuring or are planned, including •
Huntington Harbour and Santa Ana River mouth areas.
3. Assess the impact of these activities on coastal
resources. Identify alternatives or mitigation meas-
ures. Review relevant EIR' s.
4. Review City ordinances and statutory powers given to •
other agencies to determine adequacy to implement
coastal policy. Identify deficiencies in existing
regulations.
5. Incorporate policy into text of land use plan. •
6. Designate appropriate land uses on map.
Products: All products consistent with Coastal Act policy ,
will be incorporated into the land use plan. No separate
reports will be produced. A memo informing the Regional •
and State staffs of completed work will be provided.
Estimated Staff Time: 1. 0 LCP Staff months
. 25 Other Staff months
1. 25 Staff months.
3. 2. 6 Commercial Fishing and Recreational Boating
Commercial fishing is not found .in Huntington Beach due to +
the lack of natural harbors. Such fishing facilities are
available in adjacent cities. The one existing harbor •
area is the man-made Huntington Harbour residential marina.
complex with its connecting waterways to serve 9000
vessels. The marina facilities are almost completely dev-
eloped. Consistent with Coastal Act policies requiring
the encouragement of recreational boating via new facility
development, an analysis of other potential marina sites •
and expansion possibilities for Huntington Harbour will
be explored. Assessment of demand for these types of
facilities will also be completed.
Objective: Determine if additional recreational marina
development is feasible. •
62
•
•
• Major Work Tasks:
1. Identification of the demand for recreational boating
facilities in the coastal zone.
2. Identification of potential sites,. indicating
• priorities.
3. Analysis of compatibility of additional marina develop-
ment with Coastal Act policies and coastal resources.
4. Mapping of recommended sites.
•
Products: A memo informing Regional and State staffs
will be provided.
Estimated Staff Time: 1. 0 LCP Staff month.
•
3. 2. 7 Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas
Two major sensitive habitat areas have been identified in
coastal Huntington Beach. These areas are the Santa Ana
River marsh area encompassing the recently declared
surplus Caltrans property, and the Bolsa Chica wetlands.
Both of these areas have been designated for acquisition
by the Coastal Commission. Only the Bolsa Chica has- been
funded, however. The Bolsa Chica is also under the
jurisdiction of Orange County' s Local Coastal Program.,
Recent decisions by the City of Huntington Beach have set
the stage for annexing the portion of the Bolsa Chica area
not currently owned or planned for acquisition by the
State. Coordination with the County of Orange over the
planning effort in this area will be necessary.
Objective: Document land use impacts on habitat areas and
identify land uses that are compatible with special habitat
area preservation.
Major Work Elements:
1. Evaluate land use and human- activity impacts on
• Santa Ana River marsh area.
2. Evaluate land uses adjacent to Bolsa Chica within
City jurisdiction to determine impacts on wetlands
area.
• 3. Determine land use plan designations based on habitat
sensitivity.
Adlbk 63
4. Determine compatible adjacent land uses and develop- •
ment requirements.
5. Monitor and provide supportive information for State
acquisition in the Bolsa Chica and Santa Ana River
marsh areas.
6. Incorporate findings in text and land use plan map.
Products: No separate report will be produced. A memo
informing the Regional and State staffs of completed
work will be provided.
Estimated Staff Time: 3. 0 LCP Staff months. •
3. 2. 8 Hazard Areas
Considerable data about hazard areas is presently avail- •
able in the Seismic-Safety Element of the General Plan
and Geotechnical Inputs report of 1974. Updating data to
reflect new information and recent improvements, especially
in flood control and water capability for fire fighting
will be necessary. This data needs to be included in the
land use plan: Determine need for additional flood •
control improvement projects and advise and coordinate
with various specialized agencies. Review criteria for
new development type and siting in hazard areas. Plan
for revisions of development control measures under re-
vised hazard guidelines.
Objective: To include in the land use plan measures •
which reflect coastal policies.
Major Work Element: See description above.
Product: Land use plan additions and a memo informing •
Regional and State staffs of completed work.
Estimated Staff Time: 1. 0 LCP Staff month.
3. 2. 9 Locating and Planning New Development
Issue area identified in 2. 2. 11 of this document will
require study and analysis both separately and in con-
junction with total consideration of a balance of uses,
integration with existing uses, a development nodes concept
and coastal priorities. •
64 I�
•
•
• Objective: Provide for new development to be located
and planned consistently with Coastal Act policies.
Major Work Elements:
1. Prepare an area study plan for the Seacliff area con-
. sidering residential densities, other uses, circula-
tion, the integration of long-term oil production
facilities both within the area and from off-shore,
siting to provide access to vistas and maximization
of on-site open space to insure implementation of
Coastal Act and specific development measures.
• 2. Prepare a downtown area study plan to consider develop-
ment nodes, the question of residential on lots facing
the ocean, the pier and six block adjacent potential
specialty commercial center, and the density and nature
of surrounding residential areas. Integrate this
• area plan with redevelopment plans if .approved.
Indicate measures necessary to assure the implementa-
tion of Coastal Act policies.
3. Prepare an area study plan for the Lake Street to
Newland Street coastal area reflecting locations,
intensity. and arrangement of uses: residential,
recreation, visitor-serving accommodations, and com-
mercial. Recommend uses for State properties
consistent with Coastal Act policies and compatible
with a balance of uses, coordinate with property
owners to facilitate plan implementation.
4 . Include Development section_ in Coastal Element to
establish provisions which will be consistent with
Coastal Act policies and upon which implementation
measures can be based.
Product: A Development section and three area study
plans including maps to be a part of the draft land use
plan.
Estimated Staff Time: 6. 0 LCP Staff months.
3. 2. 10 Visual Resources and Special Communities
Though City policy reflects the desire to preserve coastal
resources, there is a need to develop criteria for indenti-
fying further the scenic vistas and methods for preserving,
even improving them.
AM& 65
•
•
Objective:. Protect visual qualities of the coastal area •
and special communities as resources of public importance.
Major Work Elements:
1. Pursue coordinative planning with Orange County to
effect the proposed bluffline regional park. •
2. Update Scenic Highways and Open Space Conservation
Elements of General Plan to reflect changes occurring
during LCP preparation.
3. Seek official scenic highway designation for Pacific
Coast Highway by implementing the required features
via zoning or other ordinances.
4. Study of areas suitable for acquisition for preserva-
tion of vistas.
Product: Revisions as necessary to the General Plan. Memo
to State and Regional staff of completed work.
Estimated Staff Time: 1. 0 LCP Staff months.
•
3. 2. 11 Public Works
The major work in this task is a transportation/access
study to derive means to . improve public access and move-
ment. Capacity studies in other public works areas,
particularly sanitation, will enable comprehensive coordin-
ation of coastal area improvements, system expansions, etc . ,
in accord with Coastal Act policies. These studies will
provide policy-making data for the land use plan.
A coordinative mechanism needs to be implemented to incor-
porate the plans of various agencies under Coastal Act
policies. •
Objective: Provide policy coordination to assure Coastal
Act stipulations and priorities of land use are followed.
Major Work Elements:
•
1. Determine recreational demand by visitors and resi-
dents - translate to street capacities.
2. Transportation corridors study of existing arterials
and projections of results after improvements. Alter-
natives study of mass transit, bicycle trails, pedes- •
66
•
rian bridges. Adjust Circulation Plan to provide
for increased access to coastal resources.
3. Analysis of County' s sanitation system as it affects
the coastal area. Project term of its present
capacities, effects of proposed expansions on area
• growth capabilities, effect on environment.
4. Coordinate activities of County, State and City de-
partments and agencies and public service companies
operating in the. coastal area. Develop mechanism to
review all these proposals.
• Product: Transportation/Access Study for input to the
land use plan. Various EIR/EIS comments. Memo to State
and Regional staffs about completed tasks.
Estimated Staff Time: 2. 0 LCP Staff months.
. 5 Other Staff
2. 5 Staff months.
3. 2. 12 Industrial and Energy Facilities
Since Huntington Beach already has existing oil, gas, and
energy facilities and has been referenced by OPR (see
Section 2. 2. 14 of this Work Program) as a preferred land-
fall and onshore processing area, Huntington Beach has
high interest in coordinating these activities to minimize
adverse impacts to Huntington Beach and the coastal area.
Assessments of oil/gas facilities and energy facilities
of this region will be necessary. In addition, develop-
ment of policies for land use plan and implementation
measures to integrate existing and new facilities com-
patibly in their surroundings must be pursued.
• Objective: Develop mechanisms to coordinate plans,
evaluate and mitigate impacts of energy and industrial
facilities according to Coastal Act policies.
• Major Work Elements: The full description of tasksin
this area is found in the Coastal Energy Impact Program
proposal document being prepared by the City of Hunting-
ton Beach. The following summarizes the three task areas :
1. Oil and Gas production tasks - (a)_Review_ .00S _EI_R.__
• (b) Assess oil firms' onshore . and offshore development:
67
•
plans and facility requirements. (c) Map locations
of existing and proposed facilities. (d) Determine
time phasing of proposals. (e) Evaluate environ-
mental and economic effects of each activity. (f) Ex-
plore alternative land uses and oil production methods,
2. Power Plant Tasks - (a) Review EIR/EIS and other
documents. (b) Map locations of present and proposed
facilities and equipment. (c) Obtain time phasing
information for proposed expansion. (d) Evaluate
impacts in and out of coastal areas due to expansion.
(e) Assess impacts on development growth and
possible mitigations.
3 . Coordination and Planning Tasks - (a) Coordinate with
public agencies to meld decisions on energy. (b)
Determine feasibility of recreation or access dual
usage. (c) Compile composite of locational data.
(d) Formulate scenarios of City alternatives in the
development of mitigation measures.
Product: Background reports on oil/gas production and
energy impacts to input to the land use plan. Memo to
State and Regional staffs to inform of completed tasks.
Estimated Staff Time: 6. 0 LCP Staff months -a
. 5 Other Staff months
6. 5 Staff months
3. 3 Coastal Element Preparation
As previously indicated, the land use plan required by the Local
Coastal Program will be prepared as a Coastal Element of the City of
Huntington Beach General Plan. It will include a determination of
land use designations for the area of Huntington Beach within the
coastal zone as well as development and resource policies. The
Coastal Element will also identify development criteria that should
be included in existing, revised, or new zoning ordinance provisions.
The Coastal Element will be prepared to reflect and implement the
policies of the Coastal Act. The text will address all of the four-
teen major policy groups identified in the Local Coastal Program
Manual and as addressed in the Issue Identification analysis. The
emphasis of the Coastal Element will be on the more critical planning
issues that have been identified. An EIR will also be prepared as
an integral part of the Coastal Element.
The City of Huntington Beach will approach the preparation of the
Coastal Element utilizing data compiled on service system capacities,
68
•
•
resource constraints, the results of research conducted in each of
• the policy group areas and redevelopment efforts in the City ' s
downtown area. The primary task involved, however, will be a
parcel-by-parcel review of the undeveloped, partially developed and
recyclable properties in the coastal zone. The policies and
priorities of the Coastal Act will be used as the basis for de-
termining appropriate locations and intensities of development.
Following the parcel-by-parcel .review, buildout calculations will be
made to assess impacts on public service systems and coastal
resources.
To summarize, the major work elements .for preparation of the Coastal
Element are:
• 1. Develop data base maps that record the baseline information
necessary to determine appropriate land uses.
2 . Project population growth, recreation and visitor-serving
facility demand, and analyze development needs of the City and
• coastal zone.
3 . Conduct parcel-by-parcel review of undeveloped and partially
developed land in coastal zone. Determine land use consistent
with coastal policy, service system capacities, resource
preservation and other accumulated data.
• 4 . Calculate buildout for designated land uses to determine impacts
on water, sewer, transportation, other public service
facilities , and on coastal resources.
5 . Identify uses permitted under present City zoning to determine
• compatibility with Coastal Element and designate zoning
ordinances, and other regulations in need of revision.
6 . Prepare draft land use map.
7 . Prepare draft text for Coastal Element, incorporating as
• documentation, policy framework, coastal issues and resolutions ,
and EIR.
8 . Obtain preliminary review of Coastal Element by Coastal Com-
mission staff.
• It is estimated that this portion of Phase II will require the
following staff time:
8 .0 LCP Staff Months
1. 0 Other Staff Months
• 9 . 0 Staff Months
J69
•
•
3 . 4 Zoning Ordinance Preparation: (Phase III) •
The focus of Phase III of the Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program
will be to prepare the zoning ordinance, precise plans, specific
plans, and any other regulatory device necessary to implement the
Coastal Element. In addition to the text of a zoning ordinance, a
zoning district map will be prepared to specifically delineate •
appropriate land uses. Where necessary other City ordinances may
need to be developed or revised.
A work program specifically for Phase III is necessary because the
land use plan has not been determined and a number of significant
"implementation activities" affect the coastal zone at this time. . •
Primarily, the outcome of the State ' s acquisition activity in the
Bolsa Chica and Santa Ana River marsh area, the County of Orange 's
efforts to acquire a regional park site on the bluffs overlooking
the Bolsa Chica wetlands, and the City' s efforts to establish a
redevelopment plan in Downtown Huntington Beach will significantly •
affect the development regulations necessary to implement the
Coastal Element. Within the Phase II period progress should be made
by these agencies that will indicate if additional or revised zoning
regulations are needed.
The Phase III work program will : •
1. Identify all major tasks and estimate staff and time required to
accomplish tasks.
2. Determine scheduling.
3. Design Phase III work program and grant request. •
Estimated Staff Time: 1. 0 LCP Staff month.
•
•
70
•
•
•
•
•
• 4 . 0 INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION
All affected governmental agencies and special districts must be
given maximum opportunity to participate in the preparation of the
Local Coastal Program. Special districts and agencies will be
included in the mandated public participation process, but in addi-
tion special meetings will be arranged before the review process to
encourage early input by these important participants.
4. 1 Government .Agencies with Jurisdiction in Coastal Zone
•
Some of the government agencies which should participate in the
Local Coastal Program preparation in Huntington Beach are: adjacent
municipalities, county agencies, sanitation districts, flood control
and water districts, county and city departments, and the state and
federal agencies listed in Appendix A of the LCP Manual. The
following have jurisdictions affected by coastal planning in
Huntington Beach.
City of Seal Beach California Office of Planning
City of Newport Beach and Research
Orange County Water District California Department of. Fish
• Orange County Transit District and Game
Orange County Sanitation California Department of Harb:71J
District and Beaches
8�
Orange County Environmental California Department of Parks
Management Agency, including: and Recreation
Orange County Flood California Public Utilities Com-
Control District . mission
Orange County Harbors, California Coastal Commission
State Lands Commission
Beaches & Parks District California Department of Water
Current Planning and Resources �
Development California Department of Transpor-
tation
Huntington Beach Union High California Department of Public
School District Works
Coast Community College Energy Resources Development Agency
District Federal Energy Administration
Southern California Associa- Federal Power Commission
tion of Governments
4. 2 Roles in Local Coastal Program Formulation
•
In compliance with Section 30504 of the Coastal Act, the LCP process
will establish a mechanism whereby development plans and __activities
of special districts and agencies will be considered in the prepara-
tion of the Local Coastal Program. Agency interactions will be stim-
ulated by the City to assure that coordinative interfaces occur on
matters affecting development activities in the coastal zone. Much
of this coordination will involve reviewing environmental documents
of proposed projects.
4. 3 Involvement Process
All notices for review sessions, studies, etc. , will be transmitted
to affected agencies and special districts. Documents will be made
available for the information of these agencies. The plans of
individual districts and agencies will be used in the preparation
of the land use plan. Liaison contacts will be established to enable
direct communications between the City and special districts and
agencies. Meetings with individual departments and agencies will be
held to clarify plans and impacts and to inform districts of con-
straints that the LCP may place on the timing _ and phasing of their
development activities.
Objective: Provide special districts and governmental agencies
maximum opportunity to provide input to the LCP.
Major Work Elements:
1. Transmit notices about the LCP preparation .schedule and document
drafts to affected agencies, districts, public service
72
companies, and industries. Receive and evaluate document reviews
and other input to the LCP.
2. Specifically locate activities and property of these agencies
by mapping and establish liaison contacts with each.
3. Establish a City mechanism to receive information and comment
about proposed plans in conjunction with the EIR/EIS process.
4 . Arrange meetings with districts, agencies and departments to
encourage early input of development plans. When plans of one
agency will be affected by plans of another, coordinative meet-
ings will be arranged to stimulate interactive planning.
5. Provide copies of the land use plan for all agencies and districts
to review.
Estimated Staff Time: 3. 0 LCP Staff months.
73
1
i
•
•
•
•
• 5. 0 CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
Maximum participation of the public in the preparation of the LCP is
required by Sections 30503 and 30504 of the Coastal Act. An informa-
tional and educational program will be maintained in conjunction with
the LCP preparation providing several means of participation for
citizens.
5. 1 Existing Public Input Process
• Interested groups and individuals have been included in the present
process of Issue Identification. A notification list was developed
to include: homeowners associations, environmental organizations,
Chamber of Commerce, historical and cultural organizations, League
of Women Voters, realtors, merchants, and the Coordinating Council
as well as private industries. Notification of the LCP work program
• preparation process and schedule was mailed to those on the list and
others requesting inclusion. A public information presentation and
hearing was held August 16, 1977 before the Planning Commission to
present the Draft Issue Identification. Hearings at this stage were
not required. However, this hearing was offered as a means for
citizens to make an early input to the planning process. Written and
• verbal comments were received for inclusion in the revision of the
Issue Identification, which is Section 2. 0 of this Work Program.
® 75
5. 2 Involvement Process 410
The Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program approach to citizen parti-
cipation will be to continue to encourage participation in each
phase at an early stage. This will require educational and informa-
tional programs to maintain citizens at a level of knowledge necessary
for valuable participation. A periodic newsletter will provide ,
summary progress information on the LCP. A Citizens Advisory Com-
mittee will formally review all LCP documents. Displays and data maps
will be constructed to depict LCP concepts. These displays and staff
speakers will be scheduled for information meetings of .civic organiza-
tions. Special press releases reporting on specific issues and the
proposed program will be prepared. a
Objective: Provide organizations and individual citizens early
opportunities for input to the Local Coastal Program.
Major Work Elements:
1. Establish a Citizens Advisory Committee for a continuous follow-
ing of the local coastal planning. It will meet regularly to
review progress being made by the staff, develop advisory opinions
on policy concepts, and particularly to review and comment on
LCP documents. Members of the Citizens Advisory Committee will
be chosen from individuals and groups that have expressed interest •
in the Local Coastal Program. An attempt will be made to develop
a committee that represents the varying interests within the
coastal zone as well as the entire City of Huntington Beach.
2. Construct displays and data maps depicting LCP concepts.
3. Provide speakers and visual aids for civic organizations desiring
information about coastal planning.
4. Draft special reports on coastal issues and the LCP plans for
publication in the press.
5. Maintain an up-to-date notification listing of citizens, groups • �
and organizations, agencies, special districts and companies
who should be informed about coastal planning. Add, as requested,
additional names and addresses. Use this listing for notice
mail-outs, etc.
6. Produce a periodic newsletter providing a summary of progress •
on the LCP. Distribution will be made to all the organizations
and agencies on the notification listing and upon the request of
others.
7. Distribute copies of the Draft Land Use Plan for - review of •
interested individuals and organizations.
76 Agsbk'
•
•
Estimated Staff Time: 3. 0 LCP Staff months.
5. 3 Local Public Hearings
Upon completion of the draft Coastal Element, public hearings before
• the Planning Commission and City Council .will be conducted. The
'purpose of these hearings will be to identify and resolve questions
or problems raised by the public in order that a resolution endorsing
the coastal element .may be adopted by the City. .Additional hearings .
will be scheduled as needed for specific issue input from the public.
It is intended to utilize the hearing process during the plan pre-
paration in order to provide numerous opportunities for public com-
ment at the earliest possible stages.
Objective: To insure public review and comment on the Local Program/
Coastal Element prior to Planning Commission and City Council
adoption.
•
Major Work Elements:
1. Distribute notices regarding the time and date of hearing to
individuals, organizations, industries, districts, and agencies.
• 2. Transmit drafts of documents to pertinent agencies in time for
timely review.
3. Preparation of Staff presentation.
4. Staff participation at the hearings.
•
5. Incorporation of revisions necessary.
Estimated Staff Time: 2 . 0 Staff months.
• 5. 4 Coastal Commission Public Hearing
When the Coastal Element is approved by the City Council and
Planning Commission, it will be sbumitted to Regional and State
Coastal Commissions for review and certification. The Element will
include the required land use map, accompanying text .containing
• development policies and EIR.
Objective: To receive certification of the Huntington Beach Local
Coastal Program/Element by the Regional and State Coastal Commissions.
77
•
•
Major Work Elements: •
1. Preparation for staff presentation.
2. Participation at hearing.
3. Incorporation of revisions necessary. •
Estimated Staff Time: 1. 0 LCP Staff month.
•
•
•
•
•
•
78
•
•
•
•
•
6. 0 COMPLETION SCHEDULE
Preparation and certification of the Local Coastal Program/Coastal
Element (Phase II) will require eighteen (18) months. To accomplish .
the tasks identified in Sections 3. 0, 4. 0, and 5. 0 within this time
• frame, two full time planners, working exclusively on the Local
Coastal Program, will be necessary. Administrative, clerical, and
drafting support will be required at the following levels: one-.ninth
the time of the Assistant Planning Director, one-half the time of
a draftsman , and one-third of a secretary' s time.
• As depicted in Figure 6-1, initial and concurrent work is scheduled
to begin on the Shoreline Access, Recreation and Visitor-Serving
Facilities, Sensitive Habitat Areas, and Public Works policy group
areas. These areas were chosen as initial areas of study as the
result of planning activities by private developers and other agencies
that have been or soon will be started. In addition, this will
• establish the available and proposed public works capacities as basis
for further analysis. Activity for the policy group area of New Devel-
opment will begin in November and for Hazard Areas in December. Work
on Diking, Dredging, and Filling and Recreational Boating will begin
in January, 1978. The remaining policy groups' analysis will begin
in March and April, 1978. It is expected that these parts will be
•
79
Asti
•
substantially completed for inclusion in the Coastal Element, sched- •
uled to be in preparation from May through the end of 1978. Local
public hearings are scheduled for January and February, 1979.
Coastal Commission hearings are scheduled for March, 1979 . As de-
picted in Figure 6-1, administration, intergovernmental coordination
and citizen participation are ongoing tasks expected to continue
during the entire Local Coastal Program preparation. •
•
•
•
•
•
•
80
•
(PHASE II)
COASTAL ELEMENT PREPARATION
LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM
COMPLETION SCHEDULE
Figure 6-1
Task I Oct . Nov I Dec I Jan I Feb I Mar April May June July Auq SeptOct I Nov I Dec f Jan Fe
3.1 Administration
3.2 Policy Group Studies
3.2.1 Shoreline Access
3.2.2 Recreation and
979
Visitor Serving
Facilities
3.2.3 Housing
3.2.4 Water and Marine
Resources
3.2.5 Diking, Dredging,
Filling
3.2.6 Recreational
Boating
3.2.7 Habitat Areas
3.2.8 Hazard Areas
3.2.9 New Development
3.2.10 Visual Resources
3.2.11 Public Works
3.2.12 Industrial and
Energy Facilities
3.3 Coastal Element
Preparation
3.4 Phase III Work Program
Preparation
4.0 Inter-governmental
coordination
5.0 Citizen Participation
6.1 Local Public Hearings
6.2 Coastal Commission
Public Hearing -771
•
•
1
7. 0 ESTIMATED BUDGET
Included with this work program is the City' s estimate of the funding
• required and the funding resources for Phase II of the Local Coastal
Program. This is the Coastal Element preparation phase which also .
includes a work program for Phase III, the implementation phase.
The budget estimates for Phase III will be part of the work program
for Phase III which is expected to be ready at the end of 1978 .
Figures 7-1, 7-2 , and 7-3 outline the Phase II Budget.
•
7.1 Estimates
Phase II staff requirements are summarized in Figure 7-1. The work
estimates are counted in staff months totaling 52 for LCP Staff.
Other staff such as printers and technical specialist advisors will
• supply 2. 5 months. As the figure shows, the three pre-planning tasks
requiring the most effort are Recreation and Visitor-Serving Facilities,
Locating and Planning New Development and Industrial and Energy
Facilities. The preparation of the Coastal Element itself is the over-
all largest task in Phase II.
• The funding required for' Phase II Local Coastal Program tasks are based
on the proportion of the Staff month that the various personnel will
be working on these tasks. The Coastal Planner III and Coastal Plan-
ner I will provide ,full-time personnel for this program. The Draftsman ,
will contribute half his time and the Typist, one third. Approximately
2 hours per week will be required by the Assistant Planning Director
• to oversee the management of the program. The funding for the nine
month period Oct. 77 through June, 78 for personnel totals $42, 984 .46 .
Operating expenses during that same nine-month period will be $1, 890.
Figure 7-2 depicts these requirements for the first nine month
period which will encompass most of the preparatory studies and work
for the Coastal Element. Figure 7-3 lists the funding required for
• the second nine-month period of Phase II , July 1 , 1978 through
March 30 , 1979 . Funding required for the total eighteen month work
program totals $89 , 969 . 81 .
33
•
•
PHASE II STAFF REQUIREMENTS
COASTAL ELEMENT PREPARATION
LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM t
Estimated Time in
Task Area Staff Months
LCP Staff Other Staff
3. 1 Administration 4 . 0
•
3. 2 Policy Group Studies
3. 2. 1 Shoreline Access 1. 0
3. 2 .2 Recreation and Visitor-serving
Facilities 6 . 0
3 . 2. 3 Housing 1. 0
3. 2. 4 Water and Marine Resources 1. 0 . 25
3. 2 . 5 Diking, Dredging and Filling
and Shoreline Structures 1. 0 . 25
3.2 . 6 Commercial Fishing and
Recreational Boating 1. 0
3.2 . 7 Environmentally Sensitive
Habitat Areas 3. 0
3 . 2. 8 Hazard Areas 1. 0
3. 2 . 9 Locating and Planning New
Development 6 . 0
3 . 2. 10 Visual Resources and Special
Communities 1. 0
3. 2. 11 Public Works 2. 0 . 5
3. 2 . 12 Industrial and Energy facilities 6 .0 . 5
3. 3 Coastal Element Preparation 8. 0 1. 0
3. 4 Phase III Work Program 1. 0
4 . 0 Intergovernmental Coordination 3 . 0
5. 0 Citizen Participation 3. 0
5 . 3 Local public hearings 2 . 0
5. 4 Coastal Commission hearing 1. 0
TOTAL 52. 0 2 . 5
Note: Estimates based on following staff resources: •
1 - Assistant Planning Director 2 . 0
1 - Coastal Planner III 18 . 0
1 - Coastal Planner I 18. 0
1/2 - Draftsman 9 . 0
1/3 - Typist 6. 0 •
TOTAL STAFF MONTHS 52. 0 Staff months
•
84
Figure 7-1
•
PHASE II
• COASTAL ELEMENT PREPARATION
LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS
October 1977 - June 30, 1978
PERSONNEL
Hourly Hours/ No. of Pay
Position Rate Week Periods Total
3
Assistant Planning 14. 30 2. 18 $ 1, 338. 48
• Director
Coastal Planner III 8. 84/ 40 18 16, 854. 24
(Associate 9. 33 2
Planner)
• Coastal Planner I 6. 81/2 40 18 12, 979. 20
(Planning Aide) 7. 18
Draftsman 7.40 20 18 6 ,926. 40
Clerk Typist 4 . 85 13. 2 18 2,996. 14
• Subtotal $41,094. 46
OPERATING EXPENSES (9 Mos)
• Telephone $60/month X 9 $ 540
Office $90/month X 9 810
Duplicating $60/month X 9 540
Subtotal $1, 890
•
Total Costs $42 ,984. 46
NOTE: If Energy task 3. 2. 12 is fundable through CEIP, the
following direct costs would be subtracted from the
above total:
• Coastal Planner I 6. 81/ x 40 hrs/week x 12 pay.periods $8, 729. 76
(6 mos. ) 7. 18/hr
Total OPR Requirement - $34,25J85
2Does not include employee benefits
3Reflects merit increase after 6 months service
Reflects employee benefits at 30% of salary
Figure 7-2
•
REPORT ON
VISUAL RESOURCES
IN THE HUNTINGTON BEACH
COASTAL ZONE
LOCAL COASTAL PLAN TASK 3. 2 . 10
AUGUST, 1978
(Revised July, 1979)
THIS IS A PRELI_'1INARY DRAFT STUDY. IT IS �
NOT A STATEMENT OF APPROVED CITY POLICY.
IT IS RELEASED AT THIS TIME TO FOCUS DIS-
CUSSION AND STIMULATE INPUT.
"This document was prepared with financial assistance from the Office
of Coastal Zone Management, National Oceanic and Atmosphere
Administration, under the provision of the Federal Coastal Zone
Management Act of 1972 . "
aOQG1� QOC�1�3CC�� C1�G'O C� U1 huntington beach planning department
This Study was- prepared for the
City of Huntington Beach
by the
with the aid of other staff from the
Huntington Beach
Planning Department
For information
Contact the LCP Staff:
P.O. Box 190
Huntington Beach, CA
92648
714/536-5270
LCP Staff
Mary Lynn Norby
*Bill Dowden
Louisa Finn
Assistina Staff
Doris Ferguson
Dawn Cuthbertson
Gisela Campagne
* Principal Planner
a huntington beach planning department
TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE
1. 0 Introduction 1
2. 0 Visual Inventory 3
2.1 Major Features and Vistas Offering Scenic Potential 3
2. 2 Designation of State Scenic Routes, Local Scenic Routes, 6
and Landscape Corridors
2.2.1 State Scenic Highway - Pacific Coast Highway
2. 2. 2 State Scenic Route
2. 2. 2. 1 Santa Ana River to Beach Blvd.
2. 2.2.2 Beach Boulevard to Lake Street
2. 2. 2. 3 Lake Street to Goldenwest Street
2. 2. 2.4 Goldenwest to Bluffs
2. 2. 2. 5 Bluffs to Warner Avenue (Bolsa Chica)
2 .2. 2 .6 Warner Avenue to City Limits
2. 2. 2. 7 Summary of Detrimental ]Features Along PCH
2. 2.3 Local Scenic Routes
2.2. 3. 1 Bolsa Chica Street
2. 2. 3. 2 Edwards Street
2. 2. 3. 3 Standards for Protection
2.2.4 Landscape Corridors
2. 3 Summary 22
3.0 Strategies for Protecting Visual Resources 23
3.1 Coastal Bluff Areas 23
3.1 .1 Prohibiting Bluff Development
3 .1 .1.1 Preservation Through Acquisition
3.1.1. 2 Acquisition of Less than Fee Ownership
3.1.1 . 3 Tranfer of Development Rights
3 .1 .2 Allowing Development with Restrictions
3 .1. 2. 1 Setback Requirements
. 3 .1.2.2 Building Height
3.1. 2. 3 Building Siting
3.1.2.4 Grading
3 .1 .2.5 Other Considerations
3 .1.3 Bluffline Regional Park (Linear Park)
3.1 .4 Summary
3 .2 Along Pacific Coast Highway 30
3. 2.1 Building Heights and Setbacks
3 .2.2 Building Coverage and Siting
3 .2.3 Sign Regulation
3. 2.4 Landscaping and Maintenance
3. 2. 5 Architectural Review
3. 3 Reducing the Visual Impact of the Beach Parking Lot 36
3 . 3.1 Parking Lot Edge Treatment
3. 3. 2 Parking Lot Recommendations
3.4 Multi-Story Concepts 39
O O
O
1 � i
PAGE
4.0 Special Communities and Neighborhoods 41
4.1 Downtown 41
4.1.1 Redevelopment Area
4.1. 2 Huntington Beach Pier
4.2 Other Special Communities . 42
4 .3 Strategies and Implementation Tools 43
5.0 Recommended Policies 45
5. 1 General Policies 45
5. 2 Area Specific Policies 45
5.2.1 Bolsa Chica 47
5. 2. 2 Downtown
Appendix A Coastal Sections 30251 & 30253 49
B Eminent Domain Procedure 51
C Transfer of Development Rights 53
O O
O
• I
TABLE OF FIGURES
Page
2-1 Major Scenic Locations 4
2-2 Proposed Scenic Highway 7
2-3 Scenic Features - Pacific Coast Highway 9
2-4 Pacific Coast Highway Segments 11
2-5 Detrimental Features - Pacific Coast Highway 14
2-6 Potential Scenic Routes 17
2-7 Significant Features of Potential Scenic Routes 18
3-1 (a) Development Siting on Bluffs 28
3-1 (b) Development Siting on Bluffs 29
3-2 Linear Park Bluff Concept 31
3-3 Building Heights in a District 32
4-1 Downtown Project Area 43
O O
O
Q(IVV
1. 0 INTRODUCTION
Visual resources are defined as visible natural and manmade features .
One goal of this visual resource task is to make the natural and man-
made features of Huntington Beach more compatible and visually
appealing, thereby enhancing the City' s character as a whole . As a
coastal community which attracts many visitors , appearance is impor-
tant to its economy.
Some of the components that make up our sensory experience of our
environment include: variety of visual features, elements of visual
surprises or contrast, open spaces and scapes, colors , heights,
panoramic views, interesting architecture and design, character of
locations and the feeling of identiy and belonging environments give
US . Our perceptions of our environment and enjoyment of visual
resources involve not only sight but sound, smell and physical
proximities as well.
Sections 30251 and 30253 of the Coastal Act of 1976 require that the
seenic and visual qualities of the coastal zone be protected as a
resource of public importance. New development should be sited to
protect views to and along the ocean, to minimize the alteration of
natural land forms, to be visually compatible with surrounding areas ,
and to enhance visual quality in degraded areas. Protection for
special communities and neighborhoods is required by the Coastal Act
because of their unique visitor attracting characteristics or
recreational uses.
O O
O
- 1
•
2. 0 VISUAL INVENTORY
Principal features and vistas have been identified by the City in the
Open Space and Conservation Element and the Scenic Highways Element.
The Open Space and Conservation Element identifies environmental
resources in the City that have the potential for preservation as open
space and .presents recommendations for preserving these .areas . The
Scenic Highways Element has recommended that Pacific Coast Highway
be designated as an official State Scenic Highway, has proposed that
a local scenic route system be implemented, and has suggested that
certain landscape corridors be identified within the City. The
information collected in these documents provides a valuable base for
designating visual resources in the City and is summarized as follows :
2 . 1 Major Features and Vistas Offering Scenic Potential
The Open Space and Conservation Element identifies these areas as
primarily consisting of the beaches, the Bolsa Chica including the
marshlands and bluff areas, the Santa Ana River, the northwest Bolsa
Chica and the southeast marshlands. The undeveloped regions of
Huntington Harbour were also identified as an open space resource
(Figure 2-1) .
SIR
3
•
♦ J
♦ a
i
w � D
• f
♦
HUNTINGTON J « !♦.
HARBOUR BLUFFS D i
BOLSA CHICARgH
i �♦
� NlM E � � •
SANTA A NA
BEACH A C H RIVERYOUTH
� � B E A'C H --��__ .•nnc cuss �_�_��---�
Figure 2—1
o o o ° � Q °D��15�0 L�'� °� C��GU
I�OQ� LC P Task 3.2.10
huntington beach pianning department
MAJOR SCENIC LOCATIONS
F �
i
ry' .....
t.
t
/I
EXCLUSIONARY AREA , : .o...
l
COASTAL ZONE AREA ry�1►' �,
-• PROPOSED
PRIMARY ARTERIAL
MAJOR ARTERIAL
roll
Figure 2-4
PCH S E G M E N T S
O O
huntington beach planning department
�z
i
plan of direction for development. A dispersed ownership
and disorderly arrary of signs identify the businesses . The
pattern of small lots (25 feet wide) have been identified
as development problems . See Section 3. 0 .
2. 2 . 2 . 4 Goldenwest to Bolsa Bluff
This area of Coast Highway is predominantly an oil and
resource production area. Pumping equipment and storage
tanks are visible from both sides of Coast Highway though
partially screened by a fence with hedges and bushes on the
right side. The view of Bolsa Chica State Beach is limited
because of the bluff rise. The exisiting oil wells on the
beach side of Coast Highway are currently on State owned
property. Some wells have been removed over the years as
depletion occurs but the exisiting equipment presents stark
interruptions to the beach and ocean vista.
i
2 . 2. 2. 5 Bluffs to Warner Avenue (Bolsa Chica)
The major scenic feature of this area of Pacific Coast High-
way is the Bolsa Chica ,marshland on the inland side of Coast
Highway (the ocean is not visible from the Highway because
the grade level of the Highway is lower than beach parking
lot) . The environment of the Bolsa Chica is primarily un-
developed although it has been altered for various uses,
most notably those of oil extraction. Most of the land area
in the Bolsa Chica is under County jurisdiction excluding the
property under State ownership or lease agreement. The
Bolsa Chica is currently designated as a "reserve area" in
the County' s Land Use Element.
2 . 2 . 2 . 6 Warner Avenue North to City Limits
i
The Huntington Harbour residential marina encompasses the
majority of this area of the coastal zone. The development
consists of attached waterfront condominiums , single-family
homes on islands, apartments, and neighborhood commercial
shops . Views into the Huntington Harbour area from Pacific
Coast Highway are limited by the development adjacent to the i
highway on the inland side. The City ' s coastal jurisdiction
extends into the highway commercial and high-density resid-
ential area adjacent to Sunset Beach on the north side of
i
Pacific Coast Highway. The beach and housing on the ocean
side of the highway are part of the County of Orange
planning area. The Sunset Beach area on the inland side of
Coast Highway is characterized by limited setbacks , much
rooftop signing, signing in sub-standard condition, and a
lack of continuity in sidewalk treatment.
i
i
� 0
O
12
I
2 . 2 . 2 . 7 Summary of Detrimental Features Along Pacific Coast Highway
Vistas from Pacific oast Highway are marred by obstruction
of view or blight by uncomplimentary development. Oil
production, structural blight, off-site advertising, over-
head utilities, and oil storage tanks are several features
which inhibit an unobstructed view of scenic resources from
Pacific Coast Highway (Figure 2-5) . Eradication of these
visual blights can be accomplished through methods such as
screening through planting, grading, or fencing, under-
grounding of utilities , and elimination of off-site advert-
isting to. improve views. Replacement of unsightly oil uses
when depleted is contemplated. For areas of Pacific Coast
} Highway under County jurisdiction (the Bolsa Chica and the
stretch approaching Anaheim Bay) , measures such as those
outlined above can be encouraged by the City and recommended
to the County for implementation.
2. 2. 3 Local Scenic Routes - Extensions of Bolsa Chica and
Edwards Street
The City has designated two roadways for designation as
potential scenic routes. These roadways are the eventual
. extensions of Bolsa Chica Street from Warner Avenue to the
Pacific Coast Highway and Edwards Street from south of .
Talbert Avenue to the Pacific Coast Highway (Figure 2-6) .
These routes were so designated because it was felt that
the scenic resources adjoining these roadways would provide
people with the opportunity for a valuable travel experience .
It was also felt that these routes possessed the following
significant features :
a) Quality These roadways have a scenic, historic, or
cultural quality ' that .merits recognition.
b) Variety - These roadways provide for changes in terrain,
type of landscape, and type of land use.
c) Accessibility - These roadways provide access to or
links between public recreation areas or points of
interest.
d) Design and Safety - These roadways can be designed to
accommodate the anticipated volume of traffic on a
scenic route.
e) Compatibility The location of these roadways serves
objectives of recreation, enhancement of life, and
management of incompatible development of valuable
recourse areas.
O O
o
13
+ MEW
• OrT Wells
0
p Structural Blight
d
B Billboards
8
+O �+ X Owrh•od Utilities
c
• Oil Storage Tanks
i
s
f Edison Steam
••••*. •• • • • Plant xxn
• •e ••• .. Q YxxxY
as o oxx •i••• • xex x xx x • B x
x x x Y
•� x xxB xoxaxx xxx xxxxxx xxx • •• 8 •••• d •
Figure 2—5
n°00 doOQU Qo(j)ZRQU Apo
v rr L C P Task 3.2.1 O
huntington beach planning department
DETRIMENTAL FEATURES PACIFIC COAST:-.HIGHWAY
I
The potential local scenic routes are :
2 . 2 . 3. 1 Bolsa Chica Street
The eventual extension of Bolsa Chica Street from Warner
Avenue to Pacific Coast Highway has the potential to
provide an outstanding travel experience . The roadway,
when constructed, will outline the Bolsa Chica, one of the
most significant remaining estuaries in Southern California.
The Bolsa Chica provides valuable wildlife habitat and
distinctive vegetation, in addition to significant archaeo-
logical.' scenic and historic resources.
Other elements of the Bolsa Chica extension and surrounding
area which contribute to its significance as a potential
scenic route are as follows : (See Figure 2-fl .
a) The roadway will provide access to the .beach, a regional
recreation facility.
b) The roadway will tie into Pacific Coast Highway, a
designated State and County Scenic Highway.
c) The roadway can be coordinated with the latest open
space planning efforts of the Planning Staff, which show
open space corridors along the bluff lines in this
location and along the Bolsa Chica extension.
2. 2. 3. 2 Edwards Street
The future extension of Edwards Street has the potential to
distinguish itself from other recreational driving opport-
unities. The quality of this location is that it will run
adjacent to the bluff line and provide scenic vistas of .
the Bolsa Chica, the Pacific Ocean, and the Palos Verdes
Peninsula on a clear day. The bluff also provides
a balance to the flat topogrophy located elsewhere in the
City. Other features contributing to the potential of
Edwards Street as a scenic route are: (See Figure 2-7)
a) The roadway will link two important regional recreation
facilities - the beach and Huntington Central Park.
b) The roadway will tie into Pacific Coast Highway, a
designated State and County Scenic Highway.
c) The roadway can be coordinated with the latest open
space planning efforts of the Planning Staff, which
show the bluff line as an open space corridor.
. O
15
tZ3Qjv� .- .. I. .. ..... .... ............................................�. �MRADOLN
Z
' �.%..r.��emrur.��w...r.`v+.+.»w........». ...... ...........�......., oew..\ ..� �IL'r9
�....... ...... .... .................i..............-.- ..... .. .............. ............i..................... !(l<
I
o� SALIM
,k
P; ,
- -...,. . ......
.................
ILL
:1
�\ OA.IIILG
'�
..,... ... .. VwKToVVN
LEGENDADANIS
\�
EXTENSION (AS DEPICTED ON
,
THE MASTER PLAN OF ARTERIAL \.;-v '
V ....♦....... .................:... ....... _.... ..-.. NOIANAPOL
HIGHWAYS) r
POTENTIAL REALIGNMENT ........... — ---- ATLANTA
�.,
` ........ ..: _I ..........r HAALLLON
y.ara
.k;,
'ry r4 •r
�TL
n rrrr \,
Figure 2 6
POTENTIAL SCENIC ROUTES
O O
dOQC�O QOG1�3�C1� C��O C�C�Cr�
16 huntington beach planning department
LEGEND
\\ * Landmark Feature
Remaining Archeological Site
\` Bluff
p Tree Stands
Recreation Area
Marsh Area&Wildlife Habitat
I
Ecological Preserve
awlM Rater Area
/ Proposed Equestrian Trail
Corridor,Scenic Vista
' 1
r Potential Scenic Condor
Roadwav Extension
Potential Realignment�1 uu�u�uluu
Figure 2 -7
Q dOQ� LCP Task .3.210
huntington beach planing department SIGNIFICANT FEATURES OF' POTENTIAL SCENIC ROUTES .
d) The roadway, if designated as a local scenic route ,
will most likely receive a high degree of public support
because of the recognized importance of the bluff as a
resource .
2. 2 . 3. 3 Standards for Protection
Preservation of scenic resources along scenic route corridors
will require that a number of implementation strategies be
adopted. These measures include, but are not limited to,
the following standards .
1, - Building Heights and Setbacks
Regulations governing heights and setbacks of
structures should be in effect so as not to obstruct
important views.
2. - Screening
Offensive land uses should be screened from view or
inconspicuously located within the scenic route
corridor. Planting, grading, or fencing can be used
to accomplish. effective screening.
3. - Signs and Outdoor Advertising
On-premise signs should be regulated according to
size, height, number, and type. Off-premise advert-
ising should be prohibited where possible
4. - Utility Lines
Utility lines should be placed underground wherever
feasible and when overhead lines must be utilized,
they should be located inconspicuously from the
roadway reducing their visibility.
5. - Earthwork Operations
Grading or earthmoving operations within the scenic
route corridor should be done with a minimum of
disturbance to the natural topography.
6. - Cover and Screening
Temporary screening devices compatible with the
natural landscape, such as vegetative cover, should
be provided to hide disturbance due to grading.
O
17
7. - Plant Material
Existing specimens and stands of tr7otherplant materials of outstanding valu
preserved.
8. - Development Design
Site planning and architectural and landscape
design should result in an attractive appearance
from the roadway and a harmonious relationship among
the various elements of the development.
9. - Treatment of the Roadway
The roadway should be subordinated to the landscape
by:
a) Minimizing cut and fill;
b) utilizing vegetation and topography to screen
off unsightly areas from the roadway;
c) introducing curves, taking advantage of natural
or man-made features .
2 . 2 . 4 Landscape Corridors
A third category designated in the Scenic Highways Element
is that of landscape corridors. These corridors, although
they do not necessarily possess unique scenic characteristics,
are important as access routes to the coast. Certain
features the designated landscape corridors possess are
that they:
a) Provide access to or link between public recreation
areas or points of interest.
b) Have potential for corrdination with other planning
efforts (e.g. , greenbelts and trails) .
c) Constitute a major or primary arterial highway..
d) Include some vacant land so corridor development oppor-
tunities exist.
O
18
.. ........
rkr.
Y W
\\ ... 4v i
}1:r......_... ......... f. �.- ._.- .......... ..........,.1
:r
\ � ADAMS
f;
.... N^S M?. .....
' Alt' �•\t\b'
ARANTA
NAMIION
o
Figure 2-8
PROPOSED
LANDSCAPE CORRIDORS
O O
Fo-7 PLM dOQC�O QOC�I�C�C1� C��
huntington beach planning department
2 . 2 . 4 . 1 Designated Landscape Corridors
The following is a listing of the designated landscape
corridors in the coastal zone of the City and a discussion
of the scenic views they provide .
1) Beach Boulevard - from Adams Avenue to Pacific Coast
Highway.
Beach Boulevard is a major access route to the beach,
providing scenic vistas of the ocean and shoreline
areas from Adams Avenue south. It is termed a Beach
Access and View Corridor by the Coastal Commission in
the Appearance and Design Element to the Coastal Plan.
Considerable vacant land adjoins the roadway at its
intersection with Adams , and between Atlanta and Pacific
Coast Highway.
2) Brookhurst Street - from Hamilton Avenue to Pacific
Coast Highway
Brookhurst Street is a major access route to the beach
and has been termed a scenic route for cars by the
Coastal Commission in the Appearance and Design Element.
It provides vistas of the ocean and shoreline area from
Banning Avenue south except for the areas of new
development. Vacant land borders the arterial in some
locations from Hamilton Avenue south. The vacant land
inland of Pacific Coast Highway holds ecological signifi-
cance as a potential marsh area. A landscaped median
has been installed at Hamilton and slightly south.
3) Goldenwest Street - from the northern boundary of
Huntington Central Park to Pacific Coast Highway.
Goldenwest Street, a major access route to the beach,
is shown in the Coastal Commission' s Appearance and
Design Element as a view corridor.. The roadway connects
two regional recreation areas - Huntington Central Park
and the beach. Vistas from Huntington Central Park and
south include:
a) Freshwater lakes
b) Open Space
c) Ocean and shoreline area
19
QQLTVV
4) Magnolia Street - from Hamilton Avenue to Pacific Coast
Highway
Magnolia Street serves as a link between Edison Community
Park and High School (located at Hamilton Avenue)
and the beach - three public recreation areas. Vistas
of the ocean and shoreline area are provided from
Banning Avenue south. Considerable vacant land bearing
ecological significance borders the arterial on both
sides near the coast.
5) Warner Avenue - from Bolsa Chica to Pacific Coast Highway
a) ocean and shoreline area
b) Bolsa Bay
c) Bolsa Gun Club Hill, a landmark feature
d) Huntington Harbour channels
This section of Warner is recognized by the Coastal
Commission as a view corridor (Appearance and Design
Element) . Considerable vacant land borders Warner
Avenue on the south.
2. 2 . 4 . 2 Regulatory Program for Landscape Corridors
An implementation program for landscape corridors consist
of measures that would insure that views of significant
features located along them are not hindered. Significant
features identified along the five proposed landscape corr-
idors include marsh areas, view corriders offering scenic
vistas to the ocean and shoreline, and in the case of
Warner Avenue, a view of the ecological reserve located
in the Bolsa Chica. The following measures regarding develop-
ment along landscape corridors would be used to implement
the concept behind the landscape corridor in the City .
A. Landscaping
1) Continue existing program of landscaping all major,
primary, and secondary arterial highways according
to the Standard Plans, City of Huntington Beach,
Department of Public Works .
O O
O
20
2) Continue existing program of constructing land-
scaped medians along designated streets in the City.
3) Impose upgraded landscape standards on new develop-
ment fronting on landscape corridors .
4) Upgrade landscape treatment of medians and parkways
along landscape corridors more extensively than
the reaualr treatment.
5) Increase setback requirements to enlarge the land-
scaped areas fronting the landscape corridor.
6) Impose upgraded development standards along land-
scape corridors to maximize aesthetic amenities.
7) Require developers to contribute to median land-
scaping.
B) Land Use and Development Controls
1) Continue to enforce the existing land use plan
through the City's zoning ordinance to assure com-
patibility of uses.
2) Continue to impose strict grading restrictions on.
development in sensitive areas .
3) Continue to require tree preservation.
4) Continue to control landscaping in private develop-
ments by requiring landscape plans for all commer-
cial, industrial, and large residential developments .
5) Continue to require the undergrounding of utilities
in all new developments.
6) Continue to control the development of civic
facilities and civic districts to promote aesthetic
harmony.
7) Continue to insure consistency of architectural
design and materials on property to be owned, con-
trolled, or dedicated to the City of Huntington
Beach.
O O
O
21
8) Continue to impose building height and setback
regulations through ordinances on all development.
2. . 3 9) Continue to impose sign controls .
Summary
This section has enumerated the major features and vistas offering
scenic potential in the coastal zone. These consist of natural
features such as beaches, marshes, or bluff areas . Areas of man-made
scenic resources may include the pier, pleasant roadways and attractive
developments.
Designated roadways such as scenic routes and corridors are important
because they provide access to these scenic landforms and built
forms and the opportunity to view them. Existing policy regarding
these scenic areas is primarly one of preserving and protecting the
scenic assets they provide. The range of implementation procedures
that the City might pursue to insure that the policies regarding
protection of these resources are implemented was explored.
O O
O
22
3. 0 STRATEGIES FOR PROTECTING VISUAL RESOURCES
The purpose and intent of this section is to consider implementation
strategies for protecting visual resources and to make suggestions
as to how they can be applied to preserve and enhance the scenic
and natural features located in the coastal zone.
3 .1 Coastal Bluff Areas
Through requlation of development along the bluffs located in the
coastal zone , views can be preserved, slope stability can be increased
erosion will be prevented, and preservation of a valuable resource
can be achieved. The bluffs identified in the coastal zone are those
that extend .from Pacific Coast Highway northeast toward ' 38th Street
and provide views of the ocean and the eastern portion of the Bolsa
Chica, those extend northeast along the western portion of the Bolsa
Chica, and those which are adjacent to pacific Coast Highway between
Goldenwest and Bolsa Chica as one travels northward. The seaward side
of Pacific Coast Highway has bluffs which extend to the ocean. One
method to preserve the bluffs as a natural resource and to enhance
the views they provide iz, to p-rohiblt all development on the bluffs
mesas between the bluff edge and the nearest road. A less prohibitive
measure would be that of allowing development along the bluff mesa but
restricting it through restrictions on building height, setbacks , or
structure siting on the lot. Thus, alternatives exist that can be
implemented to preserve views from a bluff and to protect the bluff
as a resource. These alternatives are considered as follows :
O
23
3 . 1. 1 Prohibiting Bluff Development
This alternative exists as the most protective measure
that can be utilized to preserve views from the bluff and
to protect the bluffs as a natural resource. Restrictions
on development can be achieved by a variety of methods in
cluding acquisition of all rights to land, acquisition of
limited rights to land where the City could obtain ease-
ments across portions of the bluff rather than purchase the
property outright, or initiating a program of transfer of
development rights .
3. 1. 1. 1 Preservation Through Acquisition
This method of control exists as an alternative the City may
wish to pursue when the desirable open space along the
bluffs overlooking the Bolsa Chica is in danger of being
subjected to development detrimental to the bluff. This
method would entail that the City acquire or obtain dedicat-
ions for portions of bluff property adjacent to the extension
of 38th Street and the proposed County' s Bluff Line Regional
Park. Possible sources of funding for fee acquisition are
park bonds, Coastal Conservancy funds , or County Regional
Park funds . The extent of the properties the City would
need to purchase cannot be determined until the alignment
of 38th Street is set. The first step towards acquisition
of the bluff properties would be to negotiate with -the
property owner for their purchase. Were the property owner
reluctant to sell or dedicate the property, a possible alter-
native is that the City utilize condemnation procedures to
acquire the property. To obviate a legal challenge to the
acquisition of property by condemnation, the City would be
required to adhere to the procedures listed in Appendix B.
Although acquisition of full rights to the bluffs is
probably the most dependable method of preserving the
scenic views they provide and of protecting them as a resource
there are constraints which limit the feasibility of this
alternative. The most restrictive is that of cost. As
mentioned, the costs of fee acquisition is indeterminable
until the alignment of 38th Street is set. Another constrain
is the question of whether preservation of the bluff and the
view from the bluff would warrant the expenditure of large
amounts of money when less expensive alternatives exist
that might achieve the same goals .
O
24
3 . 1. 1. 2 Acquistion of Less Than Fee Ownership
Less than fee ownership techniques would require that the
'. City obtain easements across portions of the bluffs to
preserve the scenic quality they provide. In effect, the
City would not be purchasing the land but rather the owner's
right to develop his land in these areas . The techniques
of obtaining easements or leases on certain portions of
the bluffs allow the City certain rights and controls over
the property without having to secure actual ownership.
These lessor property rights retain the land on the tax
rolls although at a lower rate, and also leave the responsi-
bility for maintenance with the property owner.
3. 1. 1 . 3 Transfer of Development Rights
Tranfer of development right: exists as an alternative method-
of reserving portions of the bluffs for view potential . It
is a system designed to allow a landowner to sell or trans-
fer his rights to develop his property to another
parcel of land provided he retains his property as permanent
open space . The net effect of this system is the preser-
vation of open space without the economic burden. More
information about transfer of development rights is in
Appendix C.
Thus, fee acquisition, acquisition of less than fee owner-
ship, and transfer of development rights exist as alter-
natives the City might pursue as measures to prohibit bluff
development. However, it is possible that the goals of
preserving scenic views from the bluff and protecting the
bluff as a resource can be met by a procedure that would
not be as restrictive as these measures . This alternative
would be to allow development along the bluffs but to
restrict it through limitations or setbacks, building
heights, or structure sitting along the bluff.
3 . 1. 2 Allowing Development with Restrictions
This alternative protective strategy will require that
specific limitations be established by ordinance or review
procedure for some or all of the following factors :
3 . 1. 2 . 1 Setback Requirements
A minimum setback from the bluff edge for any development
could be required to prevent interference with scenic
views . Coastal Commission interpretive guidelines suggest
a very minimum of 25 feet. This is probably sufficient in
most areas to prevent erosion or geologic instability of
the bluff face. The 25 feet may not be sufficient to
Aft
25
For structures , the minimum grading possible can be required
that the natural landforms are not disturbed.
3. 1.2 . 5 Other Considerations
- Restrictions on berming and walls can be imposed to
prevent blocking of views.
- Sprinkler systems can be prohibited within a range of
the bluff edge to protect the bluff face from erosion
caused by the runoff.
- Breadth of a structure could be limited via side yard
setbacks.
- Type of structures may also be pertinent to view blockage.
3. 1. 3 Bluff Line Regional Park (Linear Park)
The City has requested that the County develop a linear park
along the westerly bluff of the Huntington Beach mesa ex-
tending from Pacific Coast Highway to Huntington Central Park
This potential regional park would include the bluff, the
Coastal Commission' s required setback of twenty-five feet,
and approximatley seventy-five feet of area for trails
facilities and landscaping. West of the extension of Gar-..
field Street the park area is proposed to extend from the
bluff to the proposed extension of Edwards (38th) Street.
The regional park would consist to approximately 38 acres
and traverse the bluff line that varies in height from
27 to 75 feet above the Bolsa Gap. Developing the mesa
above the bluff into a regional park site would help to
implement the City' s policy regarding preservation of a
significant scenic vista. Coastal Act policies of pro-
tecting views to the ocean and of minimizing the alteration
of natural land forms such as the bluffs would also be met.
The City and County have contemplated acquisition of the
bluff to preserve the vistas. However, the acquisition
price may be more than one agency can carry.
The 100 foot plus or minus width of the proposed County
Regional Park between the extension of 38th Strjt� and
the bluff edge would obviously satisfy a 25 fooard.
If the park is developed, care should be given t the
building appertuances of the park are situated ot
to create problems of erosion or instability ofuff.
These features would include bike paths , foot p
irregation, site preparation, and construction ty.
Careful consideration should be given to locatiinklersso that runoff does not erode the bluff face. ingan adequate side yard setback would be especialical
O O
26
situate tha development along bluff tops so that it is not
visible from the land and water areas below the bluffs.
3 . 1. 2 . 2 Building Height
The alternative of placing a building height be regulated
as a function of the setback requirement along the bluff.
For areas where less restrictive setbacks are adopted, more
restrictive measures can be required in terms of height.
A more restrictive, or greater setback from a bluff can
be accompanied by a less restrictive height measure. As
a general guideline, a height limitation in the 20-25 foot
range would be an adequate standard the City may wish to
consider in terms of a height limitation. It should be
noted that the limitation of building height alternative is
applied differently to those areas where the buildings are
between the bluff edge and. the road. At an equal elevation,
a height limitation would not be protective of a scenic
view since it would not be possible to view over a building
from close range no matter what the height limitation was .
3. 1. 2 . 3 Building Siting
In addition to requiring an adequate front yard setback of
at least 25 feet, an adequate side yard setback between
buildings should be required to allow for view potential .
If a side yard setback of at least 15 feet were required,
clustering of dwellings would be minimized, an attractive
design of the building area could be achieved, and view
preservation between buildings would be preserved.
Controls on building siting along the bluffs would take the
form of situating buildings lengthwise facing the bluff
rather than broadwise across the bluff. This type of
building configuration allows for greater view potential
between buildings along the bluff and also increases the
potential for the number of buildings. Another method that
would allow for greater view potential is that of siting
buildings in nodel patterns along the bluffs . This
alternative would allow for clustering of buildings in
limited areas with much open space between them. See Figure
3-la and Figure 3-lb for depiction of these concepts.
3. 1. 2 . 4 Grading
Grading controls can be used in several ways to improve
reviews from and toward bluffs. One way is to assure that
the finished grade of roadways , along bluff tops is not
below the line of site of view corridors .
M
27
kj i),ADYC 1 17 1 A 1:
�„ ,
2S
E TR U.K 11177�
1
@Lf-AkJHVVl-,)!L7 61TA(\ --t't-A.:RDS
1__
CLI V L W E Ac,L- M L K T', hL T W E E K' f ir.),'-'V P MIL X T-
. L.,BILUIFF LD(471--
VIEW
I�Pr
L K F)V i L 1)1 K 11 k.L11 L. A I.T.. fir L L( �A
-,KEATFZ VIVIV Pl.-Jf AIL!.1. A V I W
RETAIN "FE '
BUILDIV) FOr", "VIEW NT14L
AtMtk Figure 3-la
Now-
28
@D RESIDENTIAL SITING YRONIBITED BETWEBJ 7
ROAD ANQ BLUFF. VIEW
SKYLINE
DRIVE
0 0 0
0 0
Q NODAL DEVELOPMENT ALONG BLUFF,
1
� �� �►� l�� Ili � l 1 1
T � 1
0 � C
VIEW � C�j
VlEW
Sr��ET
ALLDWS Fr-.P- FROM FLUFF TOP
Figure 3-lb
29
along the future extension of 38th Street if development
were to be allowed between this route and the County
Regional Park. Views into the park as well as views of
bluff mesa would be preserved if a substantial side yard
setback were required. See Figure 3-2 for Linear Park
Bluff Concept.
3. 1. 4 Summary
Thus, to meet the goals of preserving views from the bluffs,
and to preserve them as a natural resource, the alternatives
presented are those of prohibiting development along them
or of allowing development with certain restrictions.
Prohibitation of development would necessitate the City' s
consideration of the programs of fee acquistion, less
than fee acquisition, or transfer of development rights .
Allowing development would require that the City impose
restrictions in terms of setbacks, height limitations
(in applicable areas) , or building siting along the bluff.
The coordination of development of County Regional Park is
also an important implementaiton concept the City should
undertake for bluff preservation.
3. 2 Along Pacific Coast Highway
A variety of strategies can be required to enhance the visual quality
in and around the Pacific Coast Highway. These include: controls
on building heights and setbacks, lot coverage and building siting,
sign regulations, landscaping and maintenance and architectural
review.
3. 2 . 1 Building Heights and Setbacks
Regulations in this category may have a limited effect on
preserving views into a marsh, but nevertheless should be
considered. A regulation in building height is most aptly
applied to areas where one is trying to protect a view over
a building. Since the marsh area is essentially at the
same elevation as the Coast Highway a height limitation
would not matter since one could not see over a building
regardless of whether it was 20 or 60 feet in height.
However, one benefit of imposing a building height limitation
would be that the visual skyline can be regulated and
maintained more uniform than if no height limit were imposed.
See Figure 3-3 for concepts on building heights for a district.
Setback controls, although they would not be amenable to view
protection, have some potential to upgrade the route ' s scenic
quality. This can be accomplished by landscaping in the
front yard setback. A front yard setback on the inland side
of Pacific Coast Highway also would serve to compliment
O
NP
30
LIULALZ FARK L-� LUFF TREATMENT
8' PEDUTK)AV TRA/�
1
J �
I �
1001
12 ' BIKE TR41L
VIEW
EDWAR D 5 (:g rH,�
T SRN �v�
J
Figure 3-2
31
Concept A: Visual build-up at center
-.®
Concept B : Constant height
L
Concept C: Sub-clusters
-"-' .00)
I
i
i
I
I
Figure 3-3
FUR BUlLDtNG IIIAGIl , :I)
I
O O
10
huntington beach planning department
32
LQG,
or extend the corridor peripherally for the traveler along
Pacific Coast Highway.
3. 2 .2 Building Coverage and Siting
Controls on building coverage and siting have the potential
to increase the view for the traveler on Pacific Coast
Highway. Where building coverage is limited to certain
portions of the developable lot area, open space can be
retained through which a view can be preserved. Building
siting can also be utilized to preserve a scenic view.
Situating buildings lengthwise facing Pacific Coast
Highway rather than broadwise fronting the highway allows
for view potential between the buildings.
3. 2 . 3 Sign Regulations
Sign regulation should relate to such considerations as
protection of urban views and respect for the proportionate
and orderly appearance of advertising. Signs can be
categorized as being either off-premis or on premise. An
off-premise sign is defined as that which displays inform-
ation related to an activity, service, or commodity not
available on the premises upon which the sign is located.
An on-premise sign is defined as a sign that identifies
or communicates a message related to the activity conducted,
the service offered, or commodity sold, on the premise
upon which the sign is located. Recommendations for signs
in the scenic corridor along Pacific Coast Highway are:
1) Off-premise commercial signs should not be permitted
within the scenic corridor. This would include the
elimination of billboards (see below) .
2) On-premise signs should be subject to height, area,
and design controls based . on a policy of retaining an
attractive appearance.
3) Roof top signing should not be permitted on the roofs
of buildings within the scenic corridor.
4) Attention seizing methods such as mechanical movement,
flashing lights , and irridescent colors should not
be permitted.
5) Signs within the scenic corridor that are in a state
of disrepair should be removed.
O O
O
33
i
6) Billboard removal - one of the policies of the Scenic
Highways Element is to eliminate billboards throughout
the entire shoreline area. The City has been involved
' in an effort to remove billboards from Pacific Coast
Highway for a number of years. On December 7, 1964, the
City adopted Ordinance No. 1105 which required removal
of all existing outdoor advertising within 5 years of
! January 6 , 1965 , the date the ordinance was enacted.
i This ordinance has been carried through to the present
j day and billboards are prohibited on the basis of the
Huntington Beach Sign Ordinance. However, approximately
thirty-three billboards stand in the City with most of
j these existing along Pacific Coast Highway north of
Main Street. The future removal of the remaining
billboards on Coast Highway is contingent upon a forth-
coming ruling from the Californai Supreme Court in the
case of Metromedia et al vs. City of San Diego.
The City of San Diego had adopted an ordinance, essentially,
similar to ours, which banned all offsite outdoor
advertising in the City. The Superior Court of San
Diego County ruled this ordinance unconstitutional
and on February 11, 1977 , the California Court of
Appeal for the San Diego District sustained this lower
court ruling. San Diego requested and was granted
A review by the Supreme Court and the case was heard early
in the Fall of 1977 . A decision has not yet been given
but is expected shortly. If the Supreme Court upholds
the Appellate Court decision, the impact of the San Diego
decision would be that the Huntington Beach total city-
wide prohibition of billboards is unconstitutional, and
invalid and that the City, if it forced the pending
Metromedia case to trial, would probably lose under the
i principle enunciated in the Court' s decision.
* Thus, the continuance of the billboard removal process
I along Coast Highway has been temporarily halted pending
a decision by the Supreme Court regarding San Diego' s
sign ordinance. Were the Supreme Court to reverse the
decision at the Appellate Court level, one alternative
the City might pursue is to prepare a new off-site
advertising display ordinance consistent with the
j San Diego decision. If the Supreme Court reverses
the decision of the Court of Appeals, the City should
actively negotiate with the advertising companies for
the phased removal of the remaining billboards along the
entire stretch of Coast Highway.
*The Supreme Court reversed the decision and the pursuance of
j amortization schedules for billboards and other aesthetics-based
regulations appears feasible.
� 0
� O
34
i
1
j
3.2 . 4 Landscaping and Maintenance
j Landscaping can be utilized by the City to upgrade the
appearance of some sections of Pacific Coast Highway.
Currently, the area between the Santa Ana River and Beach
Boulevard lacks a median and thus has no median landscaping
Although, pursuing a program of landscaping this section
of Coast Highway would be a concept that would improve the'
scenic quality the route provides, the cost of doing so
j would be quite expensive. The Master Plan for Landscaping
Arterial Street Medians indicates that it presently costs
$160 ,000 per mile to construct and landscape a road median,
and $60 ,000 per mile to landscape exisiting medians. The
estimated cost of landscaping and constructing the median
j between the Santa Ana River and Beach Boulevard would be
$32,000. However, besides median landscaping, other forms
of landscaping can be utilized to enhance the quality of the
j scenic corrid6r. Landscaping can be required in any develop-
ment project in the area.
i
i Maintenance responsibilities can be established at the time
of development approvals . Additional responsibility may be
required of developers and homeowner's associations . Over-
all maintenance standards can be established via ordinance.
3. 2 .5 Architectural Review
i The City may wish to attach a .coastal zone district (-CZ)
suffix to be combined with the present zoning of Coast
Highway. Attaching a CZ suffix to this -area would entail
that an architectural review board review plans for develop-
ment to see that they are consistent with criteria adopted
by resolution- for the district., The-architectural review
board •.would- be empowered to review and act on the- design on any
structure, facility, landscaping, or architecture to be
constructed, altered or modified in areas designated with
1 the CZ suffix. The following criteria would be monitored
for future development along Coast Highway.
1) The architectural and landscape design of a project
i must integrate harmoniously into the character and the
approved (design) , if any, of the immediate neighborhood.
2) The design must stablize and protect coastal facilities
j or coastal resources areas and promote aesthetic
environmental qualities .
1
i 3) The design must enhance the desirability and/or
enjoyment of the immediate neighborhood.
I
I
I
I
j O O
I 35
4) The design must improve community appearances by
preventing extremes of dissimilarity or monotony in
new construction or alterations of facilities.
I
5) The design must tend to upgrade property in the civic
district and surrounding areas with an accompanying
betterment of conditions affecting the public health,
safety, comfort, morals and welfare .
t Architectural review could have an effect on problems
j specific to special projects or locations. For example:
f there are oil wells pumping withinsight of Pacific Coast
I Highway. Architectural review could require consolidation
of wells, their beautification or that the public be given
educational programs on the operation of a oil production
facility.
Certain overall problems may require separate ordinances
t depending upon the seriousness of the impacts they have
the potential for effecting.
E Through consideration of the above criteria, control over
the aesthetic appearance of development in the scenic
corridor can be maintained which will improve the visual
quality of the route for the traveler.
i 3 . 3 Reducing the Visual Impact on the Beach Parking Lots
The scenic corridor along Pacific Coast Highway can be improved by
j considering possible treatment of the parking lot edges that front
the highway. The view into a parking area that has not been screened
` from a highway is often unsightly and disorienting. A view of a
1 large number of automobiles obscures and distracts from the view of
the scenic corridor and its natural environment. Therefore, the need
arises to consider screening concepts that could be utilized to j
improve the visual quality of the area where a large number .of cars
are likely to be parked. Parking lots that serve the needs for
three beach and recreational areas are located adjacent to Pacific
Coast Highway in Huntington Beach. These are lots for the Huntington.
j Beach Municipal Beach, Huntington Beach State Beach, and Bolsa Chica
' State Beach. Consideration of the concepts that can be utilized to
screen parking at these areas must take into account the existing
i
treatment of the lot edges that serve the needs of these beaches .
The parking for Huntington Municipal Beach extends from Beach
Boulevard north to the municipal pier. This is the only lot on
Pacific Coast Highway where treatment of the lot edge has been utilized
to screen views into the lot from the highway. This screening treat-
ment has been accomplished through landscaping techniques where
vegetation has been used to screen views and to improve the appear-
ance of the lot. From Huntington Avenue south to Beach Boulevard
36
i
the lot is at a slightly higher elevation than Coast Highway and a
bermed setback planted with iceplant, low growing shrubs, and inter-
mittent palms partially sheilds views of cars from the highway.
From Huntington Street north to the pier the lot is generally
located at a lower elevation than Coast Highway and the lot edge is
also treated with low growing hedges and shrubs which operate to
screen views of the parking area.
The parking for Huntington Beach State Beach extends south from
Beach Boulevard to the Santa Ana River. Views into the parking
areas are partially screened due to the fact that the elevation of the
lot is slightly greater than that of Pacific Coast Highway. A
large setback slopes gradually down to the highway from the lot edge
and the sand dunes included in this setback also serve to partially
screen the view of cars parked in the lot from the highway. A
chain link fence is also a feature that serves to partially screen
views into the parking area for the beach from the highway.
The parking for Bolsa Chica State Beach runs from just below the
bluff north to Warner Avenue along Pacific Coast Highway. Currently,
there is an existing wood-bordered chain link fence approximately
3h feet high that runs the length of the lot edge. This fence has a
minimum effect . on screening views into the lot from the highway.
There is a limited setback between the fence and Pacific Coast High-
way.
3. 3. 1 Parking Lot Edge Treatment
Treatment of parking lot edges can be accomplished through
utilizing three basic materails to screen parking. These
materials are vegetation, earth, and structures. Screening
through vegetation is accomplished by the planting and
maintenance of trees, shrubs, or ground cover that thrive
in the area' s particular climate and soil conditions .
Screening through earth mounding exists as alternative
that can be used effectively where a large setback is
available to provide land area for the sloping of the earth
mound. Screening through structure is accomplished by the
construction of masonry walls or fencing.
The most feasible of these methods for treatment of the lot
edges along Pacific Coast Highway would be that of screening
through vegetation. This technique would be most consistent
with the City' s policy of upgrading the visual quality of
the scenic corridor along Coast Highway. The construction
of a masonry wall or fencing structure would limit the
peripheral extension of the scenic corridor and is not as
aesthetically pleasing as landscaping treatment. The large
setback necessary for earth mounding is available between
Pacific Coast Highway and Huntington Beach State Beach.
However, mounding in this area would disrupt the natural
sand dunes that are a feature of this setback worth
O
37
preserving. Consequently, this alternative is not feasible
for this section of Coast Highway.
3. 3. 2 Parking Lot Recommendations
Huntington Municipal Beach - As mentioned, the parking lot
edge for this facility is one where effective screening
treatment has already been implemented. Therefore, land-
scaping treatment of this lot edge would require that the
City continue its present program of maintenance and watering
for the existing plan species. More effective screening
treatment could, of course, be accomplished by further
planting of the same species already existing. These
species include trees such as the Mexican Fan Palm and the
Senegal Date Palm; shrubs such as mock orange, the day
lily, and the natal plum; and groundcover such as the
African daisy or capeweed.
Huntington State Beach Park - The State has plans to upgrade
the beach and parking facilities for this area. The City
has suggested that as part of the improvements the State
consider utilizing the same kinds of landscaping treatment
used by the City for the Municipal Beach. Additional treat-
ment could also include the planting of a low growing shrub
or hedge along the existing chain link fence. The noted
shrubs of day lily, natal plum, or mock orange are possible
species that could be used for this -purpose. Landscaping
treatment based on that provided at the Municipal Beach
along with shrub planting along any boundary fence would
serve to screen views of automobiles from Pacific Coast
Highway.
Bolsa Chica State Beach - Landscaping would also be the
preferred method of screening the view into the parking lot
area from this section of Coast Highway as well. The
planting of shrubs adjacent to the 3� foot high fence
would be a feasible method of doing so. The mentioned
species of mock orange, day lily, or natal plum are hardy
species that can also be utilized in this area for this
purpose. However, implementation of landscaping treatment
along the fence would be dependent upon the State planning
to upgrade facilities at this beach as they are doing for
Huntington State Beach to the south. Currently, there are
no plans to do so.
Another possibility is that upgraded landscaping treatment
of the lot edge could be accomplished if the proposed
Pacific Coast Highway widening project is approved.
*1971 State Plan is being implemented, 1979
O O�' .J
NP
38
J
Pacific Coast -Highway - The visual resources which are at
issue considering the widening of Pacific Coast Highway
are:
1) The view to sea from Pacific Coast Highway from Beach
Boulevard south to the Santa Ana River is blocked because
of the grade of the Highway is lower than the dunes .
An elevation in the grade of the widened highway to
allow travelers to view the ocean shore could be part
of the new design.
2) In the area of Huntington Beach State Beach the right-
of-way would extend into the present setback area.
Coordination between Department of Transportation, the
City and Department of Parks and Recreation will be.
needed to determine the extent of the Highway widening
and what the edge treatment should be.
3. 4 Concepts for Multi-Story Structures
In consideration of protecting and enhancing visual resources, the
issue of multi-story development needs to be addressed. The following
design concepts relating to multi-story development. that bear on the
visual composition of the City' s coastline include: (See Figure 3-3) .
a) Gradual buildup of height towards the center for
buildings in a multi-story district.
b) Maintainance of a constant height for . all buildings in
a multi-story district.
c) Height variations among buildings in a multi-story area.
Multi-story development is generally limited to areas where lot
consolidation can achieve the present zoning requirement of twenty
thousand square feet minimum site size. Another consideration in
siting multi-story development is setback requirements. The minimum
setbacks for front and exterior side yards are 50 feet, and 20 feet
for rear and interior side yards.
In the oceanfront area high rise development would only be feasible
in areas where R-4 and C-3 lots can be consolidated into larger
parcels. This is because of setback requirements and the existance
of an alley located parallel to Pacific Coast Highway between the C-3
and R-4 zoned areas .
To improve the visual quality of the City' s coastal areajhehan
following design strategies are suggested:
1) Any multi-story development to be situated be
and Goldenwest Streets be in a nodal pattern
a strip. This would allow for varied buildin
and visual pockets on the inland side of Paci
Highway.
O O
O
39
i
I
i
2) For normal two and three story heights , varing the
setbacks between 15 and 25 feet rather than a constant
setback, would add variety _and contribute to the peri-
pheral extension of the corridor along Pacific Coast
Highway.
3) Greater setbacks for taller buildings.
i
4) Landscaping would be a worthwhile method of upgrading
the scenic quality of the Pacific Coast Highway
corridor.
Two documents are available from .the Huntington Beach Planning
Department that discuss multi-story development in Huntington Beach.
The Top of Pier Development .Plan prepared for the City suggests a
nodal design fora destination resort center" . The Multi-story/
High Rise Study (May 1973 - October 1974) by the Huntington Beach
Planning Department provides an analysis of the City' s visual
form, i.e. its nodes or activity centers, landmarks, districts,
paths or visually significant connecting links and edges or
visual boundaries.
I
i
i
i
i
I
i
O
40
i
4 .0 SPECIAL COMMUNITIES AND NEIGHBORHOODS
An area defined as a special community might be characterized by a
particular cultural, historical, or architectural heritage that is dis-
tinctive in the coastal zone; as a recognized visitor destination
center; as an area in which pedestrian and bicycle access are competi-
tive with the automobile; or as an area of visual attractiveness.
4.1 Downtown Special Community
The Local Coastal Program Issue Identification for Huntington Beach
identifies the Downtown as a special community. In this instance,
of . . its historical heritage, its concentration of surfing-related
business, the resident identity and its uniqueness in the City" are
contributing factors to its designation as "special. "
i
Along with this recognition of uniqueness, there is the knowledge that
this area is in need of revitalization to eliminate deteriorated condi-
tions and to meet the needs of area residents and beachgoers. Also,
the historic and cultural resources require some coordinated action or
their loss will gradually occur. The 1979 Special Census* tabulated
April 1, 1979
O O
Woo
41
The desires of the residents for their Downtown with the result that
53 percent of the citizens felt some level revitalization of the area
was necessary. Under 8 percent were opposed to such activities.
4.1. 1 Redevelopment Area
The latest Redevelopment Project Area is outlined in
Figure 4-1. Since development for this area is inactive at
this time, a Redevelopment Plan cannot be expected to be
developed prior to the certification of the Huntington Beach
Local Coastal Plan. Thus, some recommendations concerning
the rehabilitation and preservation of the special qualities
of the Downtown will be a product of Local Coastal Plan
study in this Study and the Downtown Area Study.
4.1.2 Municipal Pier
The Huntington Beach Municipal Pier is the main attractor
associated with the Downtown. It was constructed in 1914 at
a cost of $78, 000. After severe damage in 1939, 1800 feet
of the pier was replaced and repaired at a cost of $100, 000.
Today, the physical asset of the pier is worth approximately
3 . 5 million. Another measure of the Pier' s worth is its
usage. Over 500, 000 visitors each year stroll and fish on
the Huntington Beach Municipal Pier. Due to natural aging
and storm damage, the structure has been weakened. The
buildings require repair and updating and the utilies are
particularly outdated. As the pier is the major coastal
. and visitor attracting resource of Huntington Beach, efforts
to enhance this resource present benefits for public access
and even City revenue. Of major importance is the Pier' s
relationship to the downtown area directly across Pacific
Coast Highway. Additional services for visitors to the Pier
can be expected to affect the Main Street commercial area
positively. The upgrading of the Pier may be just the stimu-
laus required to promote revitalization of the Downtown.
4. 2 Other Special Communities
The Huntington Harbour Community may be considered a special community
because of its unique water-oriented configuration. Because of its
young age (construction began in the 601s) and the relative affluence
of the area, it is anticipated that public action to maintain this
special community will be necessary, except for public areas.
4. 3 Strategies and Implementation Tools
4. 3. 1 Downtown
The recognized need for revitalizing Downtown needs • to be
addressed via the following strategy:
O O
O
42
I MAIN STREET
2 OCEAN FRONT
o
3 INLAND COMMERCIAL '
rur AVE'
.,
Eli
�I I� i� I I ['I
Eli
D.11 M I I, : --Ell,
I t tM G t t t� O
ACAtu I � � AVE.� ,O
AVE.IPECAN Fll"
' f II II II �� fl II �I I 1
WAND
ED
�AVE.
EJ
JE,,,] II II
Q\
Ll 1-j
I,,,
c�
OCM AK.
11I�'�III� 1
Zip
I , I I I I II J �II^ I�000�o mooElE--] . i
•—OCEAN �
aVE.r��•—a—�r�•�•—��r�OCEAN s ��
' I
Ind �
1;it
I II
•Atn.,
OC{aw ,
Figure 4-1
�Oac�O CDoD P
DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION AREA
w
Juty,1977
a. A coastal area plan to include the Pier, oceanfront,
Main Street and surrounding area to set a comprehensive
guide for implementation by several forces both public
and private. This plan will be drafted as the LCP-
Downtown Area Plan.
b. Revitalization and rehabilitation projects via Housing
and Community Development. See H.B. HCD Fifth Year
Grant Application.
C. Public Works projects for infrastructure upgrading and
renewal.
d. Building Code enforcement including implementation of
new seismic safety requirements.
e. Coastal Conservancy assistance which can be applied
toward coastal enhancement or restoration projects.
The total district, block areas, the Pier are possible
Conservancy Project Areas. Analysis of Conservancy
assistance will be included in the Downtown Area Plan.
f. A historic preservation program to identify, protect,
and preserve landmarks and districts which depict the
City' s heritage. Assistance with a survey, to determine
what historic resources are present is available via
the State Office of Historic Preservation. Identified
landmarks can be eligible for project planning, acqui-
sition, rehabilitation or restoration grants under the
National Historic Preservation Act.
44 QNP
5.0 RECOYRIENDED POLICIES
Following are suggested policies. which may be used to implement positive
concepts in Visual Resources. First will be listed those policies
which apply generally throughout the coastal zone. Then policies speci-
fic to a particular location will be presented. These are not intended
as final policies but to suggest issue areas available to policy
making. Of course, these policies are not all-inclusive but are for
the purpose of stimulating input.
5. 1 Generalized Policies:
The City of Huntington Beach shall :
1. Recognize the preservation and enhancement of the visual resources
of the coastal area as the main impetus for coastal legislation,
and acknowledge their major importance by establishing a Visual
Resources Element for the City's General Plan. i
2.- Support a feasibility study to investigate and make recommendations
on the visual and aesthetic relationship between the coastal zone
and the rest of the City.
3. Establish a coastal zone architecture/appearance review board to
review all projects proposed in the coastal zone.
4. Approve only that new development which does not interfere with or
detract from the scenic quality of the coastline.
5: Establish design guidelines for materials, features, finishes, and
impacts on views, shadows, glare, and wind for review of proposals
by the architectural (appearance) Review Board.
� 0
O
45
6. Establish a coastal zone overlay district to require architectural
and appearance reviews at the plot plan stage.
7. Develop a grading ordinance to prohibit excessive cut/fill or
other practices which have adverse visual impacts.
8. Establish landscaping ordinances/guidelines specifying suitable
vegation types for the coastal area and limitations on the removal
of trees.
9. Enhance the landscape program and upgrade the maintenance level
for public facilities in the coastal zone.
10. Cooperate with State and other agencies to upgrade landscaping and
appearance at their facilities within the jurisdiction of Hunting-
ton Beach.
11. Establish a coordinated theme and implement design standards for
signing in the coastal zone. .
12 . Revise. the sign code to include an amortization schedule for
non-conforming signs and billboards in the coastal zone.
13. Coordinate the implementation of a coastal access signing program
to be visually compatible with the entire City.
14. Identify entry points to the coast and develop scenic entry
markers to strengthen the visual relationship of the City to its
beaches.
15. Provide vista point development as part of adjacent projects
where possible.
16. Support programs for Scenic Highways, Local Scenic Routes, and
Landscape Corridors.
17. Identify Beach Boulevard, Brookhurst Street, Goldenwest Street,
Magnolia Street, and Warner Avenue as landscape corridors.
18. Establish the following controls for use in protecting local
scenic routes:
(a) Building heights and setbacks;
(b) Landscaping;
(c) Sign regulations, undergrounding of utilities;
(d) Grading;
(e) Preservation of existing flora and fauna.
O O
O
46
19 . Support measures to include Pacific Coast Highway in the Ina
Scenic Highway Program.
20. A local program of scenic routes should identify the stretensions in and near the Bolsa Chica as local scenic rout
21. Participate with other agencies in planning Pacific Coast
improvements and coordinate with CalTrans to ensure that visual
amenities are incorporated into the project.
22. Coordinate with utilities. for undergrounding of overhead facili-
ties, giving priority to coastal zone areas for undergrounding
and requiring undergrounding on new development.
23. Develop an ordinance which establishes design and location stand-
ards for utility structures (such as tanks) and requires that
non-coastal related facilities shall be screened from view.
24. Enforce litter and industrial, commercial, residential clean-up
regulations.
5. 2 Area Specific Policies
5.2 .1 Bolsa Chica
(1) Preserve the open character of the Bolsa Chica.
I '
(2) Require screening of oil uses.
(3) Re-route power lines from the Bolsa Chica:
5.2 .2 Downtown
(1) Provide kiosks in certain areas for message centers,
trash receptacles, telephone, etc.
(2) Upgrade the pier to enhance its natural and scenic char-
acteristics.
(3) Provide upgraded street clean-up and maintenance.
(4) Require minimum 10-lot consolidation in the beachfront
area in order to provide for a multi-story building.
O O
O
47
APPENDIX A
Applicable Coastal Act Sections :
SEC. 30251.
The scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas
shall be considered and protected as a resource
of public importance. Permitted development shall
be sited and designed to protect views to and
along the ocean and scenic coastal areas, to
minimize the alteration of natural land forms,
to be visually compatible with the character of
surrounding areas, and, where feasible, to restore
and enhance visual quality in visually degraded
areas. New development in highly scenic areas
such as those designated in the California
Coastline Preservation and Recreation Plan pre--
pared by the Department of Parks and Recreation
and by local government shall be subordinate to
the character of its setting.
SEC. 30253.
New development shall:
(1) Minimize risks to life and property in areas
of high geologic, flood, and fire hazard.
(2) Assure stability and structural integrity,
and ;;e-ither create nor contribute significantly to
erosion, geologic instability, or destruction of the
site or surrounding area or in any way require the
construction of protective devices that would sub-
stantially alter natural landforms along bluffs and
Cliffs.
(3) Be consistent with requirements imposed by
an air pollution control district or the State Air
Resources Control Board as to each particular develop-
ment.
(4) Minimize energy consumption and vehicle miles
traveled.
(5) Where appropriate, protect special communities
and neighborhoods which, because of their unique char-
acteristics, are popular visitor destination points
for recreational uses.
O O
0
49
' I
APPENDIX A
Proper Procedure for City Implementation
of a Policy to Condemn Property Under Its
Eminent Domain Powers:
1. Every reasonable effort must be made to expeditiously
acquire real property by negotiation. (Gov. Code
Sections 7267, 7267.1)
2. The City must make- an appraisal of the property prior
to initiation of negotiations. (Gov. Code. Section
7261.1)
3. The owner of the property must be given notice and
allowed to accompany the appraiser during the appraiser's
inspection of the property. (Gov. Code Section 7267. 1)
4. The City must offer the owner of the property an
amount which cannot be less than the City's appraisal.
5. The City must provide the owner with a written statement
and a summary of the basis for the offer. Damages must
be separately stated. (Gov. Code Section 7267. 2)
6. The City must bear the responsibility for title reports,
deeds, stamp taxes, escrow fees, and other closing
costs. (Gov. Code Section 7265.4)
7. Where the property cannot be acquired by negotiation:
(a) Notice must be given to all property owners shown
on the last assessment roll by first class mail
that the City intends to condemn the property;
(b) The notice must advise the property owner that he
has a right to appeal and be heard and that fail-
ure to appear will result in a waiver of that right
(c) That the property owner has fifteen days to file
a written request for a hearing, and failure to
do so is a waiver of the right.
O O
O
51.
APPENDIX C
Transfer of Development Rights
A city can establish a transfer of development rights system
by designating two types of zoning districts. The first dis-
trict is an open space district designed to prohibit develop-
ment. A second district, a transfer district, would allow
for an increase in development over the existing zoning, based
upon the development potential of the open space district. The
development potential is the number of dwelling units or
square footage of commercial or industrial building space
which would be eliminated in the open space district. A devel-
opment right is then created for each of the dwelling units or
a certain amount of square feet of commercial or .industrial
building space. These development rights are distributed to
the landowners in the open space district according to the
development potential of their property.
Thus, if a transfer of development rights system were to be
initiated to preserve the bluffs by designating them as open
space districts, the property owners' development rights to
the bluffs would have to be distributed to another area in the
City. A question is presented as to what areas in the City
would be suitable for this purpose. The transfer districts
must be primarily vacant to accommodate the increase in den-
sity. Furthermore, in addition to being vacant, the transfer
districts must be large enough to accommodate the development
prohibited in the open space districts. A few advantages of
the transfer of development rights alternative are:
(1) The owners are compensated for the deprivation of the
development value of their land.
(2) Unlike public acquisition, the property remains on the
tax rolls.
(3) Properties that could not otherwise be obtained because
of prohibitive costs can be acquired by instituting a
transfer of development rights program.
A few disadvantages of the transfer of development rights
program are:
(1) Transfer of development rights necessitates the creation
of a separate market and conveyance system whose effects
O O
O
53
on the existing legal and market frameworks cannot
be predicted.
(2) The legal standing of transfer of development rights is
not clear since it is a relatively new form of land use
control.
(3) The system is based on the assumption that owners of
the preserved land will be adequately compensated for
the deprivation of the use of their land. This is depend-
ent on accurate predictions of future economic demand for
development, which are by nature speculative.
O O
O
54
• xl�.6•r 7a Res. ysy,Z
•
•
ORIGINAL COPY
for Master File
• MUST QL RE-1 URNS
TO CITY CLERK
•
•
•
LOCAL COASTAL ' PROGRAM
• WORK PROGRAM
OCTOBER 17, 1977
•
AZtk�
0
huntington beach planning department
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
"This document was prepared with financial assistance from the
Office of Coastal _Zone Management, National Oceanic and Atmos-
pheric Administration, under the provisions of the Federal Coastal
Zone Management Act of 1972 .
•
•
SUMMARY
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM
• WORK PROGRAM
The Draft Local. Coastal Program: Work Program is a statement of
the planning issues that City staff will be investigating in pre-
paring the Local Coastal Program that was mandated by the Calif-
ornia Coastal Act of 1976 . The Work .Program also includes a
description of the major work tasks that will be accomplished, a
schedule for completing those tasks and an estimate of the costs
of preparing the Local Coastal Program. The Work Program con-
stitutes the first phase of a three phase' project that will result
in a land use plan and implementing ordinances for the coastal
zone of Huntington Beach. The second phase is addressed by this
work program and will result in a Coastal Element for the City' s
General Plan. In December, 1978, a work program will be prepared
for the third phase which will develop the zoning and implementation
devices necessary to implement the Coastal Element. The Local
Coastal Program/Coastal Element is scheduled for Planning Commission
• and City Council public hearings in January and February 1979,
and for submission to the Coastal Commission for certification, as
required by the California Coastal Act of 1976, in March, 1979 .
The most significant section of the Work Program is the Issue
Identification section contained in Section 2.0. The Issue Identifi-
cation represents an analysis of which Coastal Act policies apply
to Huntington Beach, the extent to which existing City. Plans imple-
ment those policies and an identification of City plan" inadequacies
or conflicts with Coastal Act policies. After staff analysis,
citizen, Planning Commission, and Coastal Commission staff review,
the following major issues were identified.
•
1. Shoreline Access - Investigation of methods to insure that ad-
ditional pedestrian and vehicular access is provided to the
coastline and in future developments of the City and State
. beaches.
• 2 . Recreation and Visitors-Serving Facilities - Investigation will
be necessary to determine demand for, feasibility of, desirability
of, and methods of giving priority to visitor-serving and
recreation facilities in the coastal zone.
3. Housing - Coordinate overall .City efforts to provide lower
• cost housing with Local Coastal Program to maximize preservation
and provision of low cost housing opportunities in Coastal Zone.
•
•
4. Water and Marine Resources - Identify problems and monitor
proposals affecting water quality and marine resources in order •
to maintain or restore these resources.
5. Diking, Dredging, Filling and Shoreline Structures - Review all
proposals to identify such activities which may impact ocean and
wetland resources. Establish appropriate regulations.
•
6. Commercial Fishing and Recreational Boating - Investigate and
determine demand for and feasibility of expanded or additional
recreational boating facilities .in the coastal zone.
i
7. Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas - Develop methods buf-
fering and protecting the Bolsa Chica and Santa Ana River Marsh •
areas from development that is detrimental to their environ-
mental significance.
8. Hazard Areas - Update City' s Ordinances to regulate development
in identified hazard areas in a manner consistent with Coastal
Act policies. •
9 . Locating and Planning New Development - Develop plans specifying
land uses , residential densities, siting criteria, open space
facilities, integration of oil production facilities, and
relationships to existing and proposed beach facilities for
the Seacliff Planned Community, townlot Oceanfront residential •
area, Downtown and the area from Lake Street to Newland Street.
10. Visual Resources and Special Communities - Develop specific plans
development regulations, and acquisition programs where ap-
propriate to preserve coastal view resources, develop scenic
corridors and improve scenic quality of Pacific Coast Highway.
11. Public Works - Identify City, State, and other public agency
plans and projects proposed for coastal zone to assure improve-
ment capacities that meet demands projected for existing uses
and uses allowed by the Coastal Act. •
12 . Industrial and Energy Facilities - Determine and plan for the
onshore impacts that can be anticipated from offshore oil
production expansion as well as the impacts that can be
anticipated from any Edison Generating Plant expansion.
Section 3.0 of the Work Program describes the major work tasks
necessary to develop a Coastal Element that complies with Local
Coastal Program requirements. The majority of the tasks involved
reflect the research and analysis necessary to resolve the planning
issues identified. However,-, a significant effort to insure
substantial citizen and other government agency participation in
the development of the Coastal Element is included (Sections 4.0
•
•
• and 5. 0) . In addition to notifying interested citizens of LCP acti-
vities, a Citizens Advisory Committee will be established and a
periodic news letter will be prepared and distributed for public re-
view.
Completion of the second phase Coastal Element/Local Coastal Program.
• Land Use Plan will require eighteen months. It will require two .
full-time planners working exclusively on the Local Coastal Program
to complete the identified tasks according to this schedule. Local
public hearings are scheduled for January and February, 1.979. Coastal
Commission hearings are scheduled. for March, 1979 .
• The estimated budget for the preparation of the Coastal Element is
$89, 969 . 81. Reimbursement for these costs will be sought from the
Coastal Commission and the State Office of Planning and Research.
If full reimbursement is not granted, the scope of the tasks to be
performed will be revised in conformance with Coastal Commission
priorities for funding. The Coastal Commission is obligated to fund
those tasks it requires the City to perform.
•
•
•
•
LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM
• WORK. PROGRAM
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1. 0 INTRODUCTION
• 1. 1 Purpose 1
1. 2 Issue Identification Methodology
(Revised Aug. 31, 1977)
1. 3 Work Program Methodology
• 2 . 0 ISSUE IDENTIFICATION
2. 1 Areawide Description 5
2. 1. 1 Sunset Beach Area
2.1. 2 Huntington Harbour to Warner Avenue Area
2 .1. 3 Warner Avenue to Bluffs (Huntington Beach
Mesa)
2.1. 4 Bluffs (Huntington Beach Mesa) to Golden-
west Street Area
2. 1.5 Goldenwest Street to Lake Street Area
2 . 1. 6 Lake Street to Beach Boulevard Area
2.1. 7 Beach Boulevard to Magnolia Street Area
• 2 . 1. 8 Magnolia Street to Brookhurst Street Area
2. 1.9 Brookhurst Street to Santa Ana River
2. 2 Policy Group Evaluation 13
2. 2. 1 Shoreline Access
2. 2. 2 Recreation and Visitor Serving Facilities
2. 2. 3 Housing
• 2. 2. 4 Water and Marine Resources
2.2. 5 Diking, Dredging and Filling, and Shore-
line Structures
2.2 . 6 . Commercial Fishing and Recreational
Boating
2. 2 .7 Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas
• 2. 2. 8 Agriculture
2. 2.9 Hazard Areas
2. 2. 10 Forestry and Soils Resources
2. 2 .11 Locating and Planning New Development
2. 2. 12 Visual Resources and Special Communities
2. 2. 13 Public Works
• 2.2. 14 Industrial and Energy Facilities
2. 3 Policy Group Checklist 47
2. 4 Uses of more than Local Significance 53
2.5 Summary of Key Issues 54
A91tk
•
•
3. 0 DESCRIPTION OF MAJOR TASKS (PHASE II) 57 •
3.1 Administration
3. 2 Policy Group Studies
3. 2. 1 Shoreline Access
3. 2.2 Recreation and Visitor Serving Facilities
3. 2. 3 Housing
3.2 . 4 Water and Marine Resources
3. 2. 5 Diking, 'Dredging and Filling, and Shore-
line Structures
3. 2. 6 Commercial Fishing and Recreational
Boating
3.2 . 7 Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas
3. 2 . 8 Hazard Areas
3. 2. 9 Locating and Planning New Development
3.2. 10 Visual Resources and Special Communities
3. 2.11 Public Works
3. 2. 12 Industrial and Energy facilities
3. 3 Coastal Element Preparation (Phase II) •
3. 4 Zoning Ordinance Preparation (Phase III)
4. 0 INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION 71
4. 1 Government Agencies with Jurisdiction
in Coastal Zone •
4. 2 Roles in Local Coastal Program Formulation
4. 3 Involvement Process
5.0 CITIZEN PARTICIPATION 75
5 .1 Existing Public Input Process
5. 2 Involvement Process
5. 3 Local Public Hearings
5. 4 Coastal Commission Hearings
•
6.0 COMPLETION SCHEDULE 7-9
7. 0 ESTIMATED BUDGET .83
7. 1 Estimates
7. 2 Funding Sources •
8 . 0 APPENDIX A: Application 91
Adkk
• TABLE OF FIGURES
Number Page
• 1-1 Coastal Zone Area of Huntington Beach. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2-1 Area-wide Description Study Areas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . 6
2-2 Visitor-Serving Areas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2-3 Bolsa Chica Proposals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
2-4 Earthquake Hazard Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
2-5 Flood Hazard Areas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
•
2-6 Tsunami Hazard Areas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
2-7 New Development Issue Areas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
2-8 Orange. County Sanitation Districts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
•
2-9 County and City Flood Control Channels. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
2-10 Vehicular Circulation Proposals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
6-1 Phase II Completion Schedule. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
7-1 Phase II Staff Requirements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
7-2 Phase II Funding Requirements Oct. 77-June 78. . . . . . . . . 85
•
7-3 Phase II Funding Requirements July 78-March 79. . . . . . . . 86
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
1. 0 INTRODUCTION
1. 1 Purpose
The Local Coastal Program (LCP) is defined by the Coastal Act as
being the local government' s land use plans, zoning ordinances,
zoning district maps, and, where required,. other implementing actions
applicable to the coastal zone. Each of the 15 counties and 53
cities along the coast is to prepare an LCP for that portion of its
jurisdiction within the coastal zone. The LCP is intended .to imple-
ment the policies and provisions of the Coastal Act of 1976 at the '
local level. When certified, the LCP then becomes binding not only
on private local development but also on special districts and State
agencies.
In Huntington Beach, the Local Coastal Plan will be reflected in
• a Coastal Element of the General Plan that will supersede or
augment all other plans for the coastal zone area. Similarly,
the zoning portion of the LCP will probably consist of existing
zoning codes, with modification or additional provisions as needed
to carry out the land use plan. The content and focus of the
City' s LCP will reflect the conditions and needs found in the
• City, but will also be consistent with the policies and
requirements of the Coastal Act. The first step in
1
•
SEAL
BEACH
�r
.... •
rua
,ur
� � I
�I •
/ aura
. Mwuow
NEWPORT •
NCH
PROPOSED CITY ANNEXATION
Ferro �'-t
COASTAL ZONE AREA
OF HUNTINGTON BEACH •
huntington beach planning department
2
•
completing the LCP is identification of the issues to be addressed
and the preparation of a work program that together set forth the
scope of the LCP. This constitutes Phase 1 of the Local Coastal
Program.
1.2 Issue Identification Methodology
By far the most important phase of the work program preparation and
the LCP itself is the identification of issues. The purpose of the
issue identification is threefold:
(1) to determine which policies of the Coastal Act apply in Hunting-
ton Beach and areas within the City sphere of influence.
(2) to determine the extent to which existing local plans are
adequate to meet Coastal Act requirements; and
(3) to delineate any potential conflicts between existing plans and
development proposals and the Coastal Act policies .
The information contained in the issue identification portion of
this report represents the results of City staff analysis, input
from interested citizens, citizen groups, businesses within the
coastal zone and Coastal Commission staff review. Much of the
citizen input received was presented at the August 16, 1977 Planning
Commission meeting. In addition to those citizens and groups
commenting, the City requested input from environmental groups,
homeowners ' organizations, special districts and taxing agencies,
oil companies as well as any other interested person or group. In
addition to sending letters requesting input from over fifty
organizations and agencies, newspaper ads were run in two local
newspapers requesting input and advertising the August 16 1977
meeting.
The issue identification phase follows the Coastal Commission' s
suggested format and includes:
(1) an area-wide description;
(2) a policy group evaluation;
(3) a summary checklist; and
(4) a brief summary of key issues .
1.3 Work Program Methodology
In accordance with Section 00023 of the Local Coastal Program
regulations the work program must include:
AM&
3
•
(1) identification of coastal planning issues;
(2) identification of methodology for addressing those issues; •
(3) a description of the major tasks;
(4) methods for involving the public and affected agencies;
(5) a schedule for completing the major work items; •
(6) and an estimated budget.
In addition, the Local Coastal Program regulations identify a
common methodology for preparing the land use plan portion of the
LCP . This common methodology sequence requires the following major
work activities:
(1) analysis of existing and proposed public works systems,
identifying key decisions and allocating available capacities
regarding sewage, water and road system capacities.
•
(2) distribution of the resulting types and levels of development
considering Coastal Act policy groups and specific coastal
resources .
(3) develop new plans or revise existing plans, zoning, etc. , to
reflect .the level and pattern of development arrived at through
this process.
(4) preparation or revision of zoning ordinances as required.
The City of Huntington Beach will follow this basic approach to the
preparation of its Local Coastal Program. •
The City' s Local Coastal Program effort will be divided into three
phases:
(1) Phase I: Issue identification and work program
preparation. •
(2) Phase II: Land use plan
(3) Phase III : Zoning and other implementation deviceb
The end product of the land use plan phase will be a Coastal Element •
to the City' s General Plan. This Coastal Element will include a
land use plan map, accompanying text identifying the coastal
policies and identification of development criteria that should be
included in existing, revised, or new zoning ordinance provisions .
An Environmental Impact Report will also be prepared for the Local
Coastal Program/Coastal Element. The specific implementation and
regulatory measures will then be developed during a third work pro-
gram phase.
9
•
•
•
•
•
•
2. 0 ISSUE IDENTIFICATION
2. 1 Area-Wide Description
• The coastal zone area of Huntington Beach extends over nine miles
on the Southern California coast from Seal Beach on the north to the
mouth of the Santa Ana River and the City of Newport Beach on the
south. In total, about five square miles of land and water areas are
included in this coastal zone. An additional two and one-half square
miles, the Bolsa Chica, is within the coastal zone and the City' s
• sphere of influence, but is under the jurisdiction of the County of
Orange and is not in the City' s Local Coastal Program Planning Area.
Annexation by the City of parts of the Bolsa Chica has been proposed
and is therefore addressed in this report.
Pacific Coast Highway, California #1, traverses the entire length of
the zone. It separates, with only a few exceptions, the City-
and State-owned beaches on its south side from the residential and
commercial developments on the north side. Pacific Coast Highway is
designed to carry an average daily traffic volume of 30,000 vehicles.
The average daily traffic in July, 1976, was 23, 000; however, on
peak beach use days considerable congestion does occur. Access to
• Pacific Coast Highway and the coastal zone in Huntington Beach is
via several arterial streets. These arterials have been used to
divide the coastal zone into sectors for the purposes of the area-
wide description. The Location Map (Figure 2-1) depicts these coastal
zone sectors, numbered according to their section in this description.
•
5
•
E
0 � �
YiQ t r.oww 4 •
2.1.2 �.
•
2.1.3
EXCLUSIONARY AREA
.o.w,
COASTAL ZONE AREA DA
PROPOSED / •
PRIMARY ARTERIAL '
n
MAJOR ARTERIAL 2.1.5* •w�
Q PROPOSED CITY ANNEXATION
2.1.6 ..-.,o
2.1.7*
2.1.8
* Refers To Section In Area Description 2.19 -
Figure 2-1
-{ b AREA—WIDE DESCRIPTION
STUDY AREAS
huntington beach planning department
6 �
•
2 . 1. 1 Sunset Beach Area
The City' s coastal jurisdiction extends into the highway commercial
and high-density residential area adjacent to Sunset Beach on the
north side of Pacific Coast Highway. The beach and housing on
the ocean side of the highway are part of County of Orange .planning
• area.
2 .1.2 Huntington Harbour to Warner Avenue Area
The Huntington Harbour residential marina encompasses the majority
of this area of the coastal zone. The development consists of
• attached waterfront condominiums', single-family homes on islands,
apartments and other units of mixed density, and neighborhood
commercial shops. The total project will include 4,000 waterfront
homes and over 9, 000 vessels. Development here is nearly complete.
The Harbor Channel provides an ocean outlet for the CO-2 and CO-7
channels of the Orange County Flood Control District. It also
drains the Bolsa Chica from the south. Public boat-launching
facilities are provided by the Sunset Aquatic Parka
2 . 1. 3 Warner Avenue to the Bluffs (Huntington Beach Mesa)
The majority of this portion of the City' s coastal zone includes
• Bolsa Chica State Beach and the inland residential subdivisions
that surround the inland side of the Bolsa Chica wetlands. Bolsa
Chica State Beach has recently been improved to expand its day
use. New parking .areas, landscaping, and restroom facilities
have been provided.
• The residential areas adjacent to the inland side of the Bolsa
Chica are general planned and zoned for low density residential
use. The area is almost completely developed or committed to
single-family development. Because development is almost total,
this area will also be excluded from the Coastal Commission' s
interim permit procedures. However, those lots that are im-
mediately adjacent to the Bolsa Chica may not be excluded,
even during the permit period.
The major feature of this area is the Bolsa Chica wetlands.
Because the Bolsa Chica is under the jurisdiction of the County
of Orange, responsibility for its Local Coastal Program also
• lies with the County for the present time.
•
AdIbk J
•
In its General Plan, the City has designated the Bolsa Chica marsh-
lands and bluffs and the northwest Bolsa Chica as first priority
open space areas with greatest potential for preservation as open
space. Sections 2. 1. 2. . 1, 2. 1. 2. 2 , and 2. 1. 2 4 of the Open Space
and Conservation Element state the City' s policies of "preserving
and protecting outstanding geographical and topographical features, " •
"protecting the area' s water resources . . . , ocean and harbor
areas, marshlands, " and "preserving significant vegetation and
wildlife habitat. " The Bolsa Chica has been identified as a major
coastal resource for its distinctive marshland vegetation and wild-
life habitat, scenic and archaeological sites, and potential for
restoration. •
A 300 acre portion inland and adjacent to the Pacific Coast High-
way is already State property in the process of development of
its potentials as marshland preserve. Another large portion adjacent
to it was authorized for purchase by the General Fund Budget Act
of 1977. The State Lands Commission proposes that the Department
of Fish and Game make the acquisition of the Bolsa Chica for wetlands
restoration, wildlife habitat, and scenic open space. The amount
of $4. 6 million was budgeted for the 923 .79 acres (including one
million dollars from non-State local sources) . Much of the remain-
ing parts of the Bolsa Chica have been proposed for annexation
to the City of Huntington Beach.
The Bolsa Chica lies between the blufflines of two mesas, the
Bolsa Chica Mesa on the north and the Huntington Beach Mesa to the
south. Combined efforts of the County of Orange and Huntington
Beach are proceeding to reserve lands surrounding the Bolsa Chica
wetlands for regional parks. The Huntington Beach Mesa area has •
been proposed by the City and County as a corridor park to
connect Bolsa Chica State Beach with Huntington Central Park. A
continuation of the linear park around the wetlands and onto the
Bolsa Chica Mesa has been adopted by the County of Orange. This
park would feature viewpoints, equestrian and bike trails, and
visual access to the Bolsa Chica. •
The General Plan of Land Use of the City designates the Bolsa .
Chica area for Open Space and as Planning Reserve. This Planning
Reserve is an interim category connoting anticipated long-term
comprehensive planning. Limited (temporary) uses are permitted in
such areas, as well as resource production.. •
.The Circulation Element of the Huntington Beach General Plan indicate
_ the desire for connection of Bolsa Chica . Street through the eastern
bound.ary .of the Bolsa Chica to the Pacific Coast Highway. No rights-
of way have been acquired, as more the intention than the location is
•
8
•
•
• indicated in this element. Approval in concept of the extensions of
certain streets into a street grid work in the Bolsa Chica if necessary,
has been made through the Circulation Plan. These designations may
not be consistent with the Coastal policies, nor the plans of State
and County agencies. Study will be required to update City Plans
and policies to reflect changes of jurisdictions and subsequent
• planning concerning circulation in and surrounding the Bolsa Chica.
•2 .1.4 Bluffs (Huntington Beach Mesa) to Goldenwest Street Area
This area is predominantly an oil and natural gas production area
under single ownership. . 'Pumping equipment and. storage tanks are
visible from Pacific Coast Highway, though partially screened. Some
pumping wells are located on the beach side of the highway, and two
offshore drilling platforms can be seen from the highway. Most of
the onshore storage facilities. supporting the offshore operations are
located in this area. The Bolsa Chica State Beach extends along the
west side of Pacific Coast Highway and northward along the Bolsa Chica.
The Huntington Seacliff Country Club and surrounding single-family
residential development extend into the coastal zone from the east.
Walled-in oil production "islands" are situated within and next to the
residential areas. The Seacliff Planned Community is Area #5 of the
• City' s categorical exclusion application to exempt this developed
area from the permit process but not from local coastal planning.
Much of the undeveloped area is zoned for multiple-family and com-
munity commercial, with the highway frontage still continuing as
industrial area combined with oil production.
2 . 1. 5 Goldenwest Street to Lake Street Area
Nearly centrally located in the coastal zone area of Huntington Beach
is the Downtown area with its declining business district in the few
blocks up Main Street (between Fifth and Third Streets) . The munici-
pal pier, extending 1500 feet into the Pacific Ocean, is across
Pacific Coast Highway from the foot of Main Street. Several restaur-
ants and concessions have clustered on and near the pier. The waters
and beaches near the pier are used intensively for surfing activities .
The Bolsa Chica State Beach, which borders the shore side of Pacific
Coast Highway along most of this area, has the intrusion of one apart-
ment complex north of the pier and several oil wells still pumping
on the beach side. The recently adopted boundaries for the Downtown
Redevelopment Area include the first blocks north of Pacific Coast
Highway (Ocean Boulevard) from Goldenwest to Lake Street .and additiona
blocks generally bounded by Sixth, Main, Hartford, and Lake Streets.
Any redevelopment plan can be expected to aid implementation of the
Local Coastal Program. Previous planning for this area, including a
redevelopment plan, has received considerable attention from the
residents. One of the primary objectives of the redevelopment efforts
is the rehabilitation of a deteriorating commercial residential area.
. 9
•
•
Present zoning calls for C-3, Community Business District, facing the
Pacific Coast Highway and in the vicinity of Main and Lake Streets.
R-4, High Density Residential , is the general zoning back from these
commercial areas. Most of the residential development is on 25 x
117. 5 foot and 50 x 117. 5 foot lots. City policy to establish Seven-
teenth Street as a primary arterial would relieve Main Street of •
increased congestion which is threatening its "small community" life-
stvle and would also establish another node of public-oriented
activity and access to Pacific Coast Highway (and beaches) .
Another node can be expected to develop at the Goldenwest/Pacific
Coast Highway intersection. Goldenwest Street is a primary arterial •_
connection from the San Diego Freeway and a major route for City
residents to the upper beach areas. The Beach areas are owned
by the City and the State.
Proposals -for the widening of Lake Street from Yorktown Avenue to the
Pacific Coast Highway have not yet become precise plans due to right-
of-way acquisition difficulties and citizen dissention. This proposal
would be consistent with the City' s policy of deemphasizing Main
Street as a major traffic carrier in conjunction with other arterial
:changes (1) The proposed reduction to local street status of Main
Street from Garfield to South of Clay, and (2) Gothard from Ellis
to Garfield, (3) the construction of a new alignment of Gothard
from Ellis, generally along Crystal Street to south of Clay to
align with the N/S section of Main Street, (4) At 17th Street the
new Gothard arterial traffic would be directed onto 17th Street toward
the beach, and (5) Lake Street would connect to Beach using present
17th Street from Yorktown to Garfield.
The result of these alignment projects will be a system of arterials
for beach access at Gothard-17th, and Lake which will not disturb
the residential community and will relieve Main Street and the pier
pedestrian areas of excessive traffic congestion. See Circulation
Plan, Figure 2-10.
•
2 .1. 6 Lake Street to Beach Boulevard Area
The City -beach extends from Main Street to Beach Boulevard on the
south side of Pacific Coast Highway. This beach park, with parking,
landscaping, and other beach facilities, is partially visible from
the highway. Motels and trailer parks bound the north side of the •
highway. Some of this -motel frontage is City-owned and leased
property. A proposed realignment of Atlanta Avenue to flow into
Orange Street downtown is designed to provide a route parallel to
Pacific Coast Highway across the downtown area, feeding to the beJaches i
at Seventeenth or Goldenwest. This is a transportation corridor
permitting additional vehicular access to the beaches and is not tended to induce commercial strip development in the medium densi
10 A',
•
•
residential area along Orange Street. The effect will be a
dispersal of the beach -visitors to Goldenwest and 17th Streets '
access points in addition to Beach Boulevard and Lake Street.
General commercial zones line much of Lake Street and the west
side of Beach Boulevard. A parcel west of Beach Boulevard at Pacific
Coast Highway is vacant and general-planned for mixed commercial
development. Its proximity to major beach entrance points makes
• it a valuable coastal resource. Part of the "Oldtown Area" gen-
erally bounded by the railroad right-of-way on the west, Hartford.
Street on the north, Huntington Street on the east, and Atlanta
Avenue on the south composes exclusion Area #3. The housing in
this area is older and has the potential for significant recycling.
The City has general planned this area for medium density residential
and has adopted a Specific Plan to regulate its development.
The proposed realignment - of -Huntington Street and Delaware Street
will provide another beach access road between Beach Boulevard and
Lake Street.
• 2 .1. 7 Beach Boulevard to Magnolia Street Area
The seaward side of Pacific Coast Highway is part of Huntington State
Beach and the only vehicular access to its facilities is located at
Beach Boulevard, Pedestrian access is possible at Magnolia and
• Newland Streets. The State Department of Parks and -Recreation has
developed plans for the expansion of its parking capacity, adding
beach facilities buildings, landscaping, and a Least Tern sanctuary,
as well as other features. Vehicular access would also be expanded
to include entrances at Newland Street, Magnolia Street, and Brookhurs
Street. They are presently attempting to obtain approval for the
• project.
The inland side is dominated by the Southern California Edison
Company generating plant and tank farm. This region-serving utility
has proposed its Huntington Beach location as one of four alternative
sites for additional generating facilities for the State. Expansion
of the plant may occur onto an undeveloped parcel to the south of the
existing plant. An additional major vacant area is located on the
northeast corner of Beach Boulevard and Pacific Coast Highway. This
property is general planned as a planning reserve which is an interim
designation intended for areas where long term comprehensive planning
and development is anticipated. Its proximity to the major beach
entrances also makes it a valuable coastal resource.
An Orange County Flood Control District channel traverses this area,
which includes oil production combined with industrial and planning
reserve districts. The earlier wetland ecology has been considerably
modified and is considered to be difficult to restore.
11
•
•
The extension of Hamilton Avenue as a primary arterial to Beach
Boulevard has been adopted into the Circulation Element of the General
Plan. Implementation would require right-of-way acquisition.
2 .1 . 8 Magnolia Street to Brookhurst Street Area
The area north of Pacific Coast Highway is vacant and general planned
as a planning reserve. It is zoned R-5, office-professional. This
area extends from the highway to the DO-1 flood control channel. It
was originally acquired for freeway development by the California
Department of Transportation, but now has been declared surplus
property and is awaiting disposition. A triangular parcel about 800
feet from Pacific Coast Highway on Brookhurst Street north of the
channel has been proposed for development as a multiple-family resi-
dential; this R2-zoned condominium project is currently being pro-
cessed by the Coastal Commission. North of the channel is a single
family development which 'is categorical excluded in Are _
a -#-4.--This
is_a recently developed area of low density residential, totally
developed.
2.1.9 Brookhurst Street to the Santa Ana River Area
The beach area on the south side of Pacific Coast Highway is also a
portion of Huntington State Beach and extends from Beach Boulevard
to the Santa Ana River. As previously indicated, the State Department
of Parks and Recreation has developed plans for expanding its parking
capacity, adding beach facilities buildings, expanding the Least Tern
bird sanctuary, adding landscaping, and other features. They are
presently attempting to obtain approval for this project.
Brookhurst Street bridges Orange County Flood Control Channel DO-1 •
and intersects Pacific Coast Highway about 2500 feet north of the-
Santa Ana River. This arterial is a primary carrier of beach users
from within and outside the Orange County area.
The Orange County Sanitation Treatment Plant is located on the wedge
of land bounded by Brookhurst Street, the Santa Ana River, and the
flood control channel. Expansion of the sanitation plant northward
on its existing property is underway.
The parcel south of the flood control channel and bounded by Pacific
Coast Highway is currently vacant and owned by Cal Trans. This parcel
has been designated as a planning reserve by the City' s General Plan
and has been recommended for State Coastal Commission acquisition.
Although no firm use has been established, the parcel has been dis-
cussed as an appropriate "visitor serving facility" site such as a
bicycling hostel or overnight camping facility. The parcel is in the
Santa Ana River Trail and Greenbelt Plan area. Any development
occurring would be compatible with this plan.
12
•
•
• 2 . 2 Policy Group Evaluation
In this section of the issue identification, existing, potentially
allowable and proposed uses have been compared to Coastal Act
policies. They are addressed in relationship to fourteen policy
groups that reflect Coastal Act policies. The evaluation includes
• discussiori of local policies, plans and zoning that apply or may
affect achievement of the Coastal Act policies. Inconsistencies,
omissions, conflicts or other problems have been noted .
2 . 2 .1 Shoreline Access
• Sections 30210 through 30212 of the California Coastal Act of 1976
require that any development occurring within the coastal zone shall
not interfere with the public 's right of access to the ocean. They
also require that any new development..provide access from the
nearest public roadway to the shoreline Public agencies may also
require dedicated accessway for public use.
•
Shoreline access is preserved in Huntington Beach. The entire 9. 1
mile coastline from Pacific Coast Highway to the sea, with the .
exception of the Huntington Pacific Apartments just north of the
pier, is in public ownership. The City of Huntington Beach
• operates one mile of the beach area from Beach Boulevard north
to the municipal pier as a City beach park. The remainder is
owned by the State of California Department of Parks and Recreation. '
The majority of this is included in the Huntington and Bolsa Chica
State Beaches (see Figure 2-2) . The City has master planned and i
zoned the beaches as open space to reflect their existing and
planned use as major recreational resources.. The City' s beach
area is completely developed with recreational and visitor support
facilities. The Bolsa Chica State Beach has recently completed
the construction of visitor facilities and plans are currently
being developed for the refurbishing and expansion of the facilities
at Huntington State Beach.
Public access to the shoreline within the Huntington Harbour area is
limited to several internal viewpoints among the private homes and the
commercial marina. However, the opportunities to provide additional
access are also limited. The Huntington Harbour shoreline as well as
most of its area is almost completely developed with residential uses
• that because of the subdivision patterns make it quite expensive and
disruptive to provide additional accessways. Public access to the
Harbour waters is provided via the adjacent County of Orange' s
Sunset Aquatic Park and several small beach areas. Recent development
projects have been conditioned where possible to provide public
accessways to the shoreline. Public access to beach facilities
• is discussed more extensively in 2 . 2 . 13 Public Works, where vehicular ;
access is treAted.
13
•
•
The major issues concerning shoreline access are therefore: •
(1) Coodinating development of Huntington State Beach to insure that
additional pedestrian and vehicular access is provided in
their expansion plans.
(2) Determine if additional feasible opportunities for expanding
public access to the Huntington Harbour shoreline exist.
2 . 2 . 2 Recreation and Visitor Serving Facilities
Sections 30212. 5, 30213, 30220 through 30223 and 30250 (.c) define
the Coastal Act's policies regarding recreation and visitor serving •
facilities. In essence these policies require the distribution of
public facilities such as parking areas throughout a City's coastal
area, the provision of lower cost visitor facilities, the protection
of oceanfront areas for coastal recreation, the granting of priority
to projects with commercial recreational facilities, the reservation
of and areas that are necessary to support coastal recreational uses,
and the location of visitor serving facilities at selected points
throughout the City' s coastal area .
The primary location of "visitor serving facilities" in Huntington
Beach is - in the vicinity of the municipal pier in Downtown Huntington •
Beach (see Figure 2-2) . The area extends north from Beach Boulevard to Goldenwest
Street with the major concentration of facilities adjacent to the
pier. This area contains several motels and hotels, restaurants
ranging from fast-food operations to dinner houses, surfboard, and
beach apparel shops. Many of these enterprises are deteriorating
both economically and physically. The area has been of concern to
the City for some time and efforts to prepare a redevelopment strategy
and plan are currently underway.
The current redevelopment effort is a continuation of the Redevelop-
ment Study initiated in December, 1975. A Redevelopment Plan was
prepared that included the approximate coastal zone from Beach
Boulevard to Goldenwest Street. The Plan for the Downtown Redevelop-
ment project area that promoted the concept of creating a tourist___
destination' included a variety of visitor serving facilities
such as hotels, motels, restaurants, and specialty commercial centers
as well as some general commercial, residential and office pro-
fessional uses. This Plan was presented to the area residents in
November and December, 1976 . It met with a great deal of opposition _
because of the Plan' s ability to allow expansion of Vtsttor servingan-- d
commercial recreation facilities to create ' an area that was attractive
to both day use and extended stay beach users. The City's Redevelop-
ment Agency referred the plan back 'to the Redevelopment and Planning •
Commissions .for revision.
14
•
•
g
• j g
• Sunset Aquatic Park gg ••�«•
8
.11
�. ^ r f
„
r.
weu
• IN.9.
.Wf
® Municipal Pier E
Huntington Harbour ,
Redevelopment Area /
Huntington City Beach ,
® OC Harbors, Bch. & Pks. Bluffline Park
STATE PARKS & RECREATION
Bolsa Chica State Beach Improvements
• Expansion/Improvements H. State Beach (Calif. State-.P & R)
Phase I - possible `78 �--°
•••�' �;ti Phase IZ
Phase III 35 Overnight parking spaces approved
Self-contained R.V. s
Figure 2-2
•
VISITOR-SERVING AREAS
huntington beach planning department
15
•
In June, 1977 , agreement was finally reached over the revised Downtown •
project area boundaries which substantially reduced its size. It
appears that it will be at least a year before a revised Redevelopment
Plan is finalized. Until that time the exact extent and nature of the
Redevelopment Plan will not be determined.
With the exception of the intersection of Warner Avenue and Pacific •
Coast Highway, where a .small shopping center with visitor serving
facilities is located, no other significant areas of visitor
serving facilities exist in the coastal zone. Several sites
have potential and could be considered consistent with the City's
General Plan and zoning. The portion of the City' s coastal zone
from the Downtown area to the Santa Ana River contains large quanities
of vacant or recycleable land that is general planned for mixed
development and Planning Reserve. Much of this area is zoned to
allow hotels, motels, restaurants, and other similar uses, although
the zoning designations of R-5 and C-3 allow other uses as well.
A substantial portion of this area is in a holding designation that
will preserve the planning options until the disposition of the •
State' s surplus property occurs and the LCP is complete. The creation
of nodes of visitor serving and commercial -recreational at the
intersection of the Pacific Coast Highway and Brookhurst, Magnolia,
Beach Boulevard, Newland, Huntington and Lake Streets appears to be,
an alternative that will require additional analysis.
The City has recently requested that the County of Orange include a
regional park on the bluffs overlooking Bolsa Chica. The purpose
of the park would be to expand the recreation facilities in Western
Orange County, preserve a significant view resource and provide a
linkage with Huntington Central Park. The County is currently
evaluating this proposal.
The City has over several years attempted unsuccessfully to provide
additional parking in the vicinity of the pier area.
The major issues affecting recreation and visitor serving facilities •
are:
(1) Previous redevelopment and revitalization efforts for the Down-
town area which have attempted to expand the recreation and
visitor serving facilities have been opposed by area residents
and future efforts to significantly expand these types of . •
facilities may be difficult.
(2) The General Plan and zoning allow the development of commercial
recreation facilities but does not give priority over other uses.
(3) Disposition of the Caltrans surplus properties along Pacific •
Coast Highway will significantly effect the development of these
areas with recreation and visitor serving facilities.
16
•
•
• (4) Can the City of Huntington Beach and County of Orange create
the bluffline regional park recently proposed to provide
linkages and access to the Huntington Central Park?
(5) The LCP should address the need for additional public. parking
facilities.
•
2 . 2 . 3 Housing
Section 30213 requires that low and moderate income housing be pro-
tected, encouraged and where feasible provided.
• Much of the City' s . lower and moderate cost housing is located within
or adjacent to the coastal zone. These areas are ,general.ly, the
blocks adjacent to the Downtown central business district, the
portion of the Oldtown area within the coastal zone, and several
-of the mobile home parks near Huntington and Atlanta Streets and
Pacific Coast Highway and Newland Street. Such areas as these are
• included in Section 30116 of the Coastal Act as sensitive coastal
resource areas d e_ to their provision of low- and moderate.
income housing. The City is currently
very active in implementing its Housing Assistance Plan and Housing
Element through the Section 8 Existing Unit Rent Subsidy Program
and the Section 8 New Construction Program. Approximately 966
• units have and will be provided through these vehicles. The City is
also considering the possibility of submitting a request for
authorization to request proposals for additional new construction
units on the old Civic Center site located at Fifth and Main Streets..
As pressure to recycle existing lower cost housing increases, the
•. need to provide alternate lower cost housing will increase. This is
especially critical if additional visitor serving, recreation, or
high quality residential or commercial uses are to be provided in
these areas of the coastal zone. Innovative techniques such as
density transfers or multi-use arrangements may be used here.
• The major housing issue is therefore: - -------The coordination of City efforts to provide additional lower cost
housing, especially new construction units in or adjacent to the
coastal zone, with its overall planning to insure that alternate lower
cost housing is available to those displaced by coastal zone develop-
0 ment activities.
2 . 2 .4 Water and Marine Resources
Sections 30230, 30231 and 30236 of the Coastal Act requires the
maintenance and restoration of marine resources and coastal water
• quality as well as the control of discharges into the ocean. and
17
•
•
runoff. These sections also require the prevention of ground water
depletion, interference with surface flow and the encouragement of •
water reclamation. Finally, the maintenance of riparian buffers and
the limitation of dams or alterations of streams are other means to
be used for protection of these resources.
These policies are supported by the City' s Open Space and Conservation
Element. Section 2. 1.2. 2 of the Huntington Beach General Plan •
indicates that it is the policy of the City to "achieve wise manage-
ment and well planned utilization of the area 's water resources" ..
To implement this policy the "Open Space Conservation Plan" includes
"water areas" that have intrinsic value as natural resources . Sig-
nificant water areas that have been identified for preservation
include the Bolsa Chica wetlands, the Santa Ana River and the Santa •
Ana River marsh. These areas as well as most open space resources
in the City are being protected through regulation where possible.
In addition, there is the possibility of additional public trust
protections.
Located within the City of Huntington Beach at the mouth of the •
Santa Ana River is the Orange County Sanitation Treatment Plant. This
facility currently provides primary treatment and is being expanded
to ad3 secondary` treatment capabilities to the effluent w is ..`is
discharged directly into the ocean. This facility serves the_
majority of Orange County and is certainly a use of more _than local •
significance. The Edison plant also discharges heated water into
the ocean. The City is currently dependent upon these services and
other s a e and ederal -ageridies- td monitor the effects on water quality.
The issues that should be addressed in the LCP are, therefore:
-(1) The adequacy of the 'City's implementation strategy in maintain- •
ing water quality,
(2) Should new preservation methods and controls be instituted
to be more effective?
(3) Should the City establish its own water quality monitoring •
system?
2. 2 . 5 Diking, Dredging, Filling and Shoreline Structures
Sections 30233 and 30235 of the Coastal Act limit the diking, dredging •
or filling of all coastal waters to very specific circumstances. This
would be permitted for the maintenance of previously dredged navi-
gational channels, in wetlands areas for entrance channels to new or
expanded boating facilities, for burying cables, and inspection of
piers and other public services, mineral extraction, nature study
and restoration. Any spoils from such activity are required to be •
planned to avoid disruption to marine. and wildlife habitats.
18
•
•
The City ' s General Plan does not specifically address diking,
dredging or filling operations . These operations will be necessary
to maintain the channels of Huntington Harbour, in refurbishing the
municipal pier, in expanding the flood control capacity of the Santa
Ana River and if an additional opening to sea is planned to allow
boating facilities in portions of the Bolsa Chica.
The issues that need to be addressed as part of the LCP process are:
(1) What policies and .regulations should the City establish in.
in order to comply with these Coastal Act policies?
(2) Identification of any areas that are or will require dredging
operations .
(3) What impacts can be anticipated from dredging any additional
ocean cuts required for marina development.
2 . 2. 6 Commercial Fishing and Recreational Boating
Section 30224 of the Coastal Act requires increased recreational
boating encouragement via new facilities and limitation on non-water
dependent land uses. This section further states that facilities
serving commercial fishing and recreational boating industries shall
be protected and upgraded.
Commercial fishing is not found in Huntington Beach .due to the lack of
natural harbors .. Such. fishing facilities are available in adjacent
cities. The one existing harbor . area is the man-made Huntington
Harbour residential marina complex with its connecting waterways
serving 9000 vessels.
Other areas of the coastal zone offer some possibility of harbor de-
velopment. All developments of this kind would require cutting an
outlet to the ocean through a public beach and across the Pacific
Coast Highway (PCH) . Marina developments in undeveloped areas of
Huntington Beach shoreline would need to be considered in view of
probable damage to wetlands ecology. The Huntington Beach General
Plan addresses boating indirectly in its Open Space and Conservation
Element. Section 2 .1 .2. 2 .1 indicates "preserving the ocean and
shoreline as a recreational and physical resource" as a guiding
principle.
At issue is whether the City should choose to allow a marina type
development at the cost of possible destruction of rare natural
resources and whether City resources. should be allocated for develop-
ment of boating facilities at the expense of some other recreational
• uses. In effect, would boating facilities fill an. unmet recreational
demand in Huntington Beach and/or the region?
® 19
•
2. 2. 7 Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas
•
Section 30240 of the Coastal Act requires that environmentally
sensitive habitat areas be protected against any significant disrup-
tion. Development adjacent to such habitat areas and parks and
recreation areas must be sited to prevent impacts that would downgrade
the areas.
•
The most significant habitat area within the sphere of influence of
Huntington Beach is the Bolsa Chica. (Ref. 2. 1. 3 of the area-wide
description. ) Its habitat environments have been extensively studied
and conditions and potentials recorded. It has also been the object
of considerable citizen and - government concern and activity. The
State has recently approved the expenditure of $4. 6 million for the
acquisition of approximately 900 acres. T_he City_ of -Hunt ing ton Beach
has also initiated proceedings leading to annexation in the
Bolsa Chica (refer to Fig. 2-3) . An annexation will probably be
completed prior to certification of the LCP. The remaining portion
of the unincorporated Bolsa Chica not already owned by the State has
been identified for possible acquisition and inclusion in the City/ •
County proposed bluffline regional park. Currently this entire area
is within the Local Coastal Planning Area of Orange County. Efforts
are being made to coordinate LCP activity in anticipation of the
City' s annexation.
The proposed annexation area will maintain its present general plan •
designation, Planning Reserve, and be prezoned for Limited Use (allow-
ing only temporary uses) in anticipation of completing the LCP. The
adjacent areas currently within the City's jurisdiction are zoned
. and developed as low density single-family residential. Some indus-
trial zoning is found- adjacent to the existing oil production area in
the southern Bolsa Chica. Considerable concern has been expressed •
by environmentalists and the State Department of Fish and Game
regarding the adverse effects of runoff from adjacent residential
development on the Bolsa Chica lowlands. Additional residential devel
opment in the proposed annexation area would add to this problem.
Also, the County of Orange has indicated its interest in integrating
existing and proposed development with its proposed bluffline •
regional park to allow a softening of the urban edge. This is also
a concern of the City. In general, additional analysis of whether
present controls are sufficient to prevent impacts to the wetlands
area needs to be accomplished.
A present area of concern within the Huntington Beach Coastal Planning !
Area extends from the power plant north of Magnolia Street to the
mouth of the Santa Ana River and inland to the Huntington Beach Flood
Control Channel. Caltrans is the present owner of this property
which was recently declared surplus. This area provides unique vege-
tation, wildlife habitat and scenic vistas on its 80 acres. It is
also in flood and possible seismic hazard zones. It is identified ,in
20
- • • :� • • 4j�, •�,, • 'i ' �, *'fir � w�
1 '3
'.., •a•�.... .. _ �,:•.. .,'•. .`'_�'.';'�.�'•.�':'���.��' ���`\ � .vas `
Rt".
City' s Open Space and Conservation Element as a second priority
area. Development pressures are lower than the high priority areas.
This area has been included in the Coastal Commission' s recommended •
coastal properties for public acquisition but has not been funded.
According to the State Lands Commission, this area may be subject to
the Public Trust and any development here would require Attorney
General and State Lands Commission consideration. The General Plan
category of Planning Reserve applies to this area and it now carries
the Limited Use Zoning District. Both of these designations are •
intended to preserve the City' s planning options until the LCP is
completed. The value of this entire area needs additional investiga-
tion especially in relation' to proposed expansion of the Edison
facility to determine the environmental and ecological impacts of such
activity in the long and short term.
•
The major issues affecting these sensitive habitat areas are:
(1) What uses and siting of those uses on non-publicly owned land
adjacent to the Bolsa Chica and other habitat areas will be
compatible with coastal goals? How can the City of Huntington •
Beach aid in having the Bolsa Chica area identified as a
sensitive coastal resource area?
(2) If the Caltrans area remains in public ownership, will it be
preserved in its existing state or developed with recreation
facilities? •
(3) flow might the Caltrans property best complement development at
Huntington State Beach, the Santa Ana River- Greenbelt, and the
County' s river mouth regional park?
2. 2. 8 Agriculture
Conflicts between urban and agricultural land uses are addressed in
Sections 30241 and 30242 of the Coastal Act. Prime agricultural land
requires protection via priority systems, buffer areas, and limita-
tions on conversions. Huntington Beach has no agricultural resources
in its coastal zone area to be preserved. Although the inland •
portions of Huntington Beach have, in the past, been utilized" in agri-
culture, the coastal salt marsh wetlands do not offer prime soil
conditions necessary for agriculture. Several parcels of coastal
land are designated as planning reserve and zoned RA (residential-
agriculture) . This is a planning reserve type of zoning and only
refers to open space limited uses. In the case of the area between •
Beach Boulevard and Magnolia, RA-0 indicates oil resource production
presently - other uses pending.
There seem to be no issues involved with agriculture in the
Huntington Beach coastal zone. The City is already general-planned
for urban development and well committed in many areas. To convert •
urban land to agriculture in the face of population growth demands .
does not appear to be a viable alternative.
22
2 . 2 . 9 Hazard Areas
•
S. 30253 of the Coastal act seeks to control risks to life and
property in areas of high geologic, flood and fire hazard. New dev-
elopment must be monitored so that it neither creates nor contributes
to erosion, geologic instability, etc. , with a major aim of preserv-
ing natural landforms along bluffs and cliffs.
•
Hazards of relative consideration in Huntington Beach are: fire,
seismic, flood, tsunamis, and erosion and subsidence.
2 . 2 .9.1 Fire Hazard.
• Fire hazard in Huntington Beach has been evaluated in the
Fire Hazard/Fire Protection Study prepared in July, 1974
and the Safety Element of the General Plan. The study
identifies existing and potential fire hazards, analyzes
fire protection capabilities, and evaluates the effective-
ness of fire fighting forces to combat existing and.
• potential fire problems. The report points out that the
overall fire hazard in Huntington Beach is moderate as
compared to other cities; and, while some concern is justi-
fied for conflagration potential in residential areas (due
to Santa Ana wind conditions, wood shingle roofs, and close
dwelling spacing) , in most other types of uses the fire
problem is comparatively moderate to light. A unique
potential fire hazard in Huntington Beach is the above-
ground storage of flammable liquids associated with oil
production and refining and with petroleum and natural gas
transmission lines. Location of fire hazards has been an
on-going process so that fire prevention methods could be
instituted. A deficiency in water flow of as much as 2500
gallons per minute below standards was noted in the 1974
study. Some of this deficiency has been eliminated since
that time, due to a new reservoir.
2 .2 ,9,2 Earthquake Hazard �
Though not actually desiqnated as a seismic risk area
under the Alquist-Priolo Act, there are indications of
potential risk from faults underlying the length of the
coastal area. A 1974 report entitled Geotechnical Inputs,
prepared by Leighton-Yen and Associates, locates earth-
quake faults and explains other geological factors which
affect planning of the City. The Seismic Safety Element of
the Huntington Beach General Plan recognizes the City' s
responsibility in making land use decisions under hazard-
generated constraints. The earthquake hazard area is
depicted in Figure 2-4.
Special standards for foundations and structures and
required engineering must be met within the hazard area,.
•
•
r.., a
t:
•
•
9,&.,,i Earthquake Hazard Area
Figure 2-4
Aft s
EARTHQUAKE HAZARD
SPECIAL STUDY ZONE •
24 huntington beach planning department
•
•
2 .2. 9. 3.
Flood Hazard
•
The flood hazard designation refers to those areas subject
to inundation by a 100-year flood . The flood hazard in
the City of Huntington Beach is documented in the Flood
Hazard Study, Huntington Beach Planning Department, 1974 .
As seen in Figure 2-5 approximately half of Huntington
• Beach is within the flood hazard area . A proposal by the
Army Corps of Engineers would update the flood control
system. to accommodate the standard project (200._year)
flood. Construction could begin in 1980 and would recla ire
eight to. ten years. In the meantime, the Orange County
Flood Control District has an interim program to_b_ring the
• system to 75-year flood protection.
The City ' s short-range plan for flood danger is to maintain
preparedness for the disaster which may come. A Civil
Defense/Emergency Services Plan has been prepared. The
City has declared itself a participant in the National
• Flood Insurance program and thus offers affordable in-
surance to affected residents and businesses . The City
is represented by the Santa Ana Watershed Project
Authority through the Orange County Water District, which
is a member of SAWPA. The City supports the Agency's
effort to solve the urban flood problem in Orange County
• as well as the Orange County Flood Control District and
Corps of Engineers improvement projects.
2 . 2 . 9 .4 Tsunamis
• The Tsunami hazard, that danger from tidal waves which is
often generated by earthquakes, is considered to be very
low for the higher elevations, Bolsa Chica Mesa and
Huntington Beach Mesa of Huntington Beach. The rest
of the Coastal zone has a low-to-moderate tsunamic hazard
• depending on tidal conditions (see Figure 2-6) . If
flood tide and a tsunamic warning are coincident,
evacuation of beaches and low coastal areas is recommended.
Warning of a tsunami is expected because the most likely
origination would be a distant earthquake which would take
time to arrive. Geotechnical Inputs by Huntington Beach
• Planning Department, February 1974 explains this
relationship and the warning system.
The tsunamic probability does not appear high enough to
prevent continued use of the coastal areas in manners
consistent with Coastal Act policies.
•
25
•
R
MCFADOEN
BOLSA
V'
...-... VEIL Gq
S
VWNRWM
E
SLATER
fumD
.......:............:........:::.: ....... .__ . .._.......... Bus
::.:::::::::..::.;:::.:........ -� .:..... GAiF1El0
ADAAU
WRICTOWN
Y:
- INDIANAPOLIS
J�
ATLANTA •
b
Jpp III`
3 HAMLTON
N
:�'•:,.•.;�"� _ BANNING
Source Fedkra) kwuronc* Achrehd hnfion Auk. 27,1976 •
Figure 2-5
:a SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREAS.
huntington beach planning department
26
•
a
_ F
�.04•
E
�•••• •• • L••••••• L '�
•r.•• • • • •.L• LY
.. � r .ter .r i}i r.•rf{Lr� r•{::.•}' '}•.r
f �
r
r
L • L.
•:fib•:,, ��.. .
•i'• }•:•:;y'L.-ti; 1111..�A..TT1 L• •• •1• xuuron
Low Hazard ••�rfL'' :}.
{r}fr?f Low to Moderate Hazard
•
Figure 2-6
• TSUNAMI HAZARD AREAS
huntington beach planning department
27
•
•
2 .2 .5.5 Erosion
•
A problem in many beach areas is the eroding away of beach
sand by water and wind, so that the beach is reduced as a
recreational facility. The Huntington Beach `:City and
State beaches are fortunate in that erosion is seasonal and
the beach that is lost during the winter season is replaced
by additional sand at other seasons. In fact, the beaches •
may have experienced more growth than erosion from water
action over the long run. The wind in the winter, however,
does tend to carry loose sand inland and over Pacific
Coast Highway. The Department of Harbors and Beaches uses
plastic snow fencing to retard this blowing sand through
the winter months, removing it in June when it is not so
necessary.
2 .2 . 9. 6 Land Subsidence
The Coastal Act Section 30253 requires new development •
to minimize risks in areas of high geologic hazard and
assure stability and structural integrity of sites with
particular attention to bluffs and cliffs.
Land subsidence may cause problems to structures, •
drainage channels, sewers, pipelines and water storage
reservoirs. Groundwater withdrawal, oil and gas with-
drawal, hydrocompaction and peat oxidation are known
causes of subsidence. One area of Huntington Beach has
experienced some subsidence, as much as 5.1 feet from
1925 to 1965. Though within a district of oil and gas •
production, the pattern is complex and does not appear
to be directly related to oilfield operations. Ground-
water removal and tectonic movement are two possible
causes. Inland from the coast, scattered areas of sub-
sidence have been explained as oxidation of peat layers
caused by lower groundwater levels.
The danger from land subsidence due to groundwater with-
drawal has been mitigated by the OCWD Coastal Water
Project which injects highly treated wastewater from the
Water Factory 21 into the underground water table. Its
main purpose is to prevent further saltwater intrusion •
with an injected freshwater barrier. In conjunction with
aquifer recharge upstream in the Santa Ana River, the
groundwater quantity as well as quality is improved.
Little additional subsidence is expected from oxidation
of peat deposits. Subsidence problems in Huntington Beach •
are minor in relation to other potential hazards and do
not appear to pose any serious economic or safety distress.
28
•
•
2 .2 . 9 . 7 Hazard Issues
The major hazard problem is concerned with the serious
damage that a flood disaster would bring to the area
on a local government scale. The City should investigate
• the types of regulations and controls necessary to protect
development occurring in these hazard areas and continue
to participate in long-term improvement projects to
prevent disasters.
• 2 ,2 ,10 Forestry and Soils Resources '
The Coastal Act S.30243 requires the protection of soils and timber-
land for the long-term. Dividing commercial timberlands into units
of non-commercial size is limited to necessary timber processing
and related facilities,
•
Huntington Beach has no commercial forests within its coastal area
or other parts of the City, thus it has no timber resources to pro-
tect from depletion practices or exploitation.
The productivity of soils in the Huntington Beach coastal area ar.e
• poor because of the salt marsh along the coastline. Certain species
of plants for landscaping purpose grow productively here, but
commercial raising of nursery stocks are found in other areas than
the coastal area.
• As with agriculture, forestry and soils. productivity do not appear
to be issues i'n Huntington Beach. With their non-applicability in
this area, . the General Plan does not cover their preservation.
2 . 2 .11 Locating and Planning New Development
•
Sections 30244, 30250, 30252 and 30253 (3) and (4) contain the
Coastal Act policies regarding development within the coastal zone.
In summary these sections require that mitigation measures be pro-
vided for development affecting archeological and paleontological
resources, the location of new development in or near existing
• development centers, limiting land divisions outside developed areas;
maintaining access to the coast by providing better non-auto transit
and parking opportunities, and that new development be related to
providing adequate local on site recreation facilities.
Certain lands within the coastal -zone of -Huntirigori-Beach may be
subject to the public trust, thus development proposals may_need--
coordination with the State Lands Commission to assure that
public trust conditions are assured.
29
•
The coastal zone of Huntington Beach is an urban area that is cur-
rently infilling the remaining vacant parcels and recycling older •
existing uses. Much of the vacant land is in large tracts that are
held by a single ownership and as such are significant issue areas
(See figure 2-7) .
2 . 2 . 11. 1 Seacliff
•
The first of these areas is the Seacliff Planned Community.
This area is located between Goldenwest Street and the
Bolsa Chica. The total site is 433 acres of which approxi-
mately half is within the coastal zone. The area is
general planned as "Planned Community" which is intended •
to provide for '.the comprehensive, coordinated planning of
an identifiable area of land so as to take advantage of
the benefits of large scale community planning. Develop-
ment is required to take place in minimum fifty (50) acre
increments. No maximum densities are -designated. The
zoning reflects a mixture of low,. medium and high density
residential uses which carry "O" suffixes to reflect the
existence of the continued oil extraction in the area.
Preliminary plans for a portion of this area have been
submitted to the City that reflect clustering of the units
and large areas of open space. The applicable zoning
regulations and review process appear adequate to insure •
that the development occurs in a manner consistent with
Coastal Act policies. Since a golf course and tennis -
facilities already exist, as well as public recreation
facilities in the area there will be significantly
reduced demand for the beach as a local recreation
facility. The proposed bluff line regional park would
require acquisition of a portion of this area. Utilities
and streets extend into portions of the area but will
require expansion.
The issues concerning this area are the location of the •
varying densities of residential, circulation, the
integration of existing long term oil facilities, and
siting to preserve and provide access to vistas and maxi-
mize on-site open space. The latter issue becomes
especially critical if bluff line regional park is not
pursued by the County of Orange. An additional issue is •
the impact of any expansion of the oil production area
along Pacific Coast Highway in response to off-shore oil
development. The landfall for the existing off shore wells
is in this area. It is possible that this area of the
coastal zone could require significant expansion of its
off shore oil processing and transportation facilities. •
Such a major expansion would significantly affect the
Seacliff planned community.
30 .04001
•
•
• .4Y�1
Recr. Open Space
• Seacliff
Planned Community %
Zone
*2.2.11.1
Oil
Production
• Existing Planned / • •�•
Community
Oceanfront /
Residential Caltrans Pro ert
* --VT-2P. y
Downtown
• *2.2.11.4 Lake to
Newland
*2.2.11.3 ■ w..a
So. Calif. Edison
• *Refers to section on Policy Group Evaluation
Figure 2-7
• NEW DEVELOPMENT ISSUE AREAS
huntington beach planning department
•
31
2. 2 .11:- Ocean Front Residential
This area extends from Goldenwest Street to Sixth Street
and includes only the inland blocks adjacent to Pacific
Coast Highway. This area consists of small 25 ' x 117 . 5 '
lots, with a diverse ownership pattern. Existing uses
are commercial but most of the area is vacant. Some of the •
area also has, oil wells located on it. The area is within
the City's revised redevelopment area boundaries. Zoning
on the parcels is a combination of . C-3 and R-4 . ' The
City's General Plan designates the area for high density
residential development. The City's desire in this area
is to discourage the 4-plex type development that exists •
elsewhere in the Townlot area. Instead it is felt that
nodes of higher intensity residential, perhaps some
multi-story development, is more appropriate. Lot con-
solidation will be necessary.
The issues therefore are: •
(1) How can the necessary lot consolidation occur under
redevelopment or without redevelopment?
(2) What intensities of residential development should
occur in the development nodes? •
(3) Where should those nodes be located?
The LCP and Downtown Redevelopment Project will be closely
related in this area.
•
2 . 2 .11. 3 Lake Street to Newland Street
The City' s General Plan reflects a desire to allow a
variety of alternative land uses. The area is designated
medium and high density residential and mixed development.
These land uses reflect the City's 1976 redevelopment •
effort which is as previously indicated being revised at
this time. While visitor serving and recreation
facilities would be allowed in the mixed development area,
residential would also. The pressure for residential
development at this location could intensify, especially •
if the residential project at Beach and Atlanta is
completed.
The Caltrans properties on both sides of Beach Boulevard
are also subject to the same pressures. They are currently a
general planned a planning reserve pending its disposition
by Caltrans. •
32 - At2tk
•
•
• The LCP should carefully examine the demand for recreation
and visitor serving or other uses at these locations to
determine the extent to which these types of uses are
economically viable. Implementation vehicles that give
priority to visitor serving facilities over residential uses
may be required. The integration of the ultimate uses
• with the beach, existing visitor serving and commercial
facilities, and the surrounding residential will also be
important.
.2.11.4 . Downtown Huntington Beach
• This area is recycling and the subject of a significant
redevelopment planning effort that has been discussed in
previous sections. Again the area contains a large number
of small lots with diverse ownerships . The City' s General
Plan dcoi%nates the area for mixed commercial development . '
It is zoned for commercial uses. The six blocks adjacent to
the pier have been considered prime for a specialty com-
mercial center with tourist oriented shops, restaurants
and other amenities. Close coordination between the LCP
and the City' s redevelopment effort are necessary.
The issues that need to be addressed are:
•
(1) The extent and nature of the specialty commercial
development.
(2) The manner in which these visitor serving facilities
• are integrated with the pier and beach-areas.
(3) Should redevelopment for the area not be approved,
what methods can best be employed to achieve the
desired land use plan.
•
2 . 2.11. 5 Archaeological and Paleontological Resources
The City has identified all known archaeological and
paleontological resources in Huntington Beach. If any
development occurs on a parcel_ containing one of the sites
• a Use Permit is required according to the City's zoning
ordinance. The project is then conditioned to allow
inspection of the site, and its excavation if warranted.
This procedure will implement Coastal Act policies.
J
•
•
PHASE II
COASTAL ELEMENT PREPARATION •
LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS
July 1, 1978 - March 30, 1979
PERSONNEL
Hourly Hours/ No. of Pay
Position Rate Week. Periods Total
Assistant Planning 15. 30 2. 18 $ 1,432.08 •
Director
Coastal Planner III 9. 98 40 18 18,682. 56
(Associate
Planner)
•
Coastal Planner I 7. 68 40 18 14 ,376.96
(Planning Aide)
Draftsman 7. 91 20 18 7,403. 76
Clerk Typist 5. 18 13. 2 18 3,199 .99 •
Subtotal $45,095 . 35
OPERATING EXPENSES (9 Mos)
•
Telephone $60/month X 9 $ 540
Office $90/month X 9 810
Duplicating $60/month X 9 540
•
Subtotal $1, 890
Total Costs $46 ,985. 35
1Does not include employee benefits but does reflect probable
7% cost of living increase July 1, 1978 •
2Reflects employee benefits at 30% of salary
•
86 � Figure 7-3
•
7. 2 Funding Sources
There are several sources anticipated to provide the funding required
for this Local Coastal Program. The California Office of Planning
and Research (OPR) administers federal Coastal Zone Management Act
• (CZMA) funds and will enter into a contract with the City to fund
the eligible portions of this work program of the LCP. The Regional
and State Coastal Commission review determines that eligibility
of the tasks for funding. State funds match by 20 . percent the total
CZMA federal funds available. to all coastal jurisdictions in the
State. These OPR managed funds are expected to be the primary source
for our LCP requirements.
A source of support for a part of the LCP may be the Coastal Energy
Impact Program (CEIP) . These federal funds are available to coastal
states in the form of grants, loans and loan guarantees. This
program will be administered by OPR in conjunction with the California
Coastal Commission and the federal Office of Coastal Zone Management.
The purpose of the financial assistance is to address the adverse
impacts of coastal energy facility development. Funds may be used
to prepare plans, protect or restore natural areas and construct
public facilities. Since the Issue Identification of this Work Pro-
gram has cited oil facility expansion due to offshore development and
• expansion of the Edison power plant as coastal issues, CEIP funding
for the energy-related portion of the LCP planning appears applicable. :
If this part of the LCP is approved for funding allocation under
CEIP, the total LCP funding requirement from OPR/CZMA funds will be
reduced by that amount. The six-months period scheduled for the
energy planning portion of the LCP can be costed at $8 , 729 . 76, which.
is one Coastal Planner for six months (12 pay periods) : This would
reduce the total remaining funding requirement for the October ' 77
to June ' 78 period to $34, 254. 70 .
Another possible source of funds is under SB. 90, Section 2231 of the
Revenue and Taxation Code. This section authorizes local agencies
to be reimbursed for programs mandated under State laws. SB 90 will
apply only if federal grant funds are not sufficient to cover all
non-optional activity costs of the local .government. A memorandum
of understanding (MOU) from the Coastal Commission at the time .of
Work Program review will indicate recommendation of approval of. the
local government' s claim for SB 90 funds.
•
J87
0
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• appendix A:
application
RLSOLU`i'ION NO. 45112
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
HUNTINGTON BEACH APPROVING APPLICATION FOR COASTAL
ZONE MANAGEMENT GRANT FUNDS AND COASTAL ENERGY
IMPACT PROGRAM FUNDS FOR PREPARATION OF LOCAL
COASTAL PROGRAM
• WHEREAS, the City of Huntington Beach, recognizing the
problems and issues identified in the applications for Coastal
Zone Management Grant , desires to provide for a planning study
contributing to improved coastal planning, decision-making, and
•
management capability related to community development and
growth ; and
The City of Huntington Beach has developed an application
package to deal with these development problems and issues; and
the California _State Office of Planning and Research, under
authority of the California Government Code (Section 34200) , may
provide planning assistance for such a prof;ram and rece_i.vr
financial assistance from the California Coastal Commission as
authorized by inter-agency agreement ,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the
City of Huntington Beach hereby requests the Office of Planning
and Research to provide planning assistance under authority of the
California Government Code , with such financial assistance as may
be provided by the California Coastal Commission, not to exceed
Eighty-nine Thousand Nine Hundred Sixty-nine and 81/100 Dollars
' ($89 ,969 . 81) , and such grant funds that maybe made available to
the City of Huntington Beach under the provisions of the Coastal
Energy Impact Program. Such planning assistance is more particu-
larly described in the project description attached hereto and
made part of this resolution.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Administrator of the
City of Huntington Beach is hereby authorized and directed to
execute all necessary applications , contracts and agreements , and
any amendments thereto , in order to implement and carry out . the
purposes specified in this resolution .
MT: cs
•
91
t'AJJL' U AND AUUY'iTU Uy the Ulty Uouncii of une u2.uy or .
Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the •
day of 1977 .
ATTEST :
Mayor •
City Clerk
REVIEWED AND APPROVED : APPROVE AS To FOHM :
City Administrator Ci - Aitorr y
1 h��
•
I14ITIATED AND- APPROVED
AS TO FORM:
1—
-nEnning irec or •
Res. No.
s'l'A'rE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANG17 ) ss
CITY OF HUNfINGTON BEAC11 )
I, ALICIA M. WENTWORTII; the duly elected, qualified City
Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the
City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of •
members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven;
that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the affirmative
vote of more than a majority of all the members of said City Council
f
at a regular meeting thereof held on the day •
of 19 , .by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmen:
NOES: Councilmen:
ABSENT: Councilmen: •
City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk •
of the City Council of the City
r
of Huntington Beach, California
LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM
APPLICATION FOR FUNDING
TOTAL WORK PROGRAM
Name of Applicant: City of Huntington Beach
Project Director: Edward D. Selich Title: Planning Director
Address: P.O. Box 190, Huntington Beach Phone: 536-5271
Fiscal Officer: Frank B. Arguello Title: Finance Director
Address: P.O. Box 190, Huntington Beach Phone: 536-5236
District(s)
Congressional: 34, 3 8 , 4 0 State Senate: 36 State Assembly: 71, 73
Months Required to Complete Total Work Program: 18 Mo. for Phase II
Phase II
Total Cost of Program: $ 8 9 , 9 6 9 .81 OPR USE ONLY
Grant Requested $42, 984 .46 for Date Received:
. Grant Period FY - 10/77 to .6/30/78 (OPR)
Assigned To:
(Commission)
0 1. Resolution authorizing grant application
i 2. Application form
0 3. Total Work Program
0 4. Work Program Schedule (First and subsequent years)
5. Products and other Milestones Description
® 6. Budget
IX 7. Statement of Assurances
0 8. Clearinghouse Form (Submit CA 189 or 424 to Area Clearinghouse and
copy of form to OPR for submission to State Clearinghouse. Transmit
verification of clearinghouse review when complete.)
Submit two (2) copies of completed application to OPR. Submit one
copy each to the regional and .state commission offices.
•
Authorized Official Signature Date
Floyd G. Belsito
Title
City Administrator
93
i
LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM)
FIRST YEAR WORK PROGRAM SCHEDULE
Name of Applicant: City of Huntington Beach . Project year
From Oct ,1977 to June 30 1978
Program Subcategory Memo Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar April May June
Reference No. & Title Date
3.1 Administration
3.2.1 Shoreline Access
3.2.2 Rec. & Visitor 3/31/78
Serving
3.2.3 Housing 3/31/78
3.2.4 Water & Marine Res 4/28/78
3.2.5 Diking, Dredging, 1/27/78
Filling
3.2.6 Recreational 1/27/78
Boating
3.2.7 Habitat Areas 1/6/78
3.2.8 Hazard Areas 1/6/7
3.2.9 New Development 3/31/78 LM
3.2.10 Visual Resources 3/31/78
3.2.11 Public Works - 2/23/7
3.2.12 Ind. & Energy Fac 6/30/78
3.3 Coastal Element 12/20/7
Prep. t
t
4.0 Intergovt. Coord.
5.0 Citizen Partici- mmmo =moo
pation '
1
*Ref. numbers refer to e sect' n of theWork P am w re the sk is scribed
t
Iry
Page of 2 °1
Name of Applicant City of Huntington Beach WORK PROGRAM SCHEDULE
Date October 17 , 1977 SUBSEQUENT YEARS
REF. 178 FY 1978/79 179 FY 1979/80 FY 1980/
NO. SUBCATEGORY JAS —QUARTER JFM AMT QUARTER QUARTER
t 2nd 1 3rd 4th 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 1st 2nd
3.1 Administration
Paae 2 of
cc
Q�
L
7
Q�
N--
•r
i
Gr
U
a
0
3.3 Coastal Element Prep.
3.4 Phase III Work Programs m
Prep. o
4.0 Intergoverna ental L
Coordination
em
5.0 Citizen Participation
LA
6.1 Local Public Hearings
6.2 Coastal Carmission
Public Hearing
v
w �
N J
E
LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM
PRODUCT AND MILESTONE DESCRIPTION.
Product/
Subcategory Milestone Due How Milestone Accomplishment
# from Work Date Description Will Be Measured
3.2.1 Shorel e Access 11/11/7 Metro to C.C. - Results of Study Task Work Elements Completed?
2.3.11 Public Works 12/9/77 Mere to C.C. - Results of Study Task Work Elements Completed?
3.2.7 Habitat Areas 1/6/7fr7 Memo to C.C. - Results of Study Task Work Elements Completed?
3.2.8 Hazard Areas 1/6/78 Marro to C.C. - Results of Study Task Work Elements Completed?
*Progress Report #1 1/6/78 Report of completions or schedule
delays, citizen participation, Is work progressing as scheduled or sched-
3.2.5 Diking Dredging, etc. ule revised?
Fillip 1/27/78 Mara to C.C. - Results of Study Task Work Elements Completed?
3.2.6 Recrea ional Boat-
ing 1/27/78 Marro to C.C. - Results of Study Task Work Elements Completed?
3.2.2 Recreation and Visi-
tor Serving 3/31/78 Mara to C.C. - Results of Study Task Work Elements Completed?
3.2.3 'Housing 3/31/78 Memo to C.C. - Results of Study Task Work Elements Completed?
3.2.10 Visual Resources 3/31/78 Memo to C.C. - Results of Study Task Work Elements Completed?
*Progress Report #2 3/31/78 Report of completions or schedule
delays, citizen participation, Is work progressing as scheduled or sched-
etc. ule revised?
3.2.4 Water & Marine Re-
sour 4/28/78 Mann to C.C. - Results of Study Task Work Elements Completed?
3.2.9 New Derelopment 4/28/78 Metro to C.C. - Results of Study Task Work Elements Completed?
3.2.12 Ind. & Energy Fac. 6/30/78 Memo to C.C. - Results of Study Task Work Elements Completed?
*Progres5 Report #3 6/30/78 Report of completions or schedule
delays, citizen participation, Is work progressing as scheduled or sched-
etc. ule revised?
*Progres Report #4 9/29/78 Report of completions or schedule
delays, citizen participation, Is work progressing as scheduled or sched-
etc. ule revised?
rn
LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM
PRODUCT AND MILESTONE DESCRIPTION
Product/
Subcategory Milestone Due How Milestone Accomplishment
from Work Date Description Will Be Measured
3.3 Coas 1 Element
Prepa ation 12/29/7 Coastal Element Draft Does Draft include all policy group areas?
3.4 Phase III - Work
Progr Preparation 12/29/7E Work Program & Grant Application Work Program and Grant Application Submitted
*Progress Report #5 12/29/7 Report of completion or schedule
delays, citizen participation, etc. Is work progressing as scheduled or sched-
ule revised?
3.3 Coastdl Element
Preparation 2/16/79 Approved Coastal Element Coastal Element completely processed and
approved?
Completion Report 3/30/79 Summary, Evaluation, Expenditures,
Citizen Participation, List of
Documents fran WP Phase II. Are all tasks completed and summarized?
* Payment requests keyed to these -of-quarter reports.
,)tatemenc of Assurances I oral
•
STATEMENT OF ASSURANCES
The Applicant hereby assures and certifies that he will comply with the regula-
tions, policies, guidelines, and requiremments including OMB Circulars Nos. 74-4.
A-95, and 74-7, as they relate to the application, acceptance and use of federal
funds for this federally assisted project. Also, the Applicant assures and cer-
tifies with respect to the grant that:
1. It possesses legal authority to apply for the grant; that a resolution, motion
or similar action has been duly adopted or passed as an official act of the
applicant's governing body, authorizing the filing of the application, includ- •
ing all understandings and assurances contained therein, and directing and
authorizing the person identified as the official representative of the appli-
cant to act in connection with the application and to provide such additional
information as may be required.
2. It will comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (P.L. 88-352)
•
and in accordance with Title VI of that Act, no person in the United 'States
shall , on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from
participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to
discrimination under any program or activity for which the applicant receives
federal financial assistance and will immediately take any measures neces- •
sary to effectuate this agreement.
3. It will comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 USC 2000d)
prohibiting employment discrimination where, (1 ) the primary purpose of a
grant is to provide employment or, (2) discriminatory employment practices
will result in unequal treatment of persons who are or should be benefiting •
from the grant-aided activity.
4. It will comply with requirements of the provisions of the Uniform Relocation
Assistance and Real Property Acquisitions Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-646) which
provides for fair and equitable treatment of persons displaced as a result
of federal and federally assisted programs. •
5. It will comply with the provision of the Hatch Act which limits the poli-
tical activity of employees.
6. It will comply with the minimum wage and maximum hours provisions of the
Federal Fair Labor Standards Act, .as they apply to hospital and educational •
institution employees of State and local governments.
7. It will establish safeguards to prohibit employees from using their posi-
tions for a purpose that is or gives the appearance of being motivated by
a desire for private gain for themselves or others, particularly those with
whom they have family, business, or other ties.
8. . . It will give the grantor agency or the Comptroller General , through any
authorized representative, the access to and the right to examine all records,
books, papers, or documents related to the grant.
9. It will comply with all requirements imposed by the federal grantor agency •
concerning special requirements of law, program requirements, and other admi-
nistrative requirements approved in accordance with Office of Management
and Budget Circular No. 74-7.
Signature of Applicant
98
•
LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM
BUDGET ALLOCATION
•
Grant Applicant: City of Huntington Beach
Address: P.O. Box 190
•
Huntington Beach, California
Project Title: Local Coastal Program, Phase II
Grant Amount Requested: $ 89 , 969 .81
•
Current Grant
Request
FY 7 7-7 8 Total LCP Budget
(Phase II)
Personal Services:
Salaries and wages $ 28,766412
Benefits $ 12.,328 .34
Total Personal Services $ 41, 094 . 46 86,189 .81
Operating Expenses: $
Travel $
Professional and Consultant Services $
Other(Office, Telephone, Printing) $ 1,89u .t
Indirect Charges. (see over) $
Total Operating Expenses $ 1, 890 . 00 3 ,780 .00
Total Budget $ 42, 9 8 4 .4 6 * 89, 969 .81
*Must agree with Grant Amount Requested
**Includes grant request and sum of grants
received or proposed for Total Work Program,
excluding Initial Phase and Phase III
•
7/77
99
•
•
Indirect costs are described in Section F of Federal Management Circular
74-7 and the Grants Management Manual prepared by the Coastal Commission.
Grantees must calculate indirect costs according to an Indirect Cost
Allocation Plan which has been submitted to a cognizant federal agency
or the State Controller. Grantees wishing to establish such plans should
request explanatory materials from OPR. •
If indirect costs are shown on the Local Coastal Program budget, the
following must be completed by the grantee's designated fiscal officer.
i
CERTIFICATION
I, , hereby certify that the
Name of Fiscal Officer
indirect costs identified above are consistent with the Indirect Cost
•
Allocation Plan, for ,
Name of Jurisdiction
which has been submitted to the cognizant federal lead agency "or" the State
Controller. Information documenting submission of Indirect Cost Allocation •"
Plans and methods of calculation for departmental Indirect Cost Rate
Proposals will be made available "upon the request of OPR or its"designees.
•
Signature of Fiscal Officer
•
•
r
•
•
100
Do not type to the left of dotted line. CA-1L
• FEDERAL GRANT APPLICATION/AWARD NOTIFICATION 1 APPLICATION DATE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE (916) 445-0613 ^7�y''r77 Mo day .
ITELAS 1"31 TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT" 1927 10 1/
3.APPLICANT -Organizational Unit 4.ADDRESS -Street or P.O. Box 2 FEDERAL EMPLOYER ID NC
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACII P.O. Box 190 95-6000-732W
5.CIT71Y 6.COUNTY ?.STATE 8.ZIP CODE 9.PROG TITLE/NO.(Catalog of Fod Domostic Assistanc(
Huntington Beach Orange CA 92648 lCoastal Zone Mgmt. Program 11.418
10.TY N E OF ACTION TYPE OF CHANGE (Complete if 10b or 10c was checked) 14,EXISTING FED GRANT
� 11. 12. 13.
;a®New c ❑ Modification a ❑Increased Dollars a ❑Increased Duration • ❑Other Scopa Ch-V
;b❑Contlnuatinn b ❑Decreased Dollars b ❑Decreased Duration b ❑Cancellation
yr mo 19.APPLICANT TYPE FUNDS REOUESTED(For Changes Show Only Amtof Inc.1+1or Dec.1
Enter Le ter E
15. RE¢UESTED FUND START 19 '�'� 10_- A. State F. School Districtt 20.FEDERAL ( )$ A
• 16.FUNDS DURATION 18(Months) B. Interstate G. Community Action Agency 21.STATE If )$
yr mo C. Sub State Dist H. Sponsored Organization 22.LOCAL r )$ �
17, ES1.PROJECT START 19 77 10 D. County I. Indian 23.OTHER r -)$ A
18. ESt.PROJECT DURATION 18 (Months) I E. City J. Other(Specify In Remarks)2a. TOTAL(20,41,22,231 f 1$89,969.81 A
25.BRIEF TITLE OF
APPLICANT'S PROJECT LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM
• 26. DEFCRIPTION OF APPLICANT'S PROJECT (Purpose)
; AS DESCRIBED IN WORK PROGRAM, RESEARCH, ANALYSIS, AND "PREPARATION OF COASTAL F7 = TO
� CITY'S GENERAL PLAN/LAND USE PLAN THAT CONFORMS TO REQUIREMENTS OF CALIFORNIA COASTAL
: ACT OF 1976.
• 27.AR€A OF PROJECT IMPACT (Indicate City,County,State,etc.) MU LT
: City (Coastal Zone) yyIDE WIDE, CO UN
❑ ® - c
No 28.CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT 29. Environmental Assessment Required 30.CLEARINGHOUSE(S) TO WHICH SUBMITTED
OS Applicant Districts Impacted By Project By State/Federal Agency? ❑Yes nitial Study - SCH #77052 390
34�38/40] [34, 38, 40+ N No a®State b EgArea Wide c❑None
31.a NPME/TITLE OF CONTACT PERSON b ADDRESS -Street or P.0.Box c TELEPHONE NO.
• E. S�lich, Planning Dept. Director P.O. Box 190, Huntington Beach CA 92648 (714)536-5271
31.d I�ENVnONMENTAL DOCUMENT REVIEW REQUIRED YES El NO M e Will the project require h If project is physical in nature or requires a
If Yes LJ Environmental Impact Statement (Report)Attached 120 copies) relocation? environmental document,list the U.S.
❑ Draft E I R ❑ Final EIR YES ❑ NO M Geologic Survey Quadrangle map in which
® f Does your ahts gency have a project Is located
Negative Declaration Attached (20 copies) i
tive
None attached-Document Will Be Forwarded On civil ni policy
plan
action policy and plan?
Approximately YES IRI NO FI Seal Beach Quadrangle an6
Mon Day Year g Is pprroLLact covered by
If No ® Federal Program Does Not Require An Environmental Document A-95,Pt IV?
Project Exempt Under State Categorical Exemption,Class YES [[''), NO ® Newport .Beach.: Quadrangle
Ex t r 21102 CEQA & S. 15072 CEQA GEE Feline If yes,is CA executed?
® �1P Ps=.- YES .❑ NO ❑
ITEMS 32.38 TO BE COMPLETED BY CLEARINGHOUSE
ULTIPLE
32.CLEARINGHOUSE ID ❑CLEARINGHOUSE
33. a ICTION BASED ON 33. b ACTION TAKEN
EVIEW OF STATE APPLICATION
�0Notification a ❑With Comment c ❑Waived 34' IDENTIFIER (SAI) C A -_t.-_LL1__ 1_ .1.. l
bE]Application b ❑Without Comment d ❑Unfavorable ! State Number
STATE WIDE County/ City County/ City County/ City County/ City County/ City County/ City
1, 35.CLFARINGHOUSE Ping Area Ping Area Ping Area Ping Area Ping Area Ping Area
T IMPACT CODE a Yes� No I
i
30.STTE PLAN REQUIRED 37. RECEIVING DATE vN no clay 38�� :NA AT CLEARINGHOUSE 19 _ a SIGNATURE OF CH OFFICIAL
❑ Yes No 38. FINAL CH ACTION DATE yr mo day
19_
[� ER ITEMS 39-42 TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT BEFORE SENDING FORM TO FEDERAL AGENCY
r- 39.CERTIFICATION - The applicant certifies that to the best of his knowledge and belief the above data are true and Check box if clearinghouse
correct and filing of this form has been duly authorized by the governing body of the applicant. response is attached. Li
40.a NAME (Print or Type) b TITLE c SIGNATURE of Authorized Representative d TELEPHONE NUMBER
r � Flo G. Belsito it Administrator1 (714)536-5201
1 41. DATE MAILED TO FEDERAL ISTATE AGENCY yr mo day 42.NAME OF FEDERAL / STATE AGENCY Calif. .Coastal
3 1977 10 18 omm sssion"&"� ice o o�Iuann`i�iE and Research
ITEMS 43-54 TO BE COMPLETED BY FEDERAL OFFICE EVALUATING AND RECOMMENDING ACTION ON THE AP(1LICi,T1ON
43. GFIANT APPLICATION ID 52. Application Rec'd. 53.a Exo. Acow, -n,,Ic 5J.It W. I I.. "I"".
;(Assigned by Federal Agency)
yr mo day yr gnu cl•Nv Always Complete v,
53.a OR b
44. G NANTOR kGENCY 19 19 lu
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
CITY COUNCIL
Ronald R. Pattinson, Mayor
Ron Shenkman, Mayor Pro Tem
Ted W. Bartlett
Alvin M. Coen
Norma Brandel Gibbs
• Richard W. Siebert
Harriett M. Wieder
Floyd G. Belsito, City Administrator
PLANNING COMMISSION
Roger D. Slates, Chairman
Prim Shea, Vice-Chairman
Ruth Finley
Charles T. Gibson
Frank V. Hoffman
Susan D. Newman
John Stern
Edward D. Selich, Secretary
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
PARTICIPATING STAFF
Edward D. Selich . . . . . . Planning Director
Monica Florian . . . . . . . Assistant Planning
Director
Bryan Austin . . . . . . . . Associate Planner
Mary Lynn Norby . . . . . . Planning Aide
George Ermin . . . . . Planning Draftsman
Bob Sigmon . . . . . . . . . Planning Draftsman
June Allen . . . . . . . . . Administrative Sec-
retary
Gisela Campagne . . . . . . Secretary
Doris Ferguson . . . . . . . Secretary
Susan Pierce . . . . . . . . Secretary-Typist
1^:?
CITY OF HUNT NGTON BEAC
INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION
HUNTINGTON BEACH
To Charles W. Thompson r James W. Palin, Director
City Administrator 412 Development Services
Subject CHANGES TO COASTAL ZONING Date March 23, 1984
Development Services staff have met with Coastal Commission staff to
try to work out a compromise for what would be acceptable language for
suggested modifications to the City' s Coastal Zoning package . Most of
the concerns have been addressed. However, there are a few points that
remain to be resolved, including the following:
1 . Language for allowing some improvements ,to flood control structures
in wetlands which would not impact the wetland.
2 . The requirement for a 25 foot lateral accessway where access is
required on waterfront parcels .
3. Whether or not a release of liability must be obtained by the City
for projects in identified hazard areas .
4. The height of permitted parking decks on the ocean side of P. C .H.
The other points proposed by the Commission staff as suggested modifica-
tions which the Commission could adopt are primarily the inclusion of
policy language from the City 's Coastal Element or from the Coastal Act
itself. Since the Element has already been adopted by the City, and the
Act is State law, staff does not oppose making these additions .
The largest number of changes are being proposed for the Coastal Zone
Suffix, which covers all property in -the - Coastal Zone except for the
Downtown Specific Plan area. Due to staff shortages at the Commission,
this ordinance was not reviewed prior to adoption by the City ; therefore
we did not have the benefit of the Coastal staff input early in the process .
The proposed modifications are detailed in the attached pages by zoning
district . Please distribute this information to the City Council .
JWP:JAF :sr
Attachments —
3/a,qyj
3
� 1Yy i�
' lb b� �
dam' �
CZ DISTRICT
]. . Add to Section 969 . 9 . 7 Parking Requirements :
If any existing oceanside or onstreet parking is removed it
shall be replaced on a one for one basis in an area that would
not result in the loss of any sandy beach area and within walking
distance of the existing site. Replacement parking shall be
assured prior to the issuance of the coastal development permit.
2 . Add to Section 969 . 9. 4 General Provisions :
(F) Diking, Dredging and Filling. Diking, dredging or
filling shall be permitted only where there is no feasible less
environmentally damaging alternative and where feasible mitigation
measures have been provided and shall be subject to provisions of
Article 969 . 7 Sections 969 . 7 . 1 , 969 . 7 . 5 , 969. 7 . 6 , 969. 7 .7 (Coastal
Conservation District
3 . Add to Secttion 969 . 9. 4 General Provisions :
(G) Buffer Requirements. As a condition of development
adjacent to environmentally sensitive habitats, buffers shall be
required as follows
(a) A minimum 200 foot buffer from the landward edge of the
habitat shall be required within the development area . If the
existing development or site configuration precludes a 100 foot
buffer then the buffer shall be established pursuant to Section (c)
and shall be reviewed by the State Department of Fish and Game .
(b) In cases of high intensity development a wider buffer
may be required pursuant to Section (c) .
(c) Buffers shall be established according to the following
standards :
Biological Significance of Adjacent Lands . The buffer should
be sufficiently wide to protect the functional relationship between
wetland and adjacent upland.
Sensitivity of Species to Disturbance. The buffer should be
sufficiently wide to ensure that the most sensitive species will
not be disturbed significantly by permitted development, based on
habitat requirements . of both resident and migratory species and—
the -short- and long-term adaptability of various species to human
disturbance.
Susceptibility .of Parcel to Erosion. The buffer should be
sufficiently wide to allow for interception of any additional
material eroded as a result of the proposed development based on
soiland vegetative characteristics, slope and runoff character
istics, and impervious surface coverage.
Use of Existing Cultural Features to Locate Buffer Zones.
Where feasible, development should be located on .the side of
roads , dikes, irrigation canals , flood control channels , etc . ,
away from the environmentally sensitive habitat area. -:
4 . Change Section 969 . 9 . 5 Residenti:_.91 Density Limitations :
(D) High Density. May be developed at a density }s-emeess
ef-twenty-five-425} not to exceed 35 dwelling units per gross
acre of land.
5 . Add to 969 . 9 . 0 Purpose :
The purpose of the Coastal Zone Suffix (CZ) is to provide
supplementary regulations and specified permitted uses for those
areas in the City of Huntington Beach which lie within the Coastal
Zone as it now exists or may hereinafter be amended, and as such
require special consideration to assure that they are developed in
a manner that will implement the California Coastal Act of 1976
(Division 20 of the Public Resources Code) and be in accord with
the policies set forth in the Coastal Element of the Huntington
Beach General Plan.
6 . Add Section 969 . 9 . 9 Permitted Uses within Land Use Designations :
Notwithstanding any provisions of the base district, .parcels
bearing the CZ Suffix within the following land use designations
shall be limited to the following uses :
A. Recreation - excluding the beaches oceanward of Pacific Coast
(.l) Permitted uses shall be :
beaches , parking lots , concessions, campgrounds, parks ,
picnic grounds , golf courses , racquet, boating and swim clubs ,
athletic fields , stables , bicycle and other T-ecreational rentals ,
arboretum, archery range , bird sanctua_ry,_r_e_creation centers ,
visual arts festival grounds .
(2) The following uses are conditional :.
Marinas and marine-related facilities such as launch-
ing ramps an uel3ng cFocks.
. (3) In addition to other provisions of this district the
foliowing development start ards. shall be required :
______�_aT Minimum parcel or building site : none
Maximum eigH o _
structures : 35 _feet
(c) (3) For recreation areas adjacent to the Huntington Beach
Mesa the permitte uses shall be 1 mzted to low intensity
uses inc u ing picnic group s , ar oretum, bird_ sanctuaries
trails. Higher intensity uses such as public� or private tennis
courts , athletic fileds , stables , campgrounds or other commercial
recreation uses shall be conditional only and located in nodes
adjacent to existing developed areas and roads and to avoid sensi-
tive habitat.
(d) (4) Uses within the recreation designation on the Bolsa Chica
bluffs shall Be lo_w' ntensity_uses. _major
recreational facilities are prohibited . Mature stands of existing
eucalyptus trees shall_be__preserved. Adjacent development shall
conform to buffer standards .
.63
-2-.
(B) General Ind trial
0
Light manufacturing, assembly, packaging,. electronics , whole-
sale distribution, machine s ops , warehousing, storage , dry b=
storage, a minis restive oFfices an0 service uses..
(C) Resource Production
Oil wells ; injection equipment; separation and treatment facili-
ties; storage tanks; transmission Ines; equipment storage:
main enance yards an administrative—ices associated with oil oper-
ations .
D General Commercial
Convenience , neighborhood and community oriented retail and
business uses .
(E) Public Quasi Public and Institutional
Government facilities , schools , colleges , libraries, o� lice
and tire stations--and training acilities, churches, ut Pities;
sanitation p ants.
(1) Prior to approval of development _application for develop-
ment on mud dump site shall submit a characterization analysis. If
the analysis indicates a contamination with harmful deposits., the
applicant shall provide for clean up of the. site prior to issuance
of any -permit.
(F.) .Residential (Low, Medium and High Density)
(1) Permitted uses shall be :
- Low Density : Detached single family dwellings
- Medium-Density: Single family aand multi- a�mTjy dwell-
ing units_ ; two or more attached, permanently located
7w__e_711ng units. ,
High Density: Two or more attached permanently located_
�wellling units; single family residences.
Structures customarily i_n_c_ide_ntal_ to and accessory to
a residential unit —
- Schools , parks, recreation areas , churches , fire stations ,
utility substations day care centers , convenience comm er
cial centers by__ snecial permit..,—
_(2) Conditional Uses : Planned Residential developments.
(G) Mobilehome
Mobilehomes within a mobilehome park; uses incidental to the
park and normally found in conjunctin with mo ibib e _ ome parks.
(H) Oil Suffixes (0,01)
Petroleum extraction equipment, storage tanks , and transporta-
(I) Flood Plain (-FP1 , -FP2)
Within areas identified as wetlands in the coastal zone,
uses of the Coastal Conservation District shall supersede uses permitted
and conditional in the ^FP1and_ -FP2 _designations .
7 . Modify Section 979. 9 . 4 General Provisions :
(B) Public Access to Coastal Resources . The following shall be
required within the CZ District as conditions of development_ ,
prior to the issuance of a permit :
(1) An offer of ded-ication of an easement in all new development .
to allow vertical access to the shoreline, public recreation areas, public
trails, or to. bikeways . Offers of dedication for vertical access shall be
provided enly to as a .condition of development on parcels adjacent to sandy
beaches and or recreation areas and in een4unetien with develepxIent, on
vacant parcels, on parcels designated for commercial use and in conjunction_
with replacement of existing structures ep eeuaereial pne4eets on. water-
front parcels . Offers of dedication shall not be required when:
(a) Adequate access exists nearby or is proposed by the land
use plan within one thousand. (1,000) feet; or
(b) Access. at the site would significantly degrade environ-
mentally sensitive habitat areas ; or
(c) Findings are made :consistent .with Section 30212 of the
Coastal Act that access is inconsistent with public safety, military
security needs , or that agriculture would be acversely affected; or
(d) The parcel is too narrow for an adequate privacy buffer
separating the accessway from the existing residence and would there-
fore a(_4,7ersely affect the privacy of the property owner. The following
guideline shall be used in determining adequate privacy guvvers : There
.- should be at lease fifteen (15) feet between the existing residence
and the side yard property line for an adequate buffer.
These exceptions ( (1) (a) - (d) ) shall not apply to the Pacific
Electric right-of-way'.
(2) An offer for dedication. of an easement shall be required in
c:anjunction with all new development between the first public road and the
sea en vacant paneels and along all sandy beaeh areas to allow lateral
public access and passive recreational .use along the shoreline, public
recreation areas or to public trails and bekeways except when:
(a) Findings are made consistent with Section 30212 of the
Coastal Act that access is inconsistent with public safety, military
secruity needs , or that agirculture would be adversely. affected; or
(b) Access at the site would significantly degrade environ-
mentally sensitive habitat areas; or
(c) The parcel is too narrow for an adequate privacy buffer
separating the lateral accessway from an existing residence. The
following guideline shall be used in determining adequate privacy
buffers : There must be at least fifteen (15) feet between an exist-
ing residence, patio cover or pool and the shoreline in order to
accommodate both an accessway and the privacy buffer.
These exceptions ( (2) (a) - (c) ) shall not apply to the Pacific
Electric right-of-way.
�b -4-
(3) The following policies shall be applicable to . access dedi-
cation:
(a) on existing developed residential parcels which do not
front a sandy beach, and which are bulkheaded and are not adjac-
ent to recreation or public use areas and other existing or ]Rr_q-
posed iateralor vertical easements , or when development i
proposed on an existing-subs iv coed single il fam - y _resi de ntial lot
Between developed residential parcels.
(b) In no case shall development in any way diminish or
interfere with the public' s right of access to the sea where
acquired through use of legislative authorization..
(c) The ,city shall accept offers of dedication for access
consistent with its ability to assume maintenance and liability.
If not accepted by the city, offers of dedication for access may
be accepted by any other public agencies or private associations,
provided that any association or agency which proposes to accept
accessways must be able to assume maintenance and operation of
such . accessway prior to opening it to the public.
(d) Prior to transmittal of the coastal permit the permittee
shall cause to be executed and. recorded a documents in a form and
content approved by the Director, irrevocably offering to dedi-
cate to a public_agency_or an approved private association ,an .
easement for public access and passive recreation to and along the
shoreline as required-by (B) (1) and (B) (2) above. In the case of
lateral access the easement shall be for the length of the__p
erty and sfiall be from the -mean hgh_tide line to a point twenty-
five feet inland from the daily high water line, except where
existing development would not accommodate both an_accesswax_and
a privacy buffer and in those cases the easement may be reduced
to ten (10) feet. In the case of vertical easements it shall be
described as extending from, the pro erg line to the mean high
tide line. The easements shall .be recorded free of prior liens
except for tax liens and free of prior encumbrances which the
Director determines may affect the interest being conveyed. The
of ers shall run with the land, binding successors and assigns
of the applicant or landowners . The offer_ of dedication shall. be
irrevocable for a period of 21 years, such period running from
t e date of recording,
(e) As a condition of new development on parcels on or
adjacent to recreation area, public accessways, public use areas,
trails, bikeways or the shoreline , or in .conjunction with dedi-
cations of lateral or vertical access the applicant shall provide
signing identifying the public use areas and accessways subject
to all other provisions of this district.
8 . Add to 969 . 9 . 4 General Provisions :
(E) Hazards
As a condition of new development the_applicant shall be
required to submit a report evaluating geologic , seismic, flood
and fire hazards , and shall be required to:. ,6
-5-
(1) Comply with all recommendations and provisions contained
in the A quest-Priolo Act (Special Studies Zones) for identified^
seismic hazards .
(2) Comply with all provisions of the City' s FP Floodplain
District.
(3) Assume risk in areas of identified hazards by submitting
to the Director an executed deed _restricti_on for recordation freE
of prior liens and encumbrances, except for tax liens, that binds
the applicant and all successors in interest to the development
property. The form and content of the deed restriction shall be
subject to review and approval by the. Director and shall state.
that --------- -----
(a) The applicant has requested a coastal permit from the
city to authorize construction of (describe development) .
(b) That the applicant has retained an expert .(registered
-civil engineer, certified engineering geologist or other_ expert) •
to study the site for presence of hazards.
(c) That based upon information contained in the resort and
findings o the City iri grating the permit the applicant under-
s an s that the site is sub3ect to _extraordin ry hazards.
(d) By accepting the permit the applicant recognizes the risk_
he is taking and assumes liability for harm to life or property
that may result from the hazards due to pre-existing_conditions,
natural ti causes , or the�plicant' s development acvities:
(e) The applicant agrees to waive unconditionally any potential
claim of liability against and hold harmless the City and any
other public agency which authorized this development for any_dam-
age,foss--of property .or life which^may arise as a _ result of the
eisgn, the construction or .the placement of materials on the��
development property as authorized by this coastal permit, except-
ing owever any claims o indemnification that the applicant may
assert under the terms of any existing agreement with a .public .
agency. —
(f) The applicant understands that construction in the face
of these known hazards may make him ineligible for public disaster
un s or loans for the repair, replacement or rehabilitation of
the property or development in the face of the identified hazard.
9 . Add to 979 . 9 . 4 General Provisions :
(H) Energy
New energy facilities shall. comply with the following:
(1) Oil operations shall be located where there is no other
feasible location which is less environmentally damaging or
less disruptive of significant social , aesthetic or economic
concerns and shall be located in the .following priority:
(a) Existing consolidated islands
New consolidated islands
.x c Existing oil parcels
(d) New parcels outside the coastal zone
e New parcels within the coastal zone
-6-
(2) Prior to. approval of new or relocated pipelines or trans-
mission lines the applicant shall :
(a) Submit a survey along the route of the pipeline or trans-
mission line identifying and assessing coastal resources, including
but not limited to beaches , recreation areas , significant vegeta-
tion, wetlands and other environmentally sensitive habitat, .
bluffs , streams , marine resources .
(b) Submit a report evaluating potential impacts from con-
struction and operation and pro2osing mitigation measures . -
(3) New pipelines shall :
(a) Be consolidated in existing corridors and shall .avoid_.
recreation areas and environmentally sensitive habitat areas un-
ess ere is no easib e less environmentally .damaging alternative
location.
(b) Incorporate automatic shutoff valves to isolate any
segments carrying hazardous liquids.
(c) Incorporate erosion control measures during construction
and mitigation measures to repair grading or vegetation removal ,
-including but not limited to replacing topsoil on the site and
revege ation.
(d) Be constructed without the use of any chemical herbicides .
(e) Be underground.
(4) Development of electrical transmission lines shall be con-
solidated in existngcorridors where feasible .
(5) New development of separation and treatment facilities shall
e permitted only if :
(a) It is infeasible to utilize excess capacity of existing
faci i ies .
(b) Siting and design is consistent with other provisions of
this "CZ" district and other applicable zoning districts.
- 6
DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN
1 . Add to Section 4 . 13 District 11 :
Beach concession stands , recreational facilities , park
offices and other structures shall be located-`within or im-
mediately adjacent to paved parking or access areas .
2 . Modify 4.. 13. 01 District 11 :
Parking lots or-structures. or _parking__decks that would
not result in the loss of recreational sand area and which
would e limited in heig t to 42 inches below t e gra e o PCH.
3. Add to 4 . 12 . 01 and 4 . 13. 01 Districts 10 and 11 :
Diking dredging or filing shall only be permitted where
there is no feasible less environmentally damaging alternative
and where feasible mitigation measures nave been provided an
shall be subject to provisions of Article 969 . 7 Sections . 7 . 1 ,
969 . 7 . 5 , 969 . 7 . 6 , 69 . :7 Coastal Conservation
4 . Add to 4 . 5 . 01 District 3 :
(e) Residential uses . are allowed only in conjunction with visitor-
serving commercial uses . The required visitor-serving commer-
cial portion of any initial construction shall be pro.vi e
prior to or at the same time as any residential portion . No
residential unit shall be occupied until the require commercial
portion is completed.
S . Add wetland definition to 4 . 0 . 04 :
Wetland: means lands within the coastal zone which may be
covered periodically or permanently with shallow water and include
saltwater marshes , freshwater marshes , open or closed braccis
water marshes , swamps , mu flats and fens .
6 . - Add Section 4 . 2 . 27 Compliance with certain requirements of the
Coastal Zone Cz Suffix:
Projects shall comply with the following Sections of the
Coastal Zone Suffix: 969 . 9 . 4 . (E) Hazards , 969 . 9 .4 (F) diking
re ging and filling, G Bu er Requirements an .4 (H)
Energy.
7 . Modify Section 4 . 1 . 03 Coastal Permit :
Developments within the Downtown Specific Plan will not be
subject to the requirements pertaining to Coastal Development
Permits , in addition to the other provisions of the Huntington
Beach Ordinance Code .
8 . Section 4 . 1 . 02 Special Permit - specify which standards can be
breached. For example :
Deviations from the development regulations of this Specific
Plan may be granted at the time of project approval for unique
architectural sitings or features , including but not limited to
parcel size, building height , site coverage , set acks , open space
and landscaping. - A Special Permit may not be granted for devia-
tions from maximum density or parking requirements or deviation
.6
'DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC *N •
Page Two
for building height in ,Districts 1 , 2 , 4 , 10 and 11 . Such
deviations shall only be allowed when, in the opinion of the
Planning Commission, significantly greater benefits from the
project eligible for exemptions include :. greater open space ,-
greater setbacks , unique or innovative designs , public parking,
public open space , and the use of energy conservation or solar
technology. The developer may request a special permit at the.
same time as the filing of an application .for a conditional use
permit and shall be heard concurrently. The Planning Commission
may approve the special permit in whole or in part . upon a finding
that the proposed development, in addition to providing greater
benefits as required above , will also :
(a) Promote better living environments ;
(b) Provide better land planning techniques with maximum
use of aesthetically pleasing types of architecture , landscaping,
site layout and design ;
(c) Not be detrimental to the general.. health, welfare ,
safety and convenience of the neighborhood• or City in general ,
nor detrimental or injurious to the value of property or .im-
provements of the neighborhood or of the City in general ; and
(d) Be consistent with objectives of the Downtown Specific
Plan in achieving a development adapted to the terrain and com-
patible with the surrounding environment .
(e) Be consistent with the policies of the Coastal Element
of the City' s General Plan 'and the California Coastal Act .
9. Add to Section 4 . 2 . 12
(f) If any existing parking is removed, it shall be replaced
on a one for one basis in an *area that would not result in the
loss of anZ sandy beach .area and within walking distance of the
existing site. Re placement parking shall e assure prior to t he
issuance of the coastal development permit .
10 . Correct Figure 3 . 2 on page 26 to place Visitor Serving node
between 8th and 9th Streets , rather than between loth and llth
Streets .
�0
• CC D1.STRICT
1 . Change wetland definition:
Wetland: means lands within the coastal zone which may be
covered seasonally periodically or permanently with shallow water
and include saltwater marshes ) - freshwater marshes , 'open, or..closed
brackish water marshes , swamps, mudflats and fens .
2 . Modify Section 969 . 7 . 2 . Permitted Principal Uses and Structures :
The following principal uses' and structures shall be permitted
in the CC District where no feasible , less environmentally - damaging
alternative exists and where feasible miti ation measures have been
rov�ided and are subject to� issuance of a use permit y' t e� Boar
o Zo.ning Adjustments .
3. Add to Section 969. 7 . 3. USES.°AND .STRUCTURES SUBJECT TO A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT:
The following uses and structures may be permitted- in the
CC District subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit ,
where there is no feasible less environmentally damaging alternative
and where feasible mitigation measures have been provided.
4 . Modify Section 969 . 7 . 3. USES AND .STRUCTURES SUBJECT TO .A.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT:
(C) maintenance of existing modified flood control prejeets
facilities where the primary purpose is. to maintain existing flood
control capacity and where such maintenance is necessary for public
safety or to protect existing development w ere there is no other
feasible method for protecting structures in the flood plain. No
maintenance activities shall be permitted which have the effect of
draining wetlands .
(F) Maintaining existing, or restor' reviously. dredged, .
de-.ppt--he in_existing-;n y -gai igna cFiaiinela_, tu.rnin asins , vessel
7erthing and mooring areas , and boat launching ramps .
(G) In wetland areas only, entrance channels for new or
expanded boating facilities; and in a degraded wetland, identified_
by the Department of Fish and Game pursuant to subdivision (b) .of
Section 30411, for boating facilities, if, in coniunction. with
such boating facilities, a substantial .portion of the degraded
wetland is restored and maintained as a biologically productive
wetland. The size of the wetland area used for boating facilities,
including berthing space, turning basins, necessary navigation
channels, and any ne.cessary .support service facilities, shall
not exceed 25 percent of the.. degr.aded wetland.
(H) Nature study , aqua.culture , or similar resource dependent
activities .
S . Add to Section 969. 7 . 6 (C) :
If the project involves restoration of a degraded wetland,
the applicant shall comply with Section 30411 and .Section 30233
I� of the Public Resources Code to the satisfaction of the Director.
.6
Sl SHORELINE DISTRICT
1 . Add Section 9650 . E
Diking Dredging and Filling
Diking pre ging and filling shall be permitted only where there
is no feasible less environmentally damaging alternative and
where feasible mitigation measures have been provided and shall
be subject to provisions of Article 969. 7 Sections . 1 ,
. 7 . 5 , 969. 7 . 6 and Coastal Conservation District) .
2 . Modify Section 9650 . 1 Permitted .Uses and Structures :
(P).(2) Parking lots or' structures (that. would not-':result.;,-
in .the loss of recreational sand area)
WATER RECREATION ZWR) DISTRICT =_
1 . Modify Section 969 . 8 . 1 Permitted-. Principal Uses and . Structures :
4 . Modify Article 969 . 8 . 1 "WR" Water Recreati-on . O. rdinance
as Follows :
All-private-uses -_and-struetures-.that-.area-consistent-with-the
paypese-of-this-distr.iet-shall-be-permitted: - -Examples-may=iReltide:
The following uses are permitted: '
{B) (1) Beaches
{2) -Beat-slips
{E3 M -Canti}ever-decks
(2) Private boat ramps , slips , docks and cantelevered
decks accessory to a single family dwelling
3, public boat ramps and piers
2 . Modify Section 969. 8. 2 Permitted Accessory Structures :
Anq-strtiettire-etistemari}y-incidental-axd-aeeessery-te-a
peritiitted-private-rise-er-strtieture-stay-be-ereeted-provided-that
it-is-Eensisten�-faith-the-parpese-of-this-DistriEt:
Ramps , windscreens and boat hoists accessory to a single
family structure..
3. Modify Section 969 . 84 Uses and Structures Subject to a Conditional
Use Permit :
A}} -public-and-semi-publie-uses -and-straetures-that-are
eansistent-with-the.-parpose-e€-this-distriet-may-be-permitted
sabjeet-to-appreva}-ef-a-eanditieaa} -ase-permit: --Examples-may
inelade-bat-are-net-liffiited-tei
The following public and semi-public uses are permitted subject
to approval of a conditional use permit :
(B) (1) Beaches
{2) -Beat-raffips
(3) Boat-related activity
(4) Boat slips
(D) (1) Docks
(1) Marinas
(M) M -Marines
(2) Marine fueling docks
M - {}j -Piers
A) (S) (1) Sight-seeing vessels
(2) Sport fishing
(W) (1) Water-taxi service
WATER RECREATION (� DISTRICT 969 . 8 •
Page Two
4 . Add 969 . 8. 6 Conditions of Development :
(1) No permitted or conditional uses shall be sited or
designed obstruct public access to any. sandy
beach area or public use area:
(2) No deck or structure shall extend more than 5 feet over
or in front- of any_bulkhead . in. any channel except for landings
or rows for access to a gangway to docks . No structure shalT
extend beyond the bulkhead in ,an area identified to be envi.ron-
mentally sensitive e. g. , ee grass beds , mu ats
S . Also :
The Zoning District Map shall be modified to zone water
channels "WR" Water Recreation. Until and unless permit authority
is transferred pursuant to Section 30613 of the Coastal Act the
district shall be advisory only for purposes of issuing coastal
development permits within areas of Commission continuing permit.
jurisdiction.
CDP COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
l .. Modify Section 989 . 5 . 1 Definitions :.
Coastal Zone : Means the portion of the City of Huntington
Beach specified on the maps identified and set forth in Section
17 of that Chapter of the Statutes of the 1975- 76 Regular Session
enacting Division 20 of the Public Resources Code adopte4 .by t e
state legislature, as adjusted by - the Coasta Commissionpursuant
to the requirements of the . California Coastal Act . as it. presently
exists or may hereafter be amended.
2 . Add to Section 989 . 5 . 3 Exemptions and Exclusions :
(A) Development in any categorical exclusion adopted pursuant
to Section 30610 (e) .
(C) (8) Improvements to any structure which would result in a
change of intensity of the-uses use of the structure er,-.the-build-
ixg-site:
(C) (9) Improvements pursuant to a conversion of an. existing
multiple-unit residential structure or visitor-serving commercial
use' to a condominium or stock cooperative . This paragraph does
not apply to a multi-family residential use conversion to a time-
share project , estate , or use as defined in Section 11003 . 5 of the
Business and Professions Code .
(L) Harvesting of agricultural crops , ineluding-kelp .
3. Modify Section 989 . 5 . 8 CDP Amendment :
(B) The notification requirements of this section Fray be
waived by the appreving author-Ity shall be the same as for Notice
of Citv Action if either:
(1) beeause the proposed changes are the result of an immaterial
error on the part of the permittee or city; or
(2) the H. B. Director has determined that the proposed mod-
ification will not materially alter the proposed project
and adversely impact the surrounding area.
'1S
6
MISCELLANEOUS
.1 . On all maps and figures delete roads and scenic corridors
in the Bolsa Chica .
2 . By letter, request the Commission to delete all portions of
zoning maps within areas which were not certified by -the
Coastal Commission (white-holed- areas) .
r
REQUESOT FOR CITY .COUNCIL ACTION
January 26 , 1984 V a
Date —
APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL
. Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and. City Council
19-
Submitted by: Charles W. Thompson, City Administrato
Prepared by: James W. Palin, Director of Development S ecITY CLE,
Subject: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING - CERTIFICATION IN PART OF THE HUNTINGTON
BEACH COASTAL LAND USE PLAN s 3 y A
Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions, Attachments:
STATEMENT OF ISSUE:
. Before the City' s Coastal Land Use Plan can be effectively certified
by the Coastal Commission, the City' s governing body must acknowledge
receipt of the Commission' s action of certification':in geographic
part . The attached resolution will make this acknowledgement.
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt Resolution No . -Off which acknowledges the City' s acceptance of
Coastal Commission Certification in geographic part of the Huntington
Beach Local Coastal Land Use Plan.
ANALYSIS :
On November 17, 1982 , the California-.,Coastal Commission certified in
geographic part the City' s Land Use Plan portion of the Local Coastal
Program. Under the new provisions of the Public Resource Code Section
30600 . 5 , the City would have had to begin temporary coastal permitting
within 120 days of acknowledging acceptance of the certification.
Since staff was just beginning work on the implementing ordinances ,
and the Downtown Specific Plan was not yet ready for adoption, acknowl-
edgement of the certification was postponed until such time as the
permitting procedures were ready.
In December, the package of implementing ordinances for the City' s
Land Use Plan :was sent to the- Coastal Commission.
for certification. Included in the package were three changes to the
Land Use Plan approved by the City since the original certification.
Before the Coastal Commission can certify these changes to the Land
Use Plan, the City must officially acknowledge acceptance of the Novem-
ber, 1982 certification in geographic part . This can be accomplished
by City Council adoption of Resolution No . �3�f9 , which is attached.
FUNDING SOURCE:
None needed.
41
P10 4/81 v
r � •
, RESOLUTION ACCEPTING *RTIFICATION IN PART OF THE
HUNTINGTON BEACH COASTAL LAND USE PLAN
Page Two
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS :
1 . Do not adopt Resolution No . S3ffacknowledging certification in
geographic part of the City: s Land Use Plan. Without some of-
ficial acknowledgement of certification, the Land Use Plan amend-
ments- cannot be certified, and the implementing ordinances will
not be in agreement with the Land Use Plan as certified.
2 . Instruct staff to prepare an alternate document to acknowledge
certification.
ATTACHMENTS :
1 . Resolution No . 5'3 y
JWP:JAF: sr
O
APPROVED GiT ST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION 5�
Date November 9, 1983
CITY CLERK 1
Mayor and City Council
Submitted by: Charles W. Thompson, City Administ
Prepared by: James W. Palin, Director of Development Services f
Subject: ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE COASTALN
TO APPROVE CHANGES TO THE CITY'S LAND USE PLAN
l?es 'iVS:3 a-
Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions, Attachments: i3
STATEMENT OF ISSUE:
The Downtown Specific Plan, which was adopted by the City Council in
October, slightly reconfigures some land use designations in the City' s
Certified Land Use Plan. When the package of implementing ordinances
for the Local-Coastal Program.-is submitted to the Coastal- Commission
for approval, the City needs to request approval of a future Land Use
Plan Amendment to bring the Specific Plan and the Land Use Plan into
agreement. This resolution makes that request of the Commission.
RECOMMENDATION:
After holding a public hearing, adopt the attached Resolution.
ANALYSIS :
The adopted Downtown Specific Plan differs in three areas from the
land use designations in the City' s certified Coastal Land Use Plan.
These changes were made during the process of developing the Specific
Plan in response to public input and the feedback from the Arroyo
Group, the City' s architectural consultant. The three areas of dif-
ference are as follows:
1. Two visitor-serving commercial nodes have been designated for
the half blocks from P.C.H. to the alley between 16th and 18th
Streets and between 8th and 9th Streets.
2. The half blocks from P.C.H. to the alley between llth and 14th
Streets have been redesignated high density residential from
visitor-serving commercial.
3. The area north of Pecan between 6th Street and Lake Street has
been redesignated mixed use office/residential from general
commercial.
These changes will require afuture formal amendment to- the City' s certi-
fied Coastal Land Use Plan. However, the Coastal Commission staff
have agreed that the amendment can be made by the City at a later
date, and the implementing ordinance package can be submitted along
with a resolution adopted by the City Council requesting approval
of the above land use changes.
PIO 4/81
ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE COASTAL COMMISSION
TO APPROVE CHANGES . TO .THE CITY'S LAND USE PLAN
Page Two
Since this appears to be the most expeditious method to . full certi-
fication, the staff has prepared a resolution for the Council 's
adoption at their .meeting on November 21., 1983 . The adoption of
the resolution should be after a public hearing to take testimony
on the proposed land.- use changes. Therefore, a public hearing for
this purpose has been advertised for the November 21 meeting.
FUNDING SOURCE:
None needed.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Do not adopt the Resolution. In this case,. it is unlikely the
Coastal Commission could certify the City' s implementing ordi-
nances, since they would not be in conformance with the Land Use
Plan.
ATTACHMENT:
1. Resolution
JWP:JAF:sr
• APPROVED BY GI COUNG --
IN THE
Superior Court cU U .CLER
OFTHS e
STATE OF CALIFORNIA (�
In and for the County of Orange zeq
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH+ CITY CLERK
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
PUBLIC HEARING_
State of California ) COASTAL LAND USE--
County of Orange )
Rita J. Richter UEM NOTICE °*0"01;
- ,'NOTICE OF�PUBL'IG HEARING " ='l
That I am and at all times herein mentioned was a citizen of WiHUNTINGTO CHQOARTAt '(
the United States,over the age of twenty-one ears,and that I LAND USE PLANNDI1QNTs�° �t
g y y �NOT�ICE`IS HEREB��G[VEN3tha e
am not a party to,nor interested in the above entitled matter; ,putibcc%rtngRmll 'held)�by he�Ciiyi
that I am the principal clerk of the printer of the Gouncu of ihe.City of�Huntingtnn.Beach..r
in the Counea'Chambe�i'ofThe Ci oceiiw 0
Huntingtob Beech;at the`.hour ofT30'
P 1f.,or ssj-eo thereafter as poasible on
HUNTINGTON BEACH IND. REVIEW Wridav thikfstda66vember�1983s
a newspaper of general circulation,published in the City of for-che purpose ofh�c'`onetdenng a Reiiolu,.
lion requesanp .thelCehforms Coastal!
Gommiseion to apprrne changes in the
HUNTINGTON BEACH Huntington Beech Coastal Lend Use,f
I Plan:which wouldppm%eive consistency
wick the Downtown Sppeeccific Plan Siid
County of Orange and which newspaper is published for the changes mciMf (llf>,The;'plegem6nt'ot.e
disemination of local news and intelligence of a general charac- 'viiitor Servm"ge)�,Cdh merci Lend.Use
ter, and which newspaper at all times herein mentioned had Designeuon oq,the�helf blocks between --.
16Ih and 18th.Streeta andBthend 9th
and still has a bona ride subscription list of paying subscribers, Sfieete from Pacific Coastiflghway to the
and which newspaper has been established, printed and pub- alley:(2)`DesignetioXhfeHe 'blocks from IIth to 14th Stteets,% een Pacific.
li had at regular intervals in the said County of Orange fora Coast: lighwaUand che alk y,es High!
period exceeding one year; that the notice, of which the Density Resident,,hand R4Cr d'esigne4l.
annexed is a printed copy, has been published in the regular 05n f land un ng;th o�Pecan Avenue
ptween 6tb end I:aa Steafrom { .
Gen-
and entire issue of said newspaper,and not in any supplement eral.Commercial to K14i d Use.Office/
thereof,on the following dates,to wit: ltesidenual y ; i -
e A copyy of said Resolution ig on file in
the City Clerkts Off M
:,All interested persona acre invited;to
NOVEMBER 10+ 1983 attend said'h'e6i arid'e:PPress the,' 1-
i ypinions fur or against saiB�Huntington
I Beach Coastal I:end Use Planr"end;
dienta swil ! I
�l Further informapon may.bek' brained
fiom the Office:of the.City:Clark,-2000
Wain Street;Huntington'Beach;'Califon '
I iiie.92648�(714)536-5227.
DATED No3ember 7,1983
j CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACHo
I certify(or declare)tinder '&_?bb
, By:AliciaWentworthCit penalty of perjtuy that the forego- yNov:10,19e3 ,ing is true and correct :Beech in Rev.u35003
Datedat....................... -Gr0-ve...................
Oth �lovember 83
410alifhis .. day o ...-......19........
..Rita.J...Ri.ch.ter,.....
Signature
All .us-eelh"-v
�' Form No.-POP 92082
APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL 00
tq, IRE C U ST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
November 9, 1983
CITY CLERK Date
Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Submitted by: Charles W. Thompson, City Administra o
Prepared by: James W. Palin, Director of Development Services
A
Subject: APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS FOR COASTAL COMMISSION G
�es 53 a
Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions, Attachments: J�
STATEMENT OF ISSUE:
The City Council adopted Resolution No. 5207 on December 20, 1982,
requesting a grant of $12, 000 from the California Coastal Commis-
sion .to. develop coastal permitting procedures. The Coastal Com-
mission approved a grant of $9,900 for this purpose on September
20, 1983, and the contract will be signed shortly.
The period of the grant will be from November 1, 1983 ;through
June....30, 1984 .
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve a resolution appropriating $9,900 from the grant fund to be
placed in the account for Phase IV of coastal permitting.
ANALYSIS :
With .the adoption of the Downtown Specific. Plan and .the other im-
plementing coastal ordinances last month, the Phase III implemen-
tation portion of the Ci.ty's Local Coastal Program was essentially
completed. The final step- in the implementation process, certifi-
cation of the ordinances by the Coastal Commission, will begin
shortly. The funding provided. by the City's $50,000 ,Phase III
grant has been expended over the past year to produce the required
ordinances.
The Coastal Commission has available some funding for Phase IV
tasks, which would include development of permit procedures and
forms, informational material for the public and staff training.
The Commission has approved a Phase IV grant of $9,900 to the
City for this work.
Phase IV funding would enable the City to retain the coastal plan-
ner who has been involved with the development of the ordinances
for an additional three months. During this time, the permitting
process procedures will be developed along with necessary forms
and public information materials.
PIO 4/81
•• s�
AFCCG
Page 2
A fiscal impact report on the recommended action is attached.
FUNDING SOURCE:
California Coastal Commission
ALTERNATIVE ACTION.-
Do not approve a resolution to appropriate $9 ,900- from the general
fund for Phase IV of coastal permitting. The City would then ab-
sorb the cost of .developing the necessary procedures, or rely on
the possibility of obtaining SB90 funding for reimbursement.
ATTACHMENT:
1. Resolution
2. Fiscal Impact Report
JWP:JAF:sr
•• •�
FHCITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION
HUNTINGTON BEACH
To Charles W. Thompson From Robert J. Franz
City Administrator Chief of Administrative Svcs.
Subject Request For City Funding To Date November 9, 1983
Accommodate LCP Phase IV Grant
FIR # 84-12
In response to the request of the Development Services Department, a Financial Impact
Report has been prepared and submitted relative to the City's successful application
to the Coastal Commission for an LCP Phase IV grant pertinent to the effective
implementation of Land Use Plan policies.
The grant funds total $9,900. The only immediate fiscal impact of this transaction
will be to limit the City's earning capability during the interip
pr pr'or to
reimbursement of these funds from the source noted in the a co a nde
The City will not be required to provide matching funds t r j
T
Ober r
Chief of Ad 'nistrattSs.
RJF/AR/cg
CITY. OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
FINANCIAL IMPACT REPORT
.Project Name _&pr_Qariation for L C P Phase I_V Graannt_.
Description Requested funding for this proiect
1 . DIRECT PROJECT COSTS
i
1 . 1 One-Time Costs
Cand Furn. , Facill
Acquisition . Construction ties, Equipment Other Total Cost
9 900 9,900
1 .2 Recurring Annual Costs
Additional. Materials Outside
EPayroll Personnel Supplies Services Revenues Total Cost
1 .3 Replacement/Renewal Costs
N/A
2. INDIRECT COSTS
Incc of rjfU'c earning ranahility dirrin�a- thP-n rim prior to reimbursement of
these funds from the California Coastal Commission.
Financial Impact Repo •is . .
Page. 2
3. NON-DOLLAR COSTS
N/A _— -- ---- -- ----- ----_--____ ------- -
4. BENEFITS TO BE DERIVED FROM THE PROJECT
s Pnin _iat d by the regU esting department, City staff is currently developing
and implementing ordinances for the Land Use Plan as part of the Phase III
work program. Phase IV is the next logical step in the proj.ectand will encompass
the development O permitting forms, checklists, and procedures necessary to
successfully implement Land Use Plan policies.
5. PROJECT USAGE
6. EXPENDITURE TIMING
Subsequent to City Council approval and award of the grant.
7. COST OF NOT IMPLEMENTING THE PROJECT
Either the project would be curtailed at this juncture, or the department could
absorb any costs associated with the project within its current operating budget.
Department of Development Services
June 21 , 1982
MINOR CORRECTIONS TO "DRAFT PROPOSED CHANGES
TO HUNTINGTON BEACH COASTAL ELEMENT"
On third page, fifth parag.rpah, .starting with "Add _to . Page 110 ,
after first paragraph" change second 'sentence. to read:
"In specified areas , bonuses for parcels
of one-half block or more may be granted provided that the
following conditions are met: "
. On fourth page, next to last paragraph, change first sentence to
read:
"The north portion of this area has been designated Residential/
Conservation and the south portion of this area has been designated
Commercial/Support Recreation. "
. On fourth page, last paragraph, change second sentence to read:
"Prior to permitting any development of this parcel, the City
will require the submission of topographic, vegetation, and
soils information identifying the extent of any ex}9t4:mg wetlands
(if such exist) . "
. On fourth page, last paragraph, change last sentence to read:
"No further subdivision of any parcel shall be permitted which
would have the effect of dividing off environmentally sensi-
tive habitat from other portions of such parcels for which urban
uses are permitted in the LUP until such time as' the permanent
protection of the wetland, if any, is assured.
` ORIGINAL TEXT REVISIONS OR ADDITIONS
Page 139 policy 4a
4. Provide public access to coastal resources when pos'sihle.
4a (I) Require an offer of dedication of an easement in all new development to all:),v
4a. Require an easement. in all new development to aliow access rn vertical access to the shoreline or to public recreation areas or to public traits
AC41 and along the mean high tide line or to puhlir_ to
are::s or and bikeways unless:
41S to public trails and bil<e:vays unless:
Adequate access exists nearby or is proposed by the land use plan wit'-iin 1000
- Adequate access exists nearby or is proposed by the land us:, feet; or
plan within a rea:.onahle distance; or
• - Access at the ' site wou!d result, in GrImitigable adverse - Access at the site would significantly degrade environmentally sensitive ha')it•a;
impacts on areas designated "Conservation"
P 0 by the land u:,,: areas ar
plan; or
- Findings are made:, consistent with Section 30212 of the _ Findings are made, consistent with Section 30212 of the Coastal .act :hat
Coastal Act th.;t access is inconsistent with ptblic safety, access is inconsistent with public safety, military security needs, or that
military security needs, or that agricuiture would be ogricult,_)re would be adversely affected, or
adversely affected, or
- The parcel is too narrow for an adequat^ buffer separating _ The parcel is too norraN for an adequate p.ivocy buffer separating the
the lateral acce�sway from private residei,^e and wrild accessway from the existing residence and would therefore adversely affect
.therefore adversely affect the privacy of the property ov,nc,. . privacy of the property owner. The following guidelines shall be used in
determining adequate privacy buffers: There shauild be at least IS feet between
These exceptions shall not apply to the Pacific Electric the existing residence and the side yard property lines for an adequate buffer.
Right-of-Way. These exceptions shall not apply to the Pacific Electric right-of
4b. Analyze the impact of current and projected recreation Offers of dedication for vertical access in accordance with policy 40 sho!l be
P 1
traffic on the City's circulation system. provided only to sandy beaches and recreation areas and in conjunction wit!.
• development on vacant parcels, replacement of existing structures or in
46. Promote safe pedestrian access to. the beach from the inlar;d commercial projects.
- side of Pacific Coast Highway. .
(2) Require an offer for dedication of an easement in all ne•w development to ellow j
4d. Initate cooperative planning efforts with the State Parks :�rd lateral access along the shoreline public recreatia-� areas or to public trails uru
Recreation Department and affected private parties and bikewys unless:
pursue funding to develop a pedestrian access program from
Pacific Coast Highway to the beach in the area from Ni::t* - Findings are made consistent with Section 30212 of the Coastal Act Viat access
Street north to the southern edge of the Bolsa Chica State is inconsistent with public safety, military security needs, or that agrioilture
.i
Beach parking lot. would be adversely affected, or;
4f. Establish a signing program which will identify public - Access at tie site wajld significantly degrade environmc—ritally sensitive habitat
accessways, bikeways, recreation areas and vista points areas; or r
throughout the coastal zone.
_..-....::xa-::_L'rc:' .. _ ',+�...._e.__.:......:-__.._..:�:x ..-_..�__-.A_-,.c. - .-..-.�:'- ate....`+ ...._e........_.•..... .... ..-.- _ .w.. �..-. ,...... _,- ,___ ___, ,-- ..�., ..._ _ ... ._.. r. .. .-. ,.. ... .__,......
'1
` ORIGINAL TEXT REVISIONS OR ADDITIONS.
Ce"TINUATIou of aEVK
POLICY
The parcel is too narrow for an adequate privacy buffer separating the lateral
accessway from on existing residence. The following guideline shall be used in .
detennining adequate privacy buffers: There must be at least IS feet betweei
an existing residence, patio cover or pool and the shoreline'in'order to
occornmodate both an accessway and the privacy buffer. These exceptions shah
not apply to the Pacific Electric right-of-way.
An offer of dedication for lateral access in accordance.witl .policy 4a shall
• required only in conjunction with ne-.v development on-vacant.parcels and along-
all sandy beach-areas. In existing developed residential areas which do not
front a sandy -beach area, access will generally only be required where it can be
accomplished with the privacy standards established above. Access to the
bulkhead areas of Huntington Harbour is generally not appropriate, because in
most cases it cannot he provided consistent with privacy standards. However, .
there may hP situations where access to and along the tiulkhPa.1 is appropriate.
Where n parcel is large enough to provide public access consistent with the
privacy standards in new development, access along the hultchPad may he
appropriate, partio_rlarly if public use areas such as.fishing piers can be recched
or provided in new development through such occesswoys.
(3) In no case shall development in ony way diminish or interfere with tl,e public's.
right of access to the sea rthere a-quired through use or legislative
• authorization.
(4) The City shall accept offers of dedication for access consistent it its ahility
to assume rnointennnce and linhility. If not accented by the City. offers of
dedication for nccess may he accented by any other public ogencies or private
association, provided that any nsscx;iotion or agency proposes to accept
accessnays must I)e able to nssume. maintenance and operation of such
accessway prior to opening it to the public.
-a--
ORIGINAL..TEXT.
r�.. REVISIONS OR ADDITIONS x
nEFI.vrrK) S - rr 'z: 0'u
AQU'ArIC ECOSYSTEM:
An area where organisms grog ar live in the rater and interact with each other.
i BIOLOGICAL QUALrrY:
f The ability of an area to support living arganisms.
BUFFER:
Any of various devices(land,fencing. vegetation) which serve to separate adjacent land uses in order
to lessen any adverse impacts of one-lard use an another. = _
Remove.wetland definition an der before NbERVATION: p. 57=:
lWed management of a natural resource to prevent exploitation,destruction or neglect. .
CONTINGENCY PLANNING:
Planning far events that are of possibie'brt uncertain occurrence.
ECOLOGICAL RESERVE:
Off icialiv determined area being preserved for its environmental value.
FCOSY SrEAf:
The complex of a community and its environment functioning as a unit in nature. '
ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSUIVE HABUAT:
Any area in which plant or animal life or their habitats are rare or especially valuable and which
could be easily disturbed or degraded by human activities and developments.
FILL: . •
Any-earth or any other substance or material placed in submerged area.
11:1I31TAT:
he place or type of site where a plant or animal naturally lives and grows.
he
SPECIES:
tipecies which are representative of a specific area or habitat.
PREEMPT:
To take jurisdiction away from an existing agency or entity.
TIDAL. FLUSHING:
A process in which normal trial action results in continual exchange of ocean water within n wetland.
END:
here the water table is at, near, or above the land surface long enaugh to promote the
on of wet soils or to support the growth of salt resistant marsh plants.
ORIGINAL. TEXT :.
REVISIONS OR ADDITIONS `
1 L _
• X
Wetlands
ZUSECT ® KERE 1 of ter "jeticlnds-
The Coastal Act prohibits diking, dredging and filling of wetlands except for odd p-
very limited purposes related to energy production, boating and other regionally
important activities.
Wetland areas within the City have been preliminarily identified by The City believes that the definition of vvetlands" in the Coastal 4ct�cou-0`6e
representatives from the State Coastal Commission, State Department of Fish' improved.to better identify environmentally'important areas ttwAct intends to
and Game (DFG), U.S. Army Corps of .Engineers (COE% and the U.S. Fish and protect. Nonetheless, the State legislature,diid adopt the following.�firntton.of
Wildlife Service (USFWS). These agencies conducted an explicit delineation of "wetlands" in the Coastal Act:' ;; - x.
the boundaries and biological value of the wetlands. The results of this effort. ��ten �
• are included in an appendix to the background report on Environmentally "Land within the coastal zone which moryrhi- covered perioclicatly:or pernn tlY.
Sensitive Habitats prepared by.the City's Development Services Department. shallow water and include salt water marshes;freshwater marshes,:open or,closed
hrackishwater marshes, swamps, mudf lots and (ens." "=~
Figure 6.2 shows the potential wetland areas between Beach Boulevard and the
Santa Ana River. The primary resource value of those coastal wetland areas is
their function as habitat for water-associated and marsh-dependent bird
species. The Belding's savannah sparrow, and California least tern, both
endangered species, feed in the area and the Belding's savannah sparrow nests ,
there. The physical characteristics, natural resource va;ues and unique featrlres
of the area are discussed in greater detail in the document prepared by th^ f)I :-.
for the Regional Coastal Commission staff which is an appendix to this NI:):).
Comprehensive lists of wetland indicator plant species and the bird species ,
observed on the site are included in the report.
The City has indicated visitor-serving and energy expansion uses fer these areas
,riith the expectation that in exchange for development rights, certain of these
. areas will be restored and enchanted. .
Though the area known as the Golsa Chica is not located in the jurisdiction of
the amity of Huntington Beach, at this time, the City considers it imperative to
contribute meaningful influence on the resolve of the area's future uses.
1. The City urges all appropriate State and Federal agencies, to accelerate
efforts to positively define only specific screarge in the i3olsa Chica
which, in fact, can be scientifically justified as environrnentasly sensitive
habitat. In addition, the City requests and urges thcin agencies to provide.
precise recommendations as to the economic feasibility of rehabilitation
of such designated ecologically sensitive areas.
1'/Ilrn 111: ;C 51'ate .)rlil Fe lorf;l re^pur—,JhihtiRc; arc, pr(-#per!:' ;Ind
;)r.(:r7pLcd, the City :vill Lot,llly :;!JJ.)J)nrL t.11l �',-rt^!trvc. i inn of :;llcl)
rnvironrnontr)lly r'll Ir.iV ii;i•llt :lt. ;II': �•
��.• � .•, ... ueL;u. s_l':i.��_�Ot�r'._�3^..,.er.r..af� tL ��.r_ — cailss.-.wry, !7!!'� L - ra7w.....;.._.........a...._..._.-.._ .... ...._.. ---' ....---—.
r>_ ORIGINAL TEXT REVISIONS OR ADDITIONS
Page 144, Policy 90
Approve only that development adjacent to wetlands and environ.-nentally sensitive
9a. Approve only that development adjacent to wetlands that noes not habitat areas that does not significantly degrade habitat values and which is
adversely impact habitat values. compatible with the continuance of the habitat.
9b. Require new development cr)ntiquous to wetland areas to include page 144, Policy 9b
buffers which will consist of one or more of the following:
Require new development contiguous to wetland or environmentally sensitive habitat
- One hundred foot setback from the edge of the wetland areas to include buffers which will consist of a minimum of one hundred foot sethadi from, -
except atonq Pacific Coast.HiGh.vay. the landward edge of the wetland where possible. If existing deVelopment.or,srte :
A vi.,ually attractive barrier that limits physical, but not configuration precludes a 100 foot buffer, the buffer shall be estahlishee.1 ceordirg to tf p." I
• visual, access.
factors listed in Policy 9c and shall be reviewed by the Department of Fish. and.Game..
Difference in elevation sufficient to deter access.
In case of substantial development or significantly increaser) human imancts, a wider
9c. Develop specifications for buffers around wetland areas. buffer may he required in accordance with on analysis of the factors in poll 9c.
q Y ...
` icy
I
Page 144, Policy 9c
&-ose 4 em- A ee pori ergs
Develop specifications for buffers taking into consideration the following factors:
Biological Significance of Adjacent Lands. The buffer should he soifficiently wide to
protect the functional relationship between wetland and adjacent upland.
Sensitivity of Species to Disturbance. The buffer should be sufficiently wide to
ensure that the most sensitive species ':sill not be disturbed significantly by permitted
development, 'used on habitat regijirerrv�-nts of both resident +end rni,,rutory species
an the short- and long-term adaptability of various species to hurncn, disturbance.
i
Susceptabili ty of Pun el to Erosion. The buffer should be sufficiently .vide to allow
for interception of any additional rnaterial eroded as a result of the proposed
development based on soil and vegetative characteristics, slope and runoff
characteristics, and impervioi.is s'irfact,- covercige.
Use of Existing Cultiral Features to Locate Buffer Zones. Where feasi?,le, j
development should be located on the side of roads, dikes, irrigation c._mals, flood 1
control channels, etc., away from the env irortrrf-:ntally sensitive habitat ,area.
s.
: � s 4 4 �a ,, ORIGINAL'TEXT REVISIONS OR ADDITIONS.
t..•. r ..s _.
.. <.. . ..
00
9d. Establish a procedure to notify State and Federal aqs-nc'rns having
regulatory authority in wetlands, aril other environmentally "
sensitive habitats when development projects in and adjacent to Add Page 14'�, Policy 9e
such areas are submitted to the City.. Prohibit fill in an wetland areas for the of rood constructi t for
s1a5Et1tr 1}ERG Y purpose «�, excep
Although excluded from urban development, wetland areas can be of.value to roads required to serve uses allowed in.wetlards pursuant to and.ca,uisterit.with,
the City by providing significant visual aril recreational amenities to L local Section260- 264 f� coostal dependt.and energy uses. Alsv, tf a Project wire
r r ant consistent oved su to and cons s ent with Section 30233 am:a, ;road t i
and in Hunti ton Beach will require W�p Pu (a).(3) odd was at .o..
comm+utit However, the wetlands etc) , p
y -
their potential is realized. The following policies provide the approved project, such road would be permitted in portions'of'flwsevetely
i rovements before p '� P g improvements
i a! and aesthetic quality of these areas: O degraded wetland whhere development is permitted.. Arry roods.. ned> `;.this ati
a strategy for enhancing .the b io log c q Y 9� by . p . L"l
• shall be limited to necessary access roads appurtenant to the facibty,; and:shall be•:
P
If). Promote the improvement of the biological productivity and apaearan• .a_., permitted only where there is no feasible less environmentally dmag a �ng,_alaernot+ve,:
of wetland habitats. and where feasibility mitigation measures have been provided:
n of tidal ftushin in wet.and area
:.
h t td blis me
10a. Promote the reestablishment g
t federal a enc ies
lOh. Promote the participation of County,. Sate aryl ecf_ral q ,
P P
. n m intPnarn.e of r�nvisnnm•.ntall sensitive
+n the enhancement a d a y ,.
Coastalhabitats by actively Pursui fu wlinq from the California
Conserva.-x_-y and other State and .federal ngen�-;F-s to rieve!np and.
maintain lani,cnpcd buffer areas around the erklc of the 4�etlini;.
•
,t:e"G•ei•u--Asa-:�:;s'+•c.
•
'ORIGINAL,,.TE3M
REVISIONS OR ADDITIONS,
:v-i t
j L
10.2 LAN0.1JSE CATEGORIES
The land use plan utilizes the same designations currently ,found ir. the Land
Use Element, as. well as six new or revised designations which mare Add to Page 110, after first paragraph PAReSL
specifically reflect intended coastal land uses. This section describes the
various categories and briefly discusses their relationship within tl-U.- coastalrt
The general height limit for all'categories a develos"it--k three stortesi;.4
q
zone.
specified areas, bonuses for let_ IF ofie W(t:b(a* .or ma
re may 4,
x1laseArr
5"
me
granted provided that the following 6onditi" -oi e,
10.2.1 Residential
1) The bulk and siting of structures shall be cog-lirolled-46-�.'prot,ect- fit,.
• Residential uses are planned for approximately 1,600 acres of the coastal zone
scenic and visual resources. A.numb4& a* es--may,
of,
proilich bii
_2�r i ere
ons
May,
to provide opportunities for people to live near the coast. A range of - Way,
@ . used to achieve `
this, such as 0.step opproai4i. to building heights, staigge' ed i"
allowable residential densities is proposed in keeping. with the City's -goal to r bui
limits on the site-coverage and building orientation, of view
provide a variety of housing opportunities by type, tenure, and cost for .. ......
households of all sizes throughout the City. -All of the following residential 2) Adequate parking shallbe provided.
designations also allow certain support uses by special permit: elementary anal
private
e schools, neighborhood parks and private recreation areas, churches,
Areas,where increased intensities may he granted�aiie.'&Pit'
an
fire stations, utility substations, day care renters, and convenience 128• acted in Figuie'l 0.8.
commercial centers (less than 1.5 acres in size).
Low Density - The low density designation is intended to provide the lowest
intensity of residential development in the coastal zone and is applied to -areas
where residential uses currently exist or are planned to be developed at an
intensity of less than seven dwelling units per gross acre of land. Principal
uses permitted under the low density residential designation include detached
single family dwellings, condominiums, and mobile home parks. Primary areas
for low density include sites bounded by arterial highways and conveniently
• s,>rvcrl by nearby elementary schools, commercial development and par!< and
recre-i'ion areas.
Modi,urn Density - Th if-, designation provides for more intensi! hoijsin q
development and allows -j density range of seven to 15 dwelling units per grr)!,r
acre of land. Principal w,;cs include condominiums, sinq!e family in
SMI-111 lot areas, small multiple-family apartments (2-4 unite), and mo)iln home
parks. Medium density residential tises -are located convenient to schools. ly
parks, shopping areas, aryl primary transportation routes, and may act. as
buffers or transitions between low and higher density residential areas and
between residential and more intense non-residential uses.
High Density The high density (Insignation provides for the most concentrated
rr-sidential dowalnpment. in the coast;i! Zone. \'Piile th->r� is nn L1,-)PP_r lif-rl;t Irl
Cl(111S1', y Urid(!r the hi,jh (k'nsi;i), Innici wv� dcsj.-jfj:.-jtjr)n, tlie (7;ty1f,
7.
r `5 uni;�-,
ordin,�incc�; Permit r(�:-,idc tinl _jrn o
t ORIGINAL..TEXT REV.-ISIONS, OW ADDITIONS: .j
�Commercral ....,�_. . _ .,.. -.�_.. . . .. - __.. _ .. �`�.•=�
Cnmmerrial i,se-s in the coastal zone are of two types: general facilities for Page I I I Add to Visitor-serving paragraph
the community and the city as a whole and more specilized uses oriented to
visitors to the coast. Office and residential uses shall be conditional only and-shall only be permitted if
visitor serving uses.are either provided prior to othei development or ossured as part;
In order to guide the orderly development of hoth local and visitor-commercial of the development. No office of residential use's"�ll he.perrritted in-an-` : Y,
uses, the following designations are utilized in the coastal plan. visitor-serving designation seaward of Poci.fic_'Caast=HigtiWay-
General - The general commercial designation allows convenience, In visitor-serving.commercial development the street fennel .or one-thirdof the totcf
neighborhood, and community-oriented retail and business centers. While � -..
these centers vac in rwmber, size, and cor floor area.shall bee devoted to visitor-serving coanmes d uses; however at least �1 ,�.
• y e, reposition, they are intended to serve ,
D percent of the street level shall be visi tor-
serving,
the the everyday shopping needs of permanent residents of an area. r, R ,
:..�
In the event of a consolidation of a minimum one,block,.area, conditionalaiues�mar b
Visitor-Serving _ The visitor-serving commercial category is a new designation located ins rate structures or on s
created in response to the Coastal Act policy which encourages adequate separate portions of the parcel in the context,of
a planned development,'-provided no less than one third of the total floor area
visitor-serving facilities in the coastal area. The principal permitted uses are
permitted is devoted to visitor-serving uses, and provided that substantcal" public apt
hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, musr ms, specialty arri beach-related space and pedestrian access amenities are provided to mointain"a predo 4hiantly
retail, and service uses. Office and residential uses would also be allowed by visitor=serving orientation.
special permit. These uses are located near visiting-drawing attractions such
as the Municipal Pier and the beaches, and along major access routas•from
inland areas. ,
=6111SERT Q 1{1ER�
10.2.3 Mixed Uses
The Land Use Element of the City's General Plan includes a goad mixed
development category intended to encourage maxirrvim flexibility, The
Coa:,tal Element has refined the category to provide more direction for the
types and level of development desired. Two new mixed use cati�gories 'iave
• been developed for the coastal zone.
Office/Residential - The intent of this designation is to allow a mix of medium
to high density apartments and condominiums with professional office s,)ace. i
This can be accomplished by integratinq residential and office uses :vithir the
same general area or by vertically mixing. these uses within the sarme building.
j L-imited ancillary retail commercial and service uses are also conditionally
allowed; however, the ernpliasis is on the office/residential rmix.
in an urban center, offices and residences are compatible uses which
�. complement each other. in the fowntown, intensified residential uses would
prnvide housing close to r-rnployment and add support for p!nnnr!r1 gen-2mI and
vici�,nr cnrnnit�n:i,il. _Fh!i offices wo:ilrl provide weir!: o;.;;� �rt.rii,.ie:. 'ind .,;>rvica:;
to the msidentril corn uinity.
g•
14,
-.'.,,-REVISIONS, OR.ORIGINAL. TEXT
L.EGEP.,D
FREEMY STREET
4560C
-low
20=
,Poge-98i, Figure 0A
WTE
::-.c Ais rdsL
%EaSSAP�v L&T*P.�% -�r Delete extension 6f'P,6lm-.Avenue'wes;t.of. 38th Street..(E
cr caws :Ji r
pp
X
0 --------
�..........-.r _1... ...��rRi i"^:Cits/' u...�__. _ y., ,. .:a........uuawu.. ..Y.... ..._'suiMiF�"a%' +++W,wL r _.._-.. ...................,..ro.,..�.y..[wi.'.+.....r....__..__..—. ..._ _.u.-...:....-... -_.... __ -
QRIGINAL TEXT REVISIONS OR. ADDITIONS- .
r
A six-story height limit has been applied to the entire Six kh to Lake Street
area as a means of encouraging the provision of amenities and recycling of
existing uses, as well as allowing the possibility- for vertir-al mixed uses within
individual developments and providing opportunity for ocean views. Add to Page 131, parograph'S. (discussion of City property at.Beach and PCH)
LAKE STREET TO BEACH BOULEVARD The north portion of this area has been desi noted.Residi6tial'C gti �'tfiq�s6ulfil.
Portion of this area has been designated Coinirn_ erciai/Support Recreation.-' Development
This area encompasses approximately. 260 acres, extending inland to shall be permitted only overall development plan:. d°subject.to tite ;M;
Indianapolis Avenue at one point. The 98-acre area north of Atlanta Avenue is: follow wing conditions:
•almost completely developed with a mixture of single, family and small' �t�aLLCh"
multi-family uses. The overall density of this area falls into the medium'. A small wetland area has n preliminarily mapped by the Department of Fish artd Game`;
h b on this property. Prior permitting density range, therefore the enure area north of Atlanta Avenue as been- pop ty per i g any development of this parcel, the,City'wilvrequire
designated as medium density residential. the submission of to aphic, vegetation, and soils information identifying the extent-
any emis#iRg wetlan The information shalt be prepared by qualified professional, and.
The area south of Atlanta Avenue encompasses a total area of 162 acres, O shall be subject to review by the California Department of Fish and Game .If..the:wetiand-
consisting of existing mobile home parks, hotels, a golf course; anew is determined by the Department of Fish and Game to p
be severely degraded ursuant to
condominium development, and a large vacant area with oil production. The Sections 30233 and 30411 of the Coastal Act or if'it is less. than one acre in size, other
coastal land use plan designates nearly 90 acres of this area for residential restoration options may be undertaken, pursuant to the Coastal Commission's "Statewide
uses. Interpretive Guidelines for Wetlands and other Wet Environmentally Sensitive Habitat
Areas." Conservation easements, dedications or other similar mechc'nisms shall be
Aoproxifnately 10 :acres of the area south of Atlanta Avenue. on the east sine required over oil wetland areas as a condition of development, to assure permanent
of I-ake Street has been designated for visitor-serving commercial uses. A protection. Public vehicular traffic shall be prohibited in wetland areas governed by the
portion of this area is vacant, and tlae portion along Pacific Coast conservation easement. Specific drainage and erosion control requirements shall be
,t:ppot tc a restaurant and hotel. This visitor-servinq area is intended to incorporated into the project design to ensure that wetland areas are not adversely
provide w1ditional area for visitor-serving uses oriented to take Street and affected. No further subdivision of any parcel shall be permitted vthich would have the
. nay act us a buffer I)r-t:veen possible six-story devr-iopment across Lake Street effect of dividing off environmentally sensitive habitat from other portions of such
and the residential area. Both the residential and visitor-serving commercial parcels for which urban uses are permitted in the LUP until such tirne as the permanent
areas carry three story height limits. rotection of the wetlandassured.
The 02 a:_rrr area located between Delaware itreet and 13nach 13.9i levar:.1 is �
�;ricd t)y tht:. Citv of Huntington r3each and leased to the Hti, in;lLon fie ac. !no
r)riftwoud Mobile Home Park and Golf Course. The, area has hee,a
d` !;Ign,-ited as romrnercial/support recreation to reflect existing uses and as a
ptytential fijbirr site of a major cornrnerrial/recreational development to
comolemeW. the City Beach. No height limit is applied to this area.
' =NSE R'C � PEKE
. . :. _. Si,
REVISIONS OR ADDITION
x :. sa
COASTAL LAND USE PLAN
GOLDENWEST STREET TO BEACH BOULEVARD Add the following floor area ratios to Figure 10.8•Page 128: 3.0 for Goldenwesst'to S.ikf&i
Streets; 6.0 for Sixth to Loyce and Huntington to•Beach. zr
. x
COiMMERCIAL -
_ . - - - .(6 stories) **
+ _. . .- (8 acres) :MEDIUM
DENSITY A�
RESIDENTIAL .
- - _ - - - -- --- - (3 stories)
OFFICE/ - '' ( '.�1 acres)
1 RESIDENTIAL- -
(6 stories) **
--- --'- - -• - -- =-- -� _ (43 acres) ._• ;--- -----.- .
- -- -- . FARm b.O I /
F
�—
I l V .
'i. STTOR- HIGH VISITOR- VISITOR- HTGH CO:',:?ERCIr.L
..=RUING DENSIT`! SERVING SERVING DENS •T '`: ':�"�v RT
.,l. t
COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL* COMMERCIAL COMMERCIAL RESIDFN:'IAL RECREATION
( 3 acres) (3 stories) ** (4 acres) (6 stories) ** ( 3 stories) ( 30 acres)
fAes7.O (45 acres) Fi4�- 3,D ( 3 acres)
(47 acres) f+�1Ra(aD
`iilC.;ii :'1 O'P"'10N C(: FI) . ..._..:I.`, 'Prl►Qa (�.�
' SF.i: t;:"•.GE: 4 : FU_i CL:�aIFICATION OF HEIGHT I.,1MLis
REQUESP FOR . CITY COUNCIL AC ON 3
Date September 1, 1982
Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Submitted by: Charles W. Thompson, City Administrato OWED ITY COUNCIL
0
Prepared by: James W. Palin, Director, Development Se des r_�_ _ -' ► 3 _::_
Subject: COASTAL ENERGY IMPACT PROGRAM GRANT APPLTION l "
Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions, Attachments:
STATEMENT OF ISSUE:
The City has recently been working on three projects related to
energy facilities : participation in the review of offshore oil lease
sales, implementation of landscaping requirements in the Oil Code,
and improving the bluff area along the beach in the Townlot. Our
1981-82 Coastal Energy Impact Program grant has been completed.
Additional funding is now available to fund staff to continue our
participation in these projects.
RECOMMENDATION:
.Authorize the application to the State Coastal Commission for a
Coastal Energy Impact Program Grant in the amount of $15,100
in order to continue these. important projects involving mitigation
of impacts from -energy-production facilities. The City will make
an in-kind contribution of 30%of the total ($6., 470) .
ANALYSIS :
During the past three years, the City_ has been very active in miti-
gating the adverse impacts from oil and energy production facilities
with the help of funding from the Coastal Energy Impact Program.
Significant success has been -achieved in this regard, notably the
updating of the City' s oil code, and considerable progress on the
landscape and accessways project on the Bolsa Chica bluffs.
There are four projects which the City will continue to work on
during the next year related to energy production: 1) Continued
participation in the review process for Federal leasing of off
shore oil tracts, 2) review of plans and consultation with oil
operators regarding the implementation of new landscaping require-
ments for oil production sites, 3) continued participation with
City departments and the oil companies on the improvements to the
bluff area between 9th and Goldenwest Streets, and 4) planning for
ways to increase parking opportunities along Bolsa Chica Beach
southeast of Goldenwest Street.
P10 4/81
COASTAL ENERGY, Cont.
Sept. 8, 1982
,Page 2
This Coastal Commission grant would provide funding for these four
projects. The City will very likely undertake these programs re-
gardless of State funding, since to 'do so is in the City' s best
interests. This grant will help to defray City costs for these
programs.
FUNDING SOURCE:
State Coastal Commission
ALTERNATIVES:
No grant application: If the City does not apply for this grant,
either the projects will have to be discontinued, or the City will
have to absorb the cost.
ATTACHMENTS :
1. Resolution
2 . Summary of Grant Request
JWP:JAF :jlm
r
y
COASTAL ENERGY IMPACT PROGRAM
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 1982
PROJECT NARRATIVE
Huntington Beach has long been the site of significant energy production facilities. The
City's coastal areas, in particular, have been heavily impacted by energy activities.
Within our coastal zone there exist an electrical power plant and intensive oil operations.
Four oil platforms now operate off the City's shore, and it is possible that more platforms
may be developed in the future. At the same time, the City's nine miles of beaches
attract over one million visitors a year, making it particularly important to mitigate the
impacts of present energy activities and to plan now for future energy facilities in our
coastal zone. The City has received three previous Coastal Energy Impact Program
grants. These grants have enabled the City to plan for energy facilities and the
mitigation of their impacts and to begin to implement some of the policies developed for
the City's Local Coastal Plan.
The City's first CEIP grant funded the preparation of background information necessary to
develop energy policies for its Local Coastal Plan. The second grant enabled the City to
develop new ordinances, revise the Oil Code, and begin projects that, will help implement
Local Coastal Plan energy policies. The third CEIP grant allowed the City to continue its
ongoing monitoring of Federal offshore oil lease-sales and related OCS activities, and to
begin projects designed to mitigate the impacts of oil production facilities on urban
development and recreational facilities. The tasks proposed to be undertaken with this
grant are designed to continue activities initiated under the earlier CEIP grants and to go
beyond the zoning ordinances toward developing and coordinating projects which will
implement the Local Coastal Plan.
The City is continually monitoring and investigating various funding sources, among which
energy-related programs are of prime importance. In the past, the City has investigated
funding through the Urban Forestry Program and the California Conservation Corps.
Currently, we are exploring the Urban Waterfronts Program. In implementing tasks
developed under previous CEIP grants, we have utilized a variety of funding sources. For
example, funds to implement the blufftop improvement project (see Task 2) were obtained
from the State Coastal Conservancy, the County and the Citypas well as through an
intensive fund raising campaign to obtain donations from the community and the private
sector. The City will contribute 30 percent of the total project cost towards.
implementation of the tasks proposed in this grant.
Task 1. REVIEW OF LEASE-SALE #80 DOCUMENTS AND HEARING
PARTICIPATION: ONSHORE IMPACTS FROM NEW OCS AND TIDELANDS
PLATFORMS
The City's LCP policies call for closer monitoring of energy-related
developments in the Coastal Zone and increased participation in energy
impact planning. The City participated in the review process for Lease-Sale
#68, and we feel it is important to similarly participate in upcoming
Lease-Sale #80, which will likely include tracts off the shore of Huntington
Beach and is scheduled to take place within the time frame of this grant.
Further, a tract off the City's shore was leased to Gulf Oil Company in
Lease-Sale #68 and it will be important to monitor exploration and
development of this tract as it occurs. Huntington Beach has been analyzed
in previous lease-sales as a site for onshore support facilities including
support bases, separation plants, storage facilities, marine terminals and
pipeline landfalls. The City is not necessarily opposed to new facilities, in
part because it already has experience with existing oil operations. However,
this makes it especially important for the City to participate in OCS hearing
processes and to analyze the potential impacts of new or expanded onshore
facilities and how they combine with impacts of the existing facilities to
affect the community.
The City has also been monitoring offshore tidelands activities within the
three-mile limit. Aminoil USA has initiated a pilot program for steam
injection from an existing Tideland platform. If successful, a new platform
approximately 1.5 miles off the shore of the City seems likely. In
anticipation of this project, Aminoil has begun preparing applications for test
drilling in order to find the best location for the new facility, if it is
necessary. Oil recovered here would be landed and treated in Huntington
Beach.
The City will monitor development in this area, and determine the kinds of
facilities that may be needed, such as new pipeline landfalls or the expansion
of onshore treatment and storage facilities. The City will also review and
comment on the environmental documentation prepared for the test drilling
and platforms.
Objectives: Increase local participation in energy planning. Assess impacts
from any new or expanded onshore facilities in Huntington Beach resulting
from new OCS or Tidelands operations.
Budget: Staff Rate Time Total
Assistant Planner $569/week 8 weeks $4,768
Associate Planner $783/week 1 week 783
(City Match)
$5,551
Task 2. CONTINUE LOCAL COASTAL PLAN IMPLEMENTATION PROJECT:
IMPROVEMENT OF BOLSA CHICA BEACH
Previous CEIP grants have enabled the City to work on strategies to improve
Bolsa Chica State Beach access, aesthetics, and recreational opportunities
while at the same time accommodating the oil production facilities which
have been operating on the site for several decades. Significant progress has
already been made, but continued work is necessary. Improvement efforts
have been focused on a one and a half mile strip of low bluffs paralle to
Pacific Coast Highway. For years, the bluffs have been barren, littered, and
crisscrossed with oil pipelines. Access to the beach below was both
hazardous and inadequate. The blufftop landscape project, initiated under
previous CEIP grants, will dramatically improve this site. A master
landscape plan for the area has been developed by the City and approved by
the State Department of Parks and Recreation and the two oil companies
operating at the site. The plan provides for phased improvement of the
blufftop. The first phase, to begin this winter, calls for installation of an
irrigation system and permanent landscaping. Phases two and three will
include park hardscape, additional landscaping and Pacific Coast Highway
median improvements. A bike trail along the bluffs already exists, and
funding for the construction of four accessways to the beach was obtained
from the State Coastal Conservancy. Changes to the Huntington Beach Oil
Code, funded by previous CEIP grants, required the oil companies to remove
or bury the unsightly pipelines which marred the bluffs and inhibited access.
A combination of City and County funds, as well as private donations, is
available to begin implementing the Phase I landscaping plans. In addition,
construction of the beach accessways is beginning now. As the work
progresses on these two aspects of bluff improvement, it will be important
for City staff to coordinate with the various departments and agencies
participating. Because the City, the County, the State Department of Parks
and Recreation, two oil companies, and Cal Trans are involved, to varying
degrees, in the funding, planning, and/or implemention of the blufftop
improvement plans, it is vital that the City continue to work with all parties
to ensure that tasks are smoothly scheduled, approvals obtained, and delays
minimized.
At the same time, ways to fund later phases of the landscape project will be
explored. Planning efforts will include investigating available grant monies
for projects of this type and devising additional fundraising efforts with
public and private entities to support further blufftop improvements.
Objectives: The transformation of the blufftop area into a landscaped park,
thus enhancing recreation, access and visual resources, while still
accommodating energy facilities. Implementation of a successful project
which is a high priority for the Local Coast Plan in the community.
Budget: Staff Rate Time Total
Assistant Planner $569/week 8 weeks $4,768
Associate Planner $783/week 1 week 783
(City Match)
$5,551
Task 3. NEW ORDINANCE IMPLEMENTATION: LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING
OF OIL OPERATION SITES
As part of the previous CEIP grant, the City developed a pamphlet to assist
oil operators in landscaping and screening their oil operation sites to conform
with the provisions of the City's revised Oil Code. The Code requires that oil
sites in developed areas be landscaped and screened by July 1, 1983 or at the
time of new drilling or re-drilling, whichever is sooner.
Many of the smaller oil sites scattered throughout residential and commercial
areas of the City are owned by small, independent operators. More than 300
wells are operated by over 70 independent companies. The operators
generally do not have the resources or the expertise to properly develop
viable landscaping and screening plans for their sites, which in many ways are
the most objectionable because they are typically in close proximity to other
uses. Planning staff will coordinate the landscape plan review process with
the Public Works and Fire Departments to ensure that the most effective
mitigation of oil impacts is achieved.
Objectives: 1) Increase cost effectiveness of landscaping and screening, 2)
improve aesthetics of areas of the community which are heavily impacted by
oil operations, and 3) help maintain a good working relationship between the
City and oil operators in implementing this ordinance.
Budget: Staff Rate Time Total
Assistant $596/week 3 weeks $1,788
Associate $783/week 1 week 783
(City Match)
$2,571
Task 4. DEVELOP STRATEGIES FOR JOINT USE OF OIL PRODUCTION AREAS TO
INCREASE PARKING OPPORTUNITIES FOR BEACH ACCESS AT BOLSA
CHICA STATE BEACH
The Blufftop Park project at Bolsa Chica State Beach will attract more
visitors to a beach that previously was relatively inaccessible. However, the
City presently has no sites which can be used to increase the public parking
opportunities in the area.
Limited-time parking is available along Pacific Coast Highway at metered
curbside spaces. Longer-term parking is only possible along the inland side
streets, which are residential in nature. The many empty lots which
currently exist in the area fronting Pacific Coast Highway are heavily used
for beach parking. These informal parking facilities are expected to
disappear shortly, as development occurs on this valuable land. Loss of the
spaces in the vacant lots will greatly increase the burden on the on-street
spaces.
Cal Trans is planning a widening project for this part of Pacific Coast
Highway which would involve restriping the highway to six lanes within its
present width. The restriping project will contribute to better traffic flow
and increased safety on Pacific Coast Highway but will result in removal of
all on-street parking, a loss of about 275 parking spaces. Some of these will
be recaptured through mitigation measures proposed by Cal Trans, but the
loss of any parking in this area will be seriously felt.
The existing oil pumping units strung out along the beach are serviced from
an asphalt road which runs along the beach below the bluff. Parts of this
service road may be suitable for beach parking. For example, the portion of
the road between Eleventh and Fourteenth Streets services only four wells.
The City would like to pursue negotiations with the oil companies for an
arrangement whereby the service road could be utilized for public beach
parking. This could be accomplished either by providing incentives for the
companies to relocate the wells along this portion of the service road, or by
developing a joint use mechanism so that both parking and access to the wells
could be accommodated. If additional parking could be accommodated in
conjunction with oil operations, public access would be greatly enhanced.
Preliminary converstions with the two oil companies involved indicate that
such an agreement might be possible.
Objectives: To increase public access by making parking opportunities
available within an energy production site through the cooperative efforts of
the City and the oil companies. This would implement policies for public
access in the Local Coastal Plan and further encourage joint participation by
the oil producers with the City in an important community enhancement
effort.
Budget: Staff Rate Time Total
Assistant Planner $596/week 6 weeks $3,576
Associate Planner $783/week 1 week 783
(City Match)
$4,359
JF:de
PART III:
PROPOSED BUDGET
Applicant: City of Huntington Beach
Project Title: Coastal Energy Impact Program 1982
Total Applicant CEIP Grant
Project Costs Contribution Requested*
Personal Services
Salaries and wages 14, 155 2 , 455 11, 700
Benefits ( 27. 5% %) 3, 875 675 3, 200
Total Personal Services 18, 030 3, 130 14, 900
Operating Expenses
Travel 100 -0- 100
Equipment -0- -0- -0-
Professional & Consultant Services -0-
Other Operating Expenses 420 320 100
Total Operating Expenses 520 320 200
Indirect Costs ( 20 %) 3, 020 3, 020 -0-
TOTAL 21, 570 6, 470 15, 100
* CEIP assistance may not exceed 70% of the total budget for the project.
F�UEST TO SUBMIT GRANTS APPLI ION
TO: Grants Coordinator
FROM: James W. Palin, Director, Department of Development Services
DATE: September .9, 1982
Attached is the application regarding (Program or project name)
Coastal Energy Impact Program 1982
This application will not be submitted to any agency outside City government until City procedures are
complied with and the Grants Coordinator has approved its submission.
A Request for Council Action is attached which includes the following information:
1. Brief summary of program or project to be funded. .
2. Time required to complete program or project, and the estimated Federal/State/City financial
commitments required for each year.
3. Will the City share be cash or in-kind? If cash, how much, over what period?
4. If in-kind, list number and kind of City positions, salaries, expense, and equipment which would be
used for City share, and for what period of time.
5. If above City resources (see No. 4) are used for matching funds for this grant, from what other City
programs presently budgeted would these resources be taken?
6. When would you expect the City to receive the Federal/State funds for their portion of this grant.
7. If reimbursement is involved, when would you expect the City to receive Federal/State reimburse-
ment for City General or other funds expended?
8. How will this program or project benefit the citizens.of the City of Huntington Beach?
_ 9. How will this program or project relate to existing City government, and will it assist or deter
existing City governmental functions? Is it in conformance with general plan, capital improvements
program,other.plans?
10. Does this grant require an environmental impact statement?
Has it been prepared?
11. Have you consulted with the Finance Department on the preparation of the grant budget?
Approval
i Admini r
Date
nt _C ► or
.9,71
ILI cc
'Personnel
Budget Hesearch
r
Plo 4/s2
REC? EST FOR CITY COUIV IL ACTION �"?S p ,,�
Submitted by James W. Palin- Department Planning Department
Date Prepared January 5 , 19 79 Backup Material Attached 0 Yes No
Subject RESOLUTION ON INTENTION TO ASSUME COASTAL PERMITTING PROCESS
City Administrator's Comments
GD s •:
Roy�D�Y
GIT�
Approve as recommended. -�'
--
Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative ctions:
STATEMENT OF ISSUE:
The City Council on December 4, 1978, on the recommen ation of the
Planning Commission, directed staff to pursue the do umentation
necessary to vest the coastal permit authority with he City of
Huntington Beach. This action is a follow-up to th Council' s direction.
RECOMMENDATION:
In order to effect the assumption of the coastal ermit authority,
the initial step is adoption of a Notice of Inten ion to assume the
coastal permit process. This notice is required to be in the form of
a resolution of the legislative body of the jur sdiction for trans-
mittal to the Coastal Commission. Such a reso ution
Staff recommends Alternative Action No. 2 do not pursue the authority .
ANALYSIS:
The Planning Commission on November 7, 1978, requested Council to
explore the possibility of obt ning the coastal permitting authority
for the City. This option is,/available under the Coastal Act (as re-
vised in August 1978) as an alternative to the present procedure
under which coastal permits are issued by the Coastal Commission.
Council on December 4, 1978 approved the request of the Planning Com-
mission and instructed staff to proceed with preparation of documents
required for the assumption of the coastal permit process.
The initial document is the Notice of Intent resolution which is the
subject of this request. The resolution would notify the Coastal
Commission that the City is pursuing the permit option and would be
submitting an ordinance defining the City' s procedure.
Pio sns
The following work outline lists the further steps necessary to
submit the ordinance to the Coastal Commission, as they are known
at this stage:
Research:
1. Examine the Los Angeles City Coastal Permit Ordinance.
2. Review Huntington Beach existing processes in the code and
in practice.
3. Review Coastal Act requirements.
4. Review Coastal Commission permit procedures.
5. Review coastal guidelines and precedent cases which may
be applicable in Huntington Beach.
Process Development:
1. Formulate a City coastal permitting process in conjunction
with the existing development process - main work item.
Ordinance Development:
1. Develop a draft ordinance which adjusts existing City pro-
cesses to include the necessary coastal permit requirements
(i.e. , hearings, notification, etc. )..
Ordinance Reviews and Approvals:
1. Conduct draft reviews by staff and other departments.
2. City Attorney' s review.
3. Ordinance revisions.
4. Coastal Commission staff review for adequacy.
5. Prepare the staff report and schedule a Planning
Commission study session.
6. Respond -to Planning Commission inquiries and requests.
7 . Draft revisions .
8. Arrange for staff reviews/Coastal Commission staff
reviews if necessary.
9. Prepare staff •report and arrange for Planning Commission
agenda item and participate in Planning Commission meeting.
10. Transmit Planning Commission recommendation to City Council.
11. Prepare staff report for City Council.
12. Arrange proper notification for public hearings.
13 . Aid Council in public hearing on the ordinance. Transmit
executed ordinance to Coastal Commission.
An estimate of the time necessary to perform this work outline
is roughly, four months . This is based on several studies of
planning projects . The City Planned Development Ordinance was
prepared over a period of two and one-quarter years with 108
hours of staff time recorded. Thus, the staff time expenditures
were less than 3% of the total completion time including notice
periods, hearings, etc .
In a study of Planning Department time record in .1972, preparation
of zone cases, final tracts, tentative tracts , .:and conditional
use permits were averaging 26 hours of planner 's time per item '
(8% of the completion time) . These records reflect single-staff-
report items , with no appeals . (These would generally require
more extensive preparation under present procedures.: )
The estimate of planner hours expended in developing the Los
Angeles City coastal permit ordinance was 960 hours. This is
about 6% of the total completion time.
Hours required to develop the Local Coastal Program Work Program
were approximately 800. Staff hours were approximately 45% of
the completion time for this project.
To perform the work outlined in this report is estimated to
required a minimum of 240 staff hours, which is 1.5 months full-
time. (Approximatley $3, 000) . If the .Ordinance were finalized
within a 4 month period, the staff hours would be 37 .5% of comp-
letion time. Thus , an estimate of four months for submittal of
an Ordinance to the Coastal. Commission implies intensive efforts
and tight scheduling. It would require the attention of a planner
on this task during the full period not just for the ordinance
preparation. The time may not cover the necessary public notice
periods, etc.
Impacts upon the Local Coastal Program, if the decision is made
to proceed with the ordinance development may include the transferance
of staff time directly from Local. Coastal Program contracted tasks
to preparation of the ordinance and associated tasks. If the
authority to issue permits is gained by the City, attention will be
directed away from the comprehensive Coastal Element and toward
piece-meal, project-by-project procedures . On the other hand,
beginning the City coastal process during the Local Coastal Program
planning may provide a training and examination period and enable
an improved process to be instituted by the Local Coastal Program.
Vacant properties in the coastal zone which may yet be affected by
a coastal permit process number over 200 and total about 530 acres .
FUNDING SOURCE:
The operation of the coastal permit operation can, at least in part,
be financed through a permit fee structure . The process planning
and ordinance development efforts -would be funded out of the
regular Planning Department budget. Though this process is provided
for under the Coastal Act of 1976, it is optional and therefore not
fundable under a Federal Coastal Zone Management Grant or State
SB-90 funding, as is the required Local Coastal Program.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS :
1) Table the Notice of Intention until a draft ordinance is
prepared by staff.
2) Determine not to pursue the authority now but to support the
staff efforts to complete the Local Coastal Program within
1979 . The permit issuing authority will then become the responsi-
bility of the City upon certification of the Local Coastal Program.
Respectfully submitted,
6��La
7amesPalin
anning Director
dc
• CITY OF HUnTInGTOn BEACH
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
• P. O. BOX 190, HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92648 (714) 536-5271
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Attn: Floyd G. Belsito, City Administrator
'FROM: James W. Palin, Acting Planning Director
DATE: January 11, 1979
RE: JANUARY 15, 1979 ITEM M-5 SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
To employ an additional staff member to develop and coordinate
the processing of the Ordinance and other documentation would
cost as follows:
Planner Associate $1617/mo x 4 mo. _ $6, 468
Benefits @ 30% 1, 940
• $8, 408*
*This does not include indirect costs such as personnel and
recruiting costs, payroll, participators in developing the process
from other departments, those who review and comment on drafts, schedule
h rings, etc. , and assumes the need for no training Period.
a
MLN:gc
0
f /
1�
1- reil,4L
Ito
Peogo lif
REQUEST FOR CITY COUIV L A§' ICOP
James W. Palin/Mary Lynn Planning - Local Coastal Program -
Submitted by Norby. Staff Liaison Department Citizen,Advisory Committee
December . 13 78
Date Prepared Revised December 22 , 19 78 Backup Mat re ial-A hed x Yes No
Subjectr.
City Administrator's Comments
APPROVED By CITY
COUNCIL
--------------
_Discretionary with -Council. _ 19
'ter
crr ct iritc
-x? u
Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions:
Statement of Issue:
The Seacliff Phase IV development proposal is currently under review for City
approvals. This 112-acre project is within the coastal permitting zone and also the
Local Coastal planning area. The Local Coastal Plan to be completed in mid-1979 will
contain recommended land uses for all coastal properties including the subject proposal
area. Until this LCP is complete, approval of a large development project such as
Seacliff may predetermine actions of the LCP or be inconsistent with Coastal Act
policies.
Recommendation:
The Local Coastal Program-Citizen Advisory Committee at its meetings on December 6,
1978 and December 20, 1978, by votes of 12-0, resolved to request. the City -Council to
communicate with the South Coast Regional Commission about this project. The purpose
of the communication is to urge that the information from the Local Coastal Program
studies and land use determinations be included in the permitting decision on this large
project. To include this information in permitting decisions, the project permit reviews
need to be scheduled subsequent to the preparation of the Huntington Beach Coastal
Element.
Analysis:
The Seacliff area was identified in the Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program - Work
Program as a coastal issue area. The issues which were identified then were described
on page 30:
next page, please . . . . . . . .
Pio sna
Request for City Council Action
Seacliff Development Processing
December 22, 1978
Page 2
"The issues concerning this area are the location of the varying densities of
residential, circulation, the integration of existing long-term oil facilities, and siting
to preserve and provide access to vistas and maximize onsite open space. The
latter issue becomes especially critical if bluff line regional park is not pursued by
the County of Orange. An additional issue is the impact of any expansion of the oil
production area along Pacific Coast Highway in response to offshore oil
development. The landfall for the existing offshore wells is in this area. It is
possible that this area of the coastal zone could require significant expansion of its
offshore oil processing and transportation facilities. Such a major expansion would
significantly affect the Seacliff planned community."
Additional coastal issues which were identified in the review of Environmental Impact
Report 77-6, pages 236 to 243, are included as an attachment to this request.
The potential offshore oil activity effects in this area were again emphasized in these
E IR comments.
The removal of such a large parcel (112 acres) from consideration for alternative uses
such as oil or recreation or visitor-serving facilities seriously reduces the options
available in a comprehensive local coastal plan.
The issue of the potential danger to habitat areas from runoff into the Bolsa Chico was
identified. The determination of whether the proposed mitigation measures will be
sufficient to protect coastal resources has not been made by the Local Coastal Plan at
this time.
The extension of 38th Street to intersect with Pacific Coast Highway is preliminarily
felt to be consistent with Coastal Act policies. However, this determination awaits
certain street capacity data presently being developed.
How the proposal, if otherwise compatible, could be consistent with the Coastal Act
policy to increase low- and moderate-income housing opportunities will be addressed in
the Seacliff Coastal Area Study, not completed, and the Housing Background Study, still
under review.
That the uses and protections of a regionally significant, sensitive habitat and wetland
area, the Bolsa Chica, immediately adjacent to the project have not been finalized by
the Orange County Local Coastal Program, State Lands Commission and the State
Department of Fish and Game will tend to render a decision made on this project
premature.
next page, please . . . . . . . . .
Request for City Council Action
Seacliff Development Processing
December 22, 1978
Page 3
Some of these concerns have not been resolved even during the extensive, iterative
communications and planning which have taken place on Seacliff. It would be unwise
planning to establish an irretrievable site use without resolving these issues.
Funding Source:
The communication costs are negligible in relation to the issues involved.
Alternative/Additional Actions:
1. The Local Coastal Program - Citizen Advisory Committee could provide direct input
at Coastal Commission hearings concerning the status of the Huntington Beach Local
Coastal Plan.
2. Local Coastal Program staffing decisions could be expedited to enable the coastal
planning to proceed on an advanced schedule.
Respectfully submitted,
4) T—a'3�o
James W. Pa I in
Acting Planning Director
JWP:MLN:sh
Attachments: Pages 236 - 243 of EIR 77-6
• ���Iir1 e:�V i PA7?OW
7J—,>
61ims
45. Co nt
G � .
i ; he flood ha rd map on shee 134 is outdated Use the map
dated Augu 28, 1976.
Res se
T outdated map.. as been replace
46 Comment
Permissio ' and input must •e obtained from he appropriate
agenc' s involved in'' a drainage of he Seacliff de v opment to the olsa
I Chi a.
esponse
/" 4
The comment s incorporated reference.
. Commen
The ast sentence on age 133 is n clear. Six c .s. seems
ldw when compa ng undeveloped developed noff.
Response
Recalculation of the runoff increase by the applicants engineer
indicates the Ancr.ease-wi•11 be 13.2' c.f.s.
48. Comment
j Coastal policies intend to defer all large (over 5 acres)
'i projects until after LCP certification in all coastal areas (not just the
Bolsa Chica) . This is to prevent prejudice of the LCP Land Use Plan by
on-going large developments.
Response
The comment is incorporated by reference.
49. Comment
The factor that through-views will be excluded because of the 1,
project has more applicability than that the interior portions of the devel-
opment are not visible to the public.
1
Response
The effect is the same. The inability to see into the project {
4.
indicates that you cannot see through the project.
236 1
. W�IIYIS►;1'1t'M.1',
50. Comment
The no-project alternative is described as allowing for future
expanded oil uses. This is a very pertinent future planning option not given
sufficient emphasis in this report. The proposed project could preclude
extensive oil/gas facility expansion in the area. This is one of the sites
in California identified by recent State studies as a preferred landfall
opportunity for offshore -activities . Until the LCP is completed, this
` potential conflict of land uses will not have been thoroughly examined and
additional data on resource extraction demand and support facility require-
ments will not have been obtained. This project proposes to proceed before
these geographically contingent factors are examined.
Response
There are a large number. of potential impacts resulting from
the proposed project, each requiring attention. The City believes the report
presents a balanced review of those impacts.
51 . Comment
The possibility of reorienting the common open spaces for
better public visual use could improve the project with respect to the
Coastal policy of visual resource protection, depending on the resulting
configuration.
Response
The possibility of redesigning the project to enhance public
visual use is discussed in the Mitigation Section.
52. Comment
Because of the potential for damage to the adjacent Bolsa Chica
marsh, runoff should be channeled away from the Bolsa Chica. Continued or
expanded usage of the culvert on the north is not compatible with Coastal Act
policies regarding the preservation of wetland areas.
Response
Runoff cannot be gravity channeled away from Bolsa Chica without
raising the entire project area several feet. (See response to comment No. 1 )
237
i • • C
�I�Irasiyte�ms
i
53. Comment
The Coastal policy to increase non-vehicular access to the beach
. � areas would find consistency with bike routes along Palm Avenue and connecting
to Goldenwest and 38th Streets , thus to Pacific Coast Highway. The 38th
Street bikeway location should be integrated into the aluffline Regional
Park so that separation from the roadway can be effected.
Response
The comment is incorporated by reference.
54. Comment
The extension of 38th Street to PCH in addition to the northerly
extension to Edwards Street would provide additional , much-needed access .to
coastal resources , perhaps relieving the PCH intersections at Goldenwest,
17th Street, and Main Street, and would provide a scenic vehicle route along
an open space corridor from. Central Park. However, this easier access to PCH
may encourage north- or south-bound commuters to choose the coastal route.
The LCP will analyze the need for the PCH intertie as well as the circulation
needs for the entire area.
Response
No response necessary.
55. Comment
The 924 + acre site is proposed for State acquisition for
ecological preservation. The Orange County Linear Regional Park is to include
j a much smaller area , approximately 100-200 acres.
: I
I Response
The comment is incorporated by reference.
i 56. Comment
The- Coastal Policy referred to is aimed at increasing lower cost
1 housing availability in the coastal zone. This project does not contribute
I i to this goal . However, it does not displace any lower cost homes, since the
site is unpopulated. Therefore only an alternate project providing lower
cost housing would be an improvement in this respect.
Response
The comment is incorporated by reference.
238
ult ►)•slrnt.c .
57. Comment
As a general comment, it should be clarified that the Coastal
Act of 1976, not the Coastal Plan, is the basis for Coastal Commission
judgments. Chapter 3 of that Act contains the adopted policies. Many of
these are based on the Coastal Plan; however, the Coastal Plan itself is
not the policy document.
Response
The comment is incorporated by reference.
58. Comment
h The first and second paragraphs on page 109 could be more
accurately rewritten to read as follows:
The project site lies within the coastal zone boundary which defines
the jurisdiction of the California Coastal Commission. The California Coastal
Act of 1976 was based on the 1975 California Coastal Plan which resulted from
the statewide Coastal Initiative of 1972. The California Coastal Commission
and six Regional Commissions have the general responsibility for protecting
the natural , scenic, and other resources of the California Coastal Zone.
k
The official boundary, which averages a 1 ,000 yard wide- band along the coast-
F -
line of the State, is depicted in the Coastline Boundary Map of 1976.
Projects proposed for anywhere shoreward of this boundary are required to
obtain Coastal permits.
"Projects within the Huntington Beach Coastal Zone (and this project
is within the zone) must apply .for permits from the South Coast Regional
Commission after receiving necessary City approvals, until such time as a
Local Coastal Plan is certified. The Commission currently bases its decisions
on Interpretive Guidelines , upon the research and mapped data of the California
Coastal Plan and the permitting experience of the previous Coastal Zone Con-
servation Commission. When the Huntington Beach Local Coastal Plan with
�. specific land use goals and designations is certified , this permitting process
will become a City process."
Response
The suggested changes are incorporated by reference.
u 239
MI �
uI/ImSl�clen7.c
.� �.
59. Comment
i
Since the guidelines listed are from the California Coastal Plan,
1975, they do not represent the latest policies in each .map area . They do
r
represent the best planning recommendations of the Coastal Zone Conservation
s
Commission for its 1975 plan. They were interim determinations which were
considered in the California Coastal Act of 1976.
Response
No response necessary.
60. Comment
Considering the above, (comment no. 59) the Bolsa Chica section
is not the only concern in the project area. Within those guidelines , how-
ever, under Pacific Coast Highway is a mention of "upland parking areas"
which could apply in the project area. Also, the project area is a part of
the Huntington Beach oil field, which was not mentioned here. The groundwater
aquifers and the water injection plants directly to the south of the site
need to be evaluated for interactive impacts.
Response
4
.4 The interactive impacts are discussed in the sections that
apply to those impacts (soils and geology, noise, air quality, etc.) .
61 . Comment
Due to the policy provisions of the Coastal Act of 1976; that
�, .• the Coastal Plan guidelines quoted exclude the project site is irrelevant.
y ` Areas adjacent to environmentally sensitive habitat areas must also be
a
evaluated in terms of their impacts to the resources.
Response
See response to comment no. 60.
62. Comment
Rewrite page 111 , last paragraph to update:
"The Work Program for the Local Coastal Program dated October. 17,
1977, has been prepared. It sets out the tasks and schedule for the
preparation of the Local Coastal Plan. The land use designations resulting
from this plan are scheduled to be completed by March, 1979. The LCP will
t include definitive development and resource policies as well as specific
i
a land use designations."
240
Itmsystems
Response
The suggested update is incorporated by reference.
63. Comment
Change Draft LCP to LCP Work Program.
Figure 28 shows the location of issue areas to be studied in
the Local Coastal Program process. No land use designations are proposed
by the Work Program. `
Response
The comment is incorporated by reference.
64. Comment
Two other issues cited in the LCP Work Program are: ( 1 ) the
consideration of other than residential uses , and (2) the consideration of
plans for offshore oil and gas support facilities possibly locatable in
this area.
Response
Incorporated by reference.
65. Comment
The Interpretive Guidelines are required by the Coastal Act of
1976, Section 30620, not the California Coastal Plan. These interpretive
guidelines are general statements of Commission findings of consistency with
the Coastal Act.
Response
The correction is incorporated by reference.
66. Comment
That "The project site is adjacent to a sensitive planning area
whose ultimate development plans are undetermined at this time." is a
significant comment.
Response
No response necessary.
241
ulr.u.st�src-m.s
67 . Comment
The report correctly sets out that this project represents an
irretrievable use of the site, eliminating future planning options. The
project appears to be inconsistent with the Coastal Act.
Response
No response necessary.
68. Comment
The Local Coastal Program--Work Program has made no planning
designations whatever, only determined what .issues must be resolved in
particular areas. The project, however, is consistent with the City's
General Plan and current zoning.
i
Response
I�
The reference to Work Program planning designation has been
deleted from page 146.
69. Comment
i Further evaluation of the need for increased facilities to
support offshore (OCS) oil and gas operations is one things that needs to
j occur before this project can be said not to prejedice the LCP.
IResponse
The report does not state that approval of the project will
not prejudice the LCP.
{ 70. Comment
y No land uses have yet been envisioned for the Huntington Beach
} ; coastal zone by the Local Coastal Program.
Response
Incorporated by reference.
J71 . Comment
' I The following comments refer to the Initial Study:
In the Water Quality Declaration 2.9(a) : The project site abuts
the Bolsa Chica, a tideland and former bay.
2.11 (c) : How will the project reduce existing noise levels , con-
sidering the increased traffic induced?
242
ullms yslems
Response
The Initial Study is an informational document designed to help
determine if an EIR is necessary. Comments on the Initial Study are not
appropriate in the Draft EIR review period.
72. Comment
"The City's five-year capital improvement program" referred to
in this section is not an approved document, but the Public Works Department's
plan for improvement it sees as necessary.
Response
See response to comment no. 31 ..
TH FOLLOWING COMMENT 'WERE RECEIVO FROM THE CALL RNIA DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSP TATION CALTRANS .
{ 73. Comment S mar
J The tr fic and circ ation secti did not cons' er generation
of dditional traf is on Pacifi Coast Highw
s onse
The report es estimat the amount of roject_.generated
traffic th t would use acific Coa Highway. Spe fic mitigation m sures
were not suggested b cause .the oject is such small percentage f the
regio 1 traffic at influe es PCH and req' res a regional s ution.
74. omment Su ar
Caitran feels that, 5 to miles per trip ould be more
reasonabl than th O miles per tri used in the rep t.
R s onse
en miles per trip was considere reasonable b ause with th
exception the Seacliff S pping Center, e project. is airly remot
from wor and shopping ar as.
75. Comment ummar
Caltr s agrees that nnection of 8th Street o PCH shoul
not be done until ometime in the future.
243
REQUAT FOR CITY
COUNCI ACTT .31
Submitted by James W. Palin Department Planning Department
Date Pr6pared November 15 , 19 7 88 Backup Material Attached ® Yes No
Subject LOCAL COASTAL PLAN - DEVELOPMENT PERMIT PROCESS
City Administrator's Cowatnts
L CITY COUNCI•�,Approve as recommended. EM-rIFROVED
7 x
CITY CLERIC
Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions:
STATEMENT OF ISSUE:
Transmitted for your consideration is a request from the Planning
Commission that the Planning Department pursue the necessary policies
and procedures to take over the development permit process, pursuant
to the Coastal Act of 1976.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council concur on
the City' s assumption of the coastal permitting authority and instruct
the staff to prepare necessary documentation for submittal to the
Coastal Commission for its approval in vesting that authority to the .
City of Huntington Beach.
ANALYSIS:
Planning Commission action on November 7, 1978 :
. ON MOTION BY PAONE AND SECOND BY BAZIL THE COMMISSION DETERMINED
TO REQUEST THAT THE CITY COUNCIL EXPLORE THE POSSIBILITY OF OBTAIN-
ING PERMITTING AUTHORITY WITHIN THE COASTAL ZONE FOR THE CITY OF
HUNTINGTON BEACH AND DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTA-
TION, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Higgins, Russell, Stern, Finley, Cohen, Bazil, Paone
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Recently, projects that had been approved by _the City and subsequently
submitted to the Coastal Commission for entitlement have been condi-
tioned by that Commission to incorporate low cost housing at a ratio
and at locations that the Planning Commission feels are unacceptable
in the City of Huntington Beach. The - Planning Commission also stated
Pio ane '�
Permitting Process
November 15, 1978
Page 2
that the Coastal Commission' s actions are essentially mandating
revisions to zoning, site layout, and tract map modifications which
are not in the best interests of the City of Huntington Beach.
The Coastal Act provides that a finding can be made that proposed
projects may be prejudicial to the preparation of the Local Coastal
Plan only by the "issuing agency, " which at the present time is the
Coastal Commission. However, if the City were successful in getting
a procedure established and approved by the Commission for the
issuance of development permits by the City for all development within
the coastal zone, we would then have an opportunity to make a finding
that a project will or will not be prejudicial to the City' s ability
to prepare a Local Coastal Program.
Originally when the Coastal Act was adopted the pros and cons of
having the permit process in the City were discussed in the Planning
Department; ultimately it was resolved that the preferable procedure
would be not to pursue the permit process, but to devote full efforts
to the preparation of our Local Coastal Plan for certification by
the Coastal Commission. In taking this action, however, the City
has relinquished a degree of local control to the Coastal Commission,
and perhaps this could be regained through pursuit of the development
permit process.
The Department has checked with the City of Los Angeles on its efforts
in securing approval for issuance of their coastal development permits.
Attached herewith is a communication dated November 14 , 1978 , which
outlines the work and staff involvement necessary for that city to be
authorized by the Coastal Commission for the development permit
procedure. As stated, it took approximately three-fourths of an
individual' s time for a period of six months to prepare the necessary
documentation; however, if we were to utilize many of their procedures
this staff time involvement could be reduced should the Council concur
on our efforts to get approval of the same procedure.
It should be pointed out, however, that we are well along with our
background reports for the preparation of our Local Coastal Plan and,
as we are somewhat limited in staff at the present time, the Planning
Department does not feel that we would gain any additional advantage
by going with the development permit process versus making a major
effort to complete the Local Coastal Plan for certification, other
than a re-establishment of local control on the destiny of the City.
The Planning Commission has requested that Commissioner Paone be -
present at your meeting when you consider this request to answer
questions should the Council have a need for additional information.
FUNDING SOURCE:
Establish a fee structure for permit applications.
Permitting Process
November 15, 1978
Page 3
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
Not to pursue the development permit process and exert major effort
on completion of the Local Coastal Plan under existing contractural
arrangements.
Respectfully submitted,
Ae�z
)Acting
ames W. Palin
Planning Director
WP:df
Attachments:
1. City Attorney' s Opinion 11/14/78
2. Communication on Los Angeles procedure - 11/14/78
e
CITY OF HUHT'INGTON BEACH
INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION
HUNTINGTON BEACH
a
3 To CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF From JOHN O ' CONNOR
THE PLANNING COMMISSION Deputy City Attorney
Subject Date November 14, 1978
This memorandum will respond to the concern of the Planning
Commission at its last meeting on whether or not the Planning
Commission is required by law to make a finding that the Phase 4
Seacliff Development will not prejudice the ability of local
government to prepare a local coastal program.
It appears that the confusion emanated from the staff report
which indicated such findings must be made by the Planning
Commission. To the extent .that implication appeared in the
staff report, it is erroneous .
While it is true that a finding that proposed development "will
not prejudice the ability of local government to prepare a local
coastal program" must be made, this finding is to be made by the
Coastal Commission at the time it acts on the coastal development
permit . Section 30604 expressly imposes this obligation on the
agency issuing the coastal development permit, which, in Hunting-
ton Beach, is the Coastal Commission. This section reads :
" (a) Prior to certification of the local coastal program,
a coastal development permit shall be issued if the
issuing agency , or the commission on appeal, finds
that the proposed development is in conformity with
the provisions of Chapter 3 (commencing with Section
30200 ) of this division and that the permitted develop-
ment will not prejudice the ability of the local
government to prepare a local coastal program that
is in conformity with the provisions of Chapter 3
(commencing with Section 30200) . "
Since the city has not assumed jurisdiction over the coastal
development permit process , issuance of those permits remains
vested in the Coastal Commission. This places the Planning Com-
mission in the posture of being subject to an inconsistent action
by the Coastal Commission and the possibility of . whatever action
taken by the Planning Commission, that a finding could be made
by the Coastal Commission that the development would prejudice
the ability of local government to prepare a local coastal program.
' It would seem that the possibility of a conflict between any deci-
sion of the city Planning Commission and the Coastal Commission
may be diminished if the city took into consideration the various
criteria, policies and objectives of the Coastal Commission in
approving the -project . However, we must make it abundantly clear
Two
that these should be reflected in the General Plan, planning and
zoning regulations , and in and of themselves do not constitute
a ground for denial of the project . The project can be denied
or approved only within the criteria of the Subdivision Map Act
regulations , insofar as the tract map is concerned, and under
the criteria of the conditional use permit insofar as the condi-
tional use permit is involved.
Relevant provisions of the Subdivision Map Act provide :
"§66473 , 5. No local agency shall approve a map unless
the legislative body shall find that the proposed sub-
division, together with the provisions for its design
and improvement, is consistent with the general plan
required by Article 5 (commencing with Section 65300 )
of Chapter 3 of Division 1 of this title , or any specific
plan adopted pursuant to Article 8 (commencing with
Section 65450) of Chapter 3 of Division 1 of this title.
"A proposed subdivision shall be consistent with a
general plan or a specific plan only if the local
agency has officially adopted such a plan and the
proposed subdivision or land use is compatible with
the objectives , policies , general land uses and pro-
grams specified in such a plan. "
"§66474 . A legislative body of a city or county shall
deny approval of a final or tentative map if it makes
any of the following findings :
(a) That the proposed map is not consistent with
applicable general and specific plans .
(b ) That the design or improvement of the proposed
subdivision is not consistent with applicable general
and specific plans .
(c) That the site is not physically suitable for
the type of development .
(d) That the site is not physically suitable for
the proposed density of development .
(e) That the design of the subdivision or the pro-
posed improvements are likely to cause substantial environ-
mental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish
or wildlife or their habitat ,
(f) That the design of the subdivision or the type
of improvements is likely to cause serious public health
problems .
(g) That the design of the subdivision or the type
of improvements will conflict with easements , acquired
by the public at large, for access through or use of,
property within the proposed subdivision. In this con-
nection, the governing body may approve a map if it finds
that alternate easements , for access or for use , will be
provided, and that these will be substantially equivalent
to ones previously acquired by the public . This subsection
shall apply.-, only to easements of record or to easements '.
T- I'aGe Three -
established by judgment of a court of competent juris-
diction and no authority is hereby granted to a legis-
lative body to determine that the public at •large has
acquired easements for access through or use of property
within the proposed subdivision. "
Code provisions governing a conditional use permit provide :
"§9841. 4 . Denial by Planning Commission. The Planning
Commission may deny any application if it finds any one
of the following:
(a) That the proposed use has a detrimental. effect
upon the general health, welfare, safety and convenience
of persons residing or working in the neighborhood, or is
detrimental to the value of property and improvements in
the neighborhood; or
(b ) The proposed use is not contemplated under the
Master Plan of Land Use ; or
(c ) The proposed use is not compatible with existing
or other proposed uses in the neighborhood; or
(d) The location, site layout, and design of the
proposed use does not properly adapt the proposed structures
n` to streets, driveways , and other adjacent structures and
uses in a harmonious manner; or
(e) The combination and relationship of one proposed
use to another on a site are not properly integrated; or
(f) The access to and parking for the proposed use
creates an undue traffic problem; or
(g) In the case of a conditional use permit applica-
tion for a planned residential development, the develop-
ment does not conform to the provisions contained in
Article 931. "
"§9841. 5 . Conditional Use Permit Approval. The Planning
Commission may approve an application for conditional use
permit when it finds that the plan will substantially comply
with the requirements of this article, the Master Plan of
Land Use , and the development standards for the particular
use . The Commission may also conditionally approve such
a application for a conditional use permit and attach such
conditions as it may deem necessary to secure compliance
with the provisions of Division 9 and this article . A
guarantee and evidence may be required that such condi-
tions are being or will be met . "
We trust this clarifies the matter for the Commission and will
facilitate-1-t)s consideration of the project .
z9
JOHN 0 ONNOR
Deput -y Attorney
JOC :ps
r
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION
HUNTINGTON BEACH
To James W. Palin From Mary Lynn Norby
Acting Planning Director Local Coastal Program
Subject CITY ASSUMPTION OF COASTAL Date November 14, 1978
PERMITTING AUTHORITY PRIOR
TO LCP CERTIFICATION - L.A.
CITY EXPERIENCE
Ed Johnson of the L.A. City Community Planning (Coastal)
Staff outlined the process which was involved in their
assumption of Coastal permitting.. L.A. is scheduled
to start issuing the permits on November 27, 1978 although
the Coastal Commission is _still placing additional
requirements on them (maps of boundaries of permitting
jurisdictions) .
That city's purpose for requesting the local permitting
system was to re-establish local control by consolidating
this process. within the existing system. This .consolidation
would ease the process for applicants. The process is
budgeted to be supported only by the coastal permit. fees
but the feasibility of this will depend on the volume
of applications.
The work to establish the City Coastal permitting began
over six months ago This process involved developing
the forms and controls required by the Coastal regulations
and an applicable ordinance, meetings and reports for the
Planning Commission, Citizens ' Committees and the City
Council. During this six months period . it was estimated
that 75% of one planner' s time was involved.. Nearly half
this time. was consumed in Planning Commission and Council
activities and reports. The majority of the remaining
time was used responding to Coastal Commission suggestions,
rewriting the ordinance. and gaining reapprovals.
The forms for coastal permit applications are to be
substantially the same as the Coastal Commission now
uses. Reviews are to be .,conduct:ed at the applicable
. discretionary board. Additional notice requirements must
be met for coastal aaees in addition to regualar,.cty .Yequre
ments. Coastal Act policies, Coastal Commission interpretative
guidelines and Coastal Commission permitting_ precedents are
to be decision guides for the discretionary body.
Coastal Commi on
November 14, *8 •
Page 2 .
Based on the existing permit load, an estimate of
staff needed to maintain the permit system is : one
manager, one planner, onq clerk and perhaps one alternate
assistant planner.
Based on the L.A. City experience it might be expected that
the establishment of an:-interim coastal permitting system
for the City .of Huntington Beach would require many months,
considerable negotiation with the *Coastal Commission and
costs which may not be matched to the permit fees collected.
However, since L.A. City has had this experience as an
initiator of local coastal permitting, its ordinance and
process are available patterns. to apply to our attempt to.
gain. local permitting authority: It is estimated that some
of the L.A.. City. process xould be adopted ,to the City of . ,
Huntington Beach and thereby effect a faster transition to
this role, . perhaps three months. This' is based. on the
information the L.A. process affords. to u's about the Coastal
Commission procedures and preferences as approved in L.A. '.s
process.
The major portion of work to establish the process in
Huntington Beach would be in deciding to do it; . establishing
the procedures within the City system provided that the
procedure is similar to the L.A. process. Without the
basis of the .L.A., 'approved plan., rewrites, reapprovals
and negotiations with the Coastal Commission will be
required which would use more time, effort and expense to
be expended.
The fees to -be charged .for .coastal permits are those
designated .in Section 13055, PR code. The attachment outlines
these fees. Though. not confirmed, the Coastal Commission
Staff_ indicates that these fees do not fully support the
permit process and costs. ,
MLN/dc
LOCAL CQ4STAL PROGRAM
WORK PROGRAM
SUMw.
RY
m
huntington beach planning deportment
1 • I
SUMMARY
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM
WORK PROGRAM
The Draft Local Coastal Program: Work Program is a statement of
the planning issues that City staff will be investigating in pre-
paring the Local Coastal Program that was mandated by the Calif-
ornia Coastal Act of 1976 . The Work Program also includes a
description of the major work tasks that will be accomplished, a
schedule for completing those tasks and an estimate of the costs
of preparing the Local Coastal Program. The Work Program con-
stitutes the first phase of a three phase project that will result
in a land use plan and implementing ordinances for the coastal
zone of Huntington Beach. The second phase is addressed by this
work program and will result in a ,Coastal Element for the City' s
General Plan. In December, 1978, a work program will be prepared
for the third phase which will develop the zoning and implementation
devices necessary to implement the Coastal Element. The Local
Coastal Program/Coastal Element is scheduled. for Planning Commission
and City Council public hearings in January and February 1979,
and for submission to the Coastal Commission for certification, as
required by. the California Coastal Act of 1976, in March, 1979 . .
The most significant section of the Work Program is the. Issue
Identification section contained in Section 2.0. The Issue Identifi-
cation represents an analysis of which Coastal Act policies apply
to Huntington Beach, the extent to which existing City Plans imple-
ment those policies and an identification of City plan inadequacies .
or conflicts with Coastal Act policies. After staff analysis,
citizen, Planning Commission, and Coastal Commission staff review,
the following major issues were identified.
1. Shoreline Access - Investigation of methods to insure that -ad-
ditional pedestrian and vehicular access is provided to the
coastline and in future developments of the City and State
beaches.
2 . Recreation and Visitors-Serving Facilities -. Investigation will
be necessary to determine demand for, feasibility of, desirability
of, and methods of giving priority to visitor-serving and
recreation facilities in the coastal zone.
3. Housing - Coordinate overall City efforts to. provide lower
cost housing with Local Coastal Program to maximize preservation
and provision of low cost housing opportunities. in Coastal Zone.
1 • I
4 . . Water and Marine Resources - Identify problems and monitor
proposals affecting water quality and marine resources in order
to maintain or restore these resources.
5: Diking, Dredging, Filling and Shoreline Structures - Review all
proposals to identify such activities which may impact ocean and
wetland resources. Establish appropriate regulations.
6. Commercial Fishing and Recreational Boating - Investigate and
determine demand for and feasibility of expanded or additional
recreational boating facilities in the coastal zone.
7. Environmentally .Sensitive Habitat Areas - Develop methods buf-
fering and protecting the Bolsa. Chica and Santa Ana River Marsh
areas from development that is detrimental to their environ-
mental significance.
8. Hazard Areas - Update City' s Ordinances to regulate development
in identified hazard areas in a manner consistent with Coastal
Act policies.
9 . Locating and Planning New Development - Develop plans specifying
land uses , residential densities, siting criteria, open space
facilities, integration of oil production facilities, and .
relationships to existing and proposed beach facilities for
the Seacliff Planned Community, townlot Oceanfront . residential
area, Downtown and the area from Lake Street to Newland Street.
10. Visual Resources and Special Communities - Develop specific plans
development regulations, and acquisition programs where ap-
propriate to preserve coastal view resources, develop scenic
corridors and improve scenic quality of Pacific Coast Highway.
11. Public Works - Identify City, State, and other -public agency
plans and projects proposed for coastal zone to assure improve-
ment capacities that meet demands projected for existing uses
and uses allowed by the Coastal. Act.
12 . Industrial and Energy acilities. - .Determine and plan for the
onshore impacts that .can be anticipated from offshore oil
production , expansion as well as the impacts that can be
anticipated from any Edison Generating Plant expansion.
Section 3. 0 of the Work Program describes the major work tasks
necessary to develop a Coastal Element that complies with Local
. Coastal Program requirements. The majority of the tasks involved
reflect the research and analysis necessary to resolve .the planning
issues identified. However, a significant effort to insure
substantial citizen and other government agency participation in
the development of the Coastal Element is included (Sections 4. 0
and 5. 0) . In addition to notifying interested citizens of LCP acti-
vities, a Citizens Advisory Committee will be established and a
periodic news letter will be prepared and distributed for public re-
view.
Completion of the second phase Coastal Element/Local Coastal Program
Land Use Plan will require eighteen months. It will require two
full-time planners working exclusively on the Local Coastal Program
to complete the identified tasks according to this schedule. Local
public hearings are scheduled for January and February, 1979. Coastal
Commission hearings are scheduled for March, 1979 .
The estimated budget for the preparation of the Coastal Element is
$89,969 . 81. Reimbursement for these costs will be sought from the
Coastal Commission and the State Office of Planning and Research.
If full reimbursement is not granted, the scope of the. tasks to be
performed will be revised in conformance with Coastal Commission
priorities for funding. The Coastal Commission is obligated to fund
those tasks it requires the City to perform.
/— S�q,••1Lari���
C I T Y OF H U f 1 T l f 1 G
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
• P. O. BOX 190, HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92648 (714) 536-5271
2 1977
TO: Floyd G. Belsito, City Administrator CITY OF WKINGTH BEEA.C11
FROM: Edward D. Selich, Planning Directorn 'in;cTR,1,y nFir�
DATE: September 15, 1977
SUBJECT: Categorical Exclusion for Huntington Beach
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM:
The City filed for and received approval of an exclusion from Coastal
Permit requirements for the construction of single-family dwellings
and duplexes within four areas of the City.. In order for this
approval granted by the California Coastal Commission to become ef-
fective, the City must go on record acknowledging receipt of and
agreement to the exclusion order.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt the attached resolution which reflects the required acknowl-
edgements and agreements.
ANALYSIS:
The California Coastal Act of 1976 allows for the exclusion of certain
developments from the requirement for filing oC astal Development
Permits. Approvals can be granted only after finding that such devel-
opment presents no potential for any significant adverse effect on
coastal resources or on public access, and that such exclusions will not
impair the ability of the local government to prepare its local
coastal program. The California Coastal Commission unanimously approved
the City' s categorical exclusion request on August 17, 1977.
This approval categorically excludes the construction of single-family
and two-family residences and accessory buildings in the Coastal. Zone
as shown on the attached exclusion map.
The categorical exclusion as approved by the Coastal Commission differs
from that which was requested by the City in the following areas:
1. The City requested exclusion of Huntington Harbour except for
the waterfront lots which cannot be excluded by law. The Coastal.
Commission did not include this area in their approval as there
is a question as to whether or not there are lands in this area
under the public trust. If, in fact, any public trust land still
exists in this area, the Commission, by law, cannot grant a
categorical exclusion.
r
Page Two
2. Demolition of existing improvements within these areas was not
categorically excluded. The City had requested that demolitions
be included in the exclusion request, particularly in light of i
the likelihood that demolishment of older structures and replace-
ment by new residential structures within the Oldtown Area will
take place. The Coastal Commission denied this request primarily
because they believe that demolition and replacement would
diminish the ability of low and moderate income families to find
housing in this area..
The exclusion order is subject to terms and conditions which are
outlined in the exclusion order (see resolution) . These conditions
are primarily reflective of the conditions of approval the Coastal
Commission has placed on Coastal Permits in the past.
ALTERNATIVES:
If this exclusion is not acceptable to the City .Council, direct the
staff to pursue desired modifications; or do not pursue the exclusion
any further.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. ' Resolution
2. Exclusion Area Map
Resp-e,&_tfully submitted
Edw and D6.DS e 1 i c
b rector
EDS:DE:df
1
I
S.as- (7-4
• CITY OF HunTInGTOn BEACH
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
• P. O. BOX 190, HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92648 (714) 536-5271
TO: Floyd G. Belsito, City Administrator
FROM: Edward D. Selich, Planning Director
DATE: October 13, 1977
SUBJECT: Local Coastal Program: Work Program (Refers to Agenda Item D-2d)
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM:
The Local Coastal Program: Work Program includes as the major
element is citizen participation effort the formation of a
Citizens Advisory Committee. 'After reviewing the Work Program,
the Planning Commission suggested that, since such a citizens
committee would require significant commitments, of time, staff, and
resources, alternative primary methods of insuring citizen parti-
cipation should be explored. The Local Coastal Program: Work Program
will be heard by the City Council on October 17, 1977.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Retain the Local Coastal Program Citizens Advisory Committee as
proposed in Section 5. 0 of the Local Coastal Program: Work Program
as the primary method of insuring full tizen participation.
ANALYSIS:
The California Coastal Act of 1976 places great importance on public
involvement in carrying out the coastal policies. According to the
Act:
The Legislature . . . finds and declares that the public
has the right to fully pariticpate in decisions affecting
coastal planning, conservation, and development; that achieve-
ment of sound coastal conservation and development is dependent
upon public understanding and support; and that the continuing
planning and implementation of programs for coastal conserva-
tion and development should include the widest opportunity for
public participation (Section 30006) .
Under the Coastal Act, the responsibility for ensuring meaningful
public participation rests both with the Coastal Commission and with
the local governments. Important as the required public hearings
are, the full public participation envisioned by the Coastal: Act is
intended to begin much earlier in the planning, with informational
meetings,. advisory reviews, and other such means of giving_ : the widest
• range of interests an opportunity to participate. In all cases, the
local government has the responsibility of designing its own citizen
l/
Floyd G. Belsito • .~�
October 13, 1977
Page 2
participation program to maximize opportunities for public involve-
ment. The Coastal Commission has suggested the following citizen
participation techniques as being useful for providing the desired
public participation:
The Media: Newspapers, TV, Radio
News releases
Meeting notices
Informational articles/briefings
Spot news coverage
Documentaries
Interviews, talk shows, phone-in sessions
Public service announcements
Presentation to Interested Groups
Speakers/panels
Slide show
Maps and photographs
Information Availability
Loan copies in city hall and public libraries
Sales of documents at cost
Publication of summary documents
Newsletter
Summaries of local committee meetings and workshops
Information on State and Regional Commissions
Reprints from planning reports
Committees
Task force
Technical review committee
Study group
Advisory committee
Community Involvement
Discussion papers and informational papers with questionnaires
Town meetings/public forums/workshops
Staff has incorporated most of these elements into the City' s citizen
involvement effort. However, past experience with other attempts
to insure widespread citizen participation has shown that a Citizen
Advisory Committee such as that proposed insures the most involvement.
Therefore, Staff has placed a major emphasis on- this technique.
The Coastal Commission will, in its review of work programs for fund- •
ing, assure that "the work program includes measures for involving
the public and other agencies adequate to comply with the Coastal Act
Floyd G. Belsito
October 13, 1977
Page 3
0 and with the requirements of the funding authority. " (Section 00023 (d)
of LCP Regulations. ) The Commission may, from time to time, make
additional recommendations to appropriate state and local agencies
to assure maximum public participation as required under the Coastal
Act.
The only Local Coastal Program approved to date by the Coastal Com-
mission includes a Citizens Advisory Committee as proposed in our
Work Program. Most other cities are doing likewise, and this
element of our citizen participation effort has been favorably received
by the Coastal Commission staff.
ALTERNATIVES:
Delete the Citizens Advisory Committee from the citizen participation
effort and direct Staff to emphasize one of the alternate methods
listed above.
Sincerely,
Edward D. Selich
Planning Director
ODS:BA:df
•
..
Affidavit of Publication
State of California
County of Orange ss
City of Huntington Beach )))
George Farquhar, being duly sworn on oath, says: That he is a
citizen of the United States, over the age of twenty-one years.
That he is the printer and publisher of the Huntington Beach
News, a weekly newspaper of general circulation printed and pub-
lished in Huntington Beach, California and circulated in the said
County of Orange and elsewhere and published for the dissemination
of local and other news of a general character, and has a bona fide
subscription list of paying subscribers, and said paper has been
established, printed and published in the State of California, and
County of Orange, for at least one year next before the publication Fubl shed Hu t ngtos a A.
County
of the first insertion of this notice; and the said newspaper is not 6; 1977 *z ` ' ' '
devoted to the interest of, or published for the entertainment of any NOTICE OP�UOLI}C HARING
LOCAL COASTiAL PROGRAM
particular class, profession, trade, calling, race or denomination, or ,-*y '•.,�
any number thereof. WOR6C P.ROG RAM`
NOTCE IS HEREBY, GIVEN that a p{uc h
The Huntington Beach New was adjudicated a legal newspaper hearing will be head bye tµhe.'City G'ouncil .
of general circulation by Judge G. K. Scovel in the Superior Court of the City„s f Huntington Beach in foe,
of Orange County, California August 27th, 1937 by order No. A-59311. council chamber of�the Civic Center,a
Hun mgio_n- Beacn,,,g"at the.hour of 730
P.M or :as son.Yhereafter,as possible
That the LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM on Moi day-the:1-ith day of.October, 1977, ;
for,tn>-purpose of considering the Local
Coastal Program Work tsProg am wh h
WORK PROGRAM sets,forth the maior_i sues to be iaddress- ;
ed, a description of:the tasks to bye ccm
of which the annexed is a printed copy, was published in said news- plated ,an:itemizd budget,: a completon
schedule; and, application .for,,.,fund1ne j
reimbursement in:order,to comply�wifti •
paper at least one. issue the-requirements of the CaliforniarCo�ast�al2',
Act cil 1976•Copieis of the Locai roastalC
•Program Work,Program are.available for
commencing from the 6— h day of October' I public;review in the office of thej'C�ty
Clerk n v
,AII interested ,persons are invited toga#
"tend(said-hearing and express aheirpop
1977 - and ending on the th day of Octnbe- pions "for or against said,:;LocaltCo$stal
Program Work Program+
Further information may be-obtamed*fro6
19 77_ both days inclusive, and as often duringsaid the CN#ice of the.:City Clerk.: , 4
period and
times of publication as said paper was regularly issued, and in the DATED: October 9, 197-7- �
regular and entire issue of said pewspaper proper, and not in a +" CITY�OF HUNwent ON BEACH
►t By: Alicia M: WentworthY �!
supplement, and said notice was published therein on the following -City clerk,.
dates, to-wit:
Oct. 6. 1977
ublisher
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 7th day of
October 19=
"-�-i Notary Public
67 Orange County, California
--------------------------------r
THOMAS D. WYLLIE ;
{ ' .r.r\• Notary Public-California i
Y m, Orange County
i My Commission Expires t
t
i September 12, 1979
--------------------------------t
City of Huntington Beach
County of Orange
State of California "
4
No
1
Jffidavitof Publicatiolz
of GEORGE FARQUHAR ,
Publisher Huntington. Beach News
a
• Filed
Clerk
BY
Deputy Clerk
® CITY OF HunTmGTon BEACH
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
P. O. BOX 190, HONTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92648 (714) 536-5271
TO: Floyd G. Belsito, City Administrator
FROM: Edward D. Selich, Planning Director
DATE: October 17 , 1977
SUBJECT: , LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM: WORK PROGRAM
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM:
The California Coastal Act of 1976 requires that all coastal cities
prepare a Local Coastal Program for certificatiori by the Coastal
.Commission. To receive reimbursement for the costs .the City will
incur, it is -necessary to submit a detailed work program and appli-
cation for Coastal Zone Management Grant funds that identifies .the
coastal .planning issues and tasks that will be addressed.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Approve Local Coastal Program•Work Program and adopt Resolution 4542
authorizing staff to apply for Coastal Zone Management Grant funds
and Coastal Energy Impact Funds.
ANALYSIS
The California Coastal Act of 1976 requires that each of the 15
counties and 53 cities along the coast prepare a Local Coastal
Program for that portion of its jurisdiction within the coastal
zone. The Local Coastal Program is defined by the Coastal Act
as being the local government' s land use plans, zoning ordinances ,
zoning district maps, and any other implementation actions necessary
to implement the land use plan. The Local Coastal Program is
intended to implement the policies and provisions of the Coastal
Act at the local level. The Local Coastal Program when adopted by
'the City must' also be certified by the Coastal Commission and then
becomes binding on not only private development but also on other
governmental agencies having jurisdiction in the coastal zone.
The Local Coastal Program land use plan will be reflected in a
Coastal Element. of the General. Plan that will supersede or augment
all other plans for the coastal zone area and is the subject of
this Work Program. The zoning portion of the Local Coastal Program
will be developed at a later date and will reflect the provisions
necessary to accomplish the adopted Coastal Element.
The first phase in complying with the Local Coastal Program require-
ments is the preparation of a work program. The Draft Local Coastal
Program: Work Program is in essence a statement of the planning issues
that Staff will be investigating in preparing the Local Coastal
i4
V a
Page 2
Program, a description of the major work tasks that will be
accomplished, a schedule for completing these tasks , and an
estimate of the costs of .preparing the Local Coastal Program.
The Local Coastal Program/Coastal Element is scheduled for Plan-
ning Commission and City Council public hearings in January and
February, 1979 , and for submission to. the Coastal Commission for
certification, .as required by the California .Coastal Act of 1976.,
in March, 1979 .
The Draft Local. Coastal Program: Work Program has been reviewed
by the Planning Commission, interested citizens , other government
agencies and the Coastal Commission staff . Based on the comments
received to date appropriate revisions have been incorporated.
The Issue Identification portion of the work program has been most .
extensively reviewed by the public and on August 16 , 1977 the Planning
Commission conducted a public meeting to solicit input. The
revised "Issue Identification Report" incorporated into the Draft
Local Coastal Program: Work Program has been extensively reviewed
and favorably received by the State and Regional Coastal Commission
staffs . It has also been distributed statewide as a model for
other cities now preparing some coastal programs.
The attached Draft Local Coastal Program: Work Program has been
revised from the earlier draft received by the City Council to
incorporate minor wording changes and correct typographical errors,
to clarify the issues to be addressed regarding the Bolsa Chica
(Section 2. 2 . 7) , to expand the Industrial and Energy Facilities
(Section 3. 2 . 12) task descriptions, and to add Appendix A, which is
the funding application that must be submitted to the Coastal Com-
mission for funding.
ALTERNATIVES :
Modify Local Coastal Program: Work Program to expand or reduce the
scope of the issues and tasks to be addressed. '
FUNDING SOURCE:
Upon approval staff will submit the Work Program to the Coastal
Commission and State Office of Planning and Research for approval
and funding. Staff will also apply for Coastal. Energy Impact Funds
that are available to fund the tasks identified in the .Industrial and
Energy Facilities Section of the Work Program. The Coastal Commission
is obligated to fund the issues and tasks that it requires the City
to perform. Approval of the Work .Program and adoption of Resolution.
4542. is necessary to authorize staff to apply for those funds.
Respectfully submitted, .
Edward D. Selich
Director
Attachments: Draft Local Coastal Program: Work Program
Planning Commission Communication
�` Resolution 4542
y
Huntington Beach Planning Commission
P.O. BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Planning Commission
DATE: October 11, 1977
ATTN: Floyd G. Belsito, City Administrator
SUBJECT: Local Coastal Program: Work Program
At its meetings of August 16 , 1977 , October 4 , 1977 , and October 11 ,
1977 , the Planning Commission has reviewed , commented on , and
suggested changes to the Draft Local Coastal Program: Work Program.
Our recommended changes have been incorporated into the Draft Local
Coastal Program: Work Program that will be submitted for your approval
October 17., 1977 .
During discussions of this document, it was suggested that the forma-
tion of a Local Coastal Program Citizens Advisory Committee, as
recommended in Section 5 . 0 of the report, be brought to the attention
of the City Council. Since this action would commit significant time,
staff, and financial resources to the support of this committee,
perhaps alternative methods of insuring widespread citizen participa-
tion can be developed that also accomplish the goals of the Coastal Act.
With this suggestion, the Planning Commission unanimously approved the
Draft Local Coastal Program: Work Program.
Sincerely,
Roger D. Slates
Chairman
RDS :BA:gc
3
• CITY OF HUnTInGTOn BEACH
4 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL RE URCES
• P. O. BOX 190, HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92648 (714) 536-5271
TO: Floyd G. Belsito, City Administrator
FROM: Edward D. Selich, Planning Director
DATE: October 17 , 1977
SUBJECT: LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM: WORK PROGRAM
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM:
The California Coastal Act of 1976 requires that all coastal cities
prepare a Local Coastal Program for certification by the Coastal
Commission. To receive reimbursement ..for the costs the City will
incur, it is necessary to submit a detailed work program and .appli-
cation for Coastal Zone Management Grant funds that identifies the
coastal planning issues and tasks that will be addressed.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Approve Local Coastal Program:;Work Program and adopt Resolution 4542
authorizing staff to apply fot Coastal Zone Management Grant funds .
and Coastal Energy Impact Funds.
ANALYSIS:
a
The California Coastal A'pt of 1976 requires that each of the 15
counties and 53 cities along the coast prepare a Local Coastal
Program for that portion of its jurisdiction within the coastal
zone. The Local Coastal Program is defined by the Coastal Act
as being the local government' s land use plans, zoning ordinances ,
zoning district maps, and any other implementation actions necessary
to implement the land use plan. The Local Coastal Program is
intended to implement the policies and provisions of the Coastal
Act at the local level. The Local Coastal Program when adopted by
the City must also be certified by the Coastal Commission and then
becomes bindin on not only private development but also on other
governmental agencies having jurisdiction in. the coastal zone.
The Local Caastal Program land use plan will be reflected in a
Coastal E199ent of the General Plan that will supersede or augment
all other plans for the coastal zone area and is the subject of
this Work Program. The zoning portion of the Local Coastal Program
will be eveloped at a later date and will reflect the provisions
necessa "y to accomplish the adopted Coastal Element.
The fi� st phase in complying with the Local Coastal Program require-
ments is the preparation of a work program. The Draft Local Coastal
Program: Work Program is in essence a statement of the planning issues
that Staff will be investigating in preparing the Local Coastal
/ O"
J
Page 2
Program, a description of the major work tasks that will be
accomplished, a schedule for completing these tasks, and an
estimate of the costs of preparing the Local Coastal Program.
The Local Coastal Program/Coastal Element is scheduled for Plan-
ning Commission and City Council public hearings in January and
February, 1979 , and for submission to the Coastal Commission for
certification, as required by the California Coastal Act of 1976 ,
in March, 1979 .
The Draft Local Coastal Program: Work Program has been reviewed
by the Planning Commission, interested citizens , other government
agencies and the Coastal Commission staff. Based on the comments
received to date appropriate revisions have been incorporated.
The Issue Identification portion of the work program has been most
extensively reviewed by the public and on August 16 , 1977 the Planning
Commission conducted a public meeting to solicit input. The
revised "Issue Identification Report" incorporated into the Draft
Local Coastal Program: Work Program has been extensively reviewed
and favorably received by the State and Regional Coastal Commission
staffs. It has also been distributed statewide as a model for
other cities now preparing some coastal programs .
The attached Draft Local Coastal. Program: Work Program has been
revised from the earlier draft received by the City Council to
incorporate minor wording changes and correct typographical errors,
to clarify the issues to be addressed regarding the Bolsa Chica
(Section 2. 2 . 7) , to expand the Industrial and Energy Facilities
(Section 3. 2. 12) task descriptions, and to add Appendix A, which is
the funding application that must be submitted to the Coastal Com-
mission for funding.
ALTERNATIVES:
Modify Local Coastal Program: Work Program to expand or reduce the
scope of the issues and tasks to be addressed.
FUNDING SOURCE:
Upon approval staff will submit the Work Program to the Coastal
Coission and State Office of Planning and Research for approval
and-- -funding. Staff will also apply for -Coastal Energy Impact Funds
that are available to fund the tasks identified in the Industrial and
Energy Facilities Section of the Work Program. The Coastal Commission.
is obligated to fund the issues and tasks that it requires the City
to perform. Approval of the Work Program and adoption of Resolution
4542 is necessary to authorize staff to apply for those funds.
Respectfully submitted,
(I
I �aL
Edward D. Selich
Director
Attachments: Draft Local Coastal Program: Work Program
Planning Commission Communication
Resolution 4542
Huntington Beach Planning Commission
P.O. BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Planning Commission
DATE: October 11, 1977
ATTN: Floyd G. Belsito, City Administrator
SUBJECT: Local Coastal Program: Work Program
At its meetings of August 16, 1977 , October 4 , 1977 , and October 11 ,
1977 , the Planning Commission has reviewed, commented on, and
suggested changes to the Draft Local Coastal Program: Work Program.
Our recommended changes have been incorporated into the Draft Local
Coastal Program: Work Program that will be submitted for your approval
October 17 , 1977 .
During discussions of this document, it was suggested that the forma-
tion of a Local Coastal Program Citizens Advisory Committee, as
recommended in Section 5. 0 of the report, be brought to the attention
of the City Council. Since this action would commit significant time,
staff, and financial resources to the support of this committee,
perhaps alternative methods of insuring widespread citizen participa-
tion can be developed that also accomplish:.the goals of the Coastal Act.
With this suggestion, the Planning Commission unanimously approved the
Draft Local Coastal Program: Work Program.
Sincerely,
C
Roger D. Slates
Chairman
RDS:BA:gc
I
I
i
• Publish 10/6/77
Postcards 0
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM WORK PROGRAM
1 1
1
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held by the .
City Council of the City of .Huntington Beach, in the Council
Chamber of the Civic Center, Huntington Beach, at the hour of
7....r.� P.M. , or as soon thereafter as possible, on Monday
the I7th day of October 19 77, for the purpose of
considering the Local Coastal Program Work Program which sets forth the major
issues to be addressed, a description of the tasks to be completed, an itemized
budget, a completion schedule, and application for funding reimbursement in order
to comply with the requirements of the California Coastal Act of 1976. Copies of
: QY- vt:,Iic, revieuo -
the Local Coastal Program Work Program are available in the office of the City Clerk.
All interested persons are invited to attend said hearing and
express their opinions fo or against said Local Coastal Program Work Program
Further information may be obtained from the Office of the City
Clerk .
DATED: :10/4/77 CITY OF..HUNTINGTON BEACH
BY: Alicia M. Wentworth
City Clerk
Number of Excerpts
W Publish Once
LEGAL NOTICE
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held
by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California
for the purpose of considering the Local Coastal Pro ram Work
ro ram which sets forth the major issues to be a ressed, a
description of the tasks to be completed, an itemized budget,
a completion schedule, and application for funding reimbursement
in order to comply with the requirements of the California Coastal
Act of 1976. Copies of the Local Coastal Program Work Program are
available for public review in the office of the City •Clerk.
Said hearing will be held at the .hour of 7 : 00 P.M. , on
October 17, 1977 , in the Council Chambers Building of the Civic
Center, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California. .
All interested persons are invited to attend said hearing
and express their opinions for or against the proposed Local
Coastal Program Work Program.
Further information may be obtained from the City P4994r4
Department.
AWL
�l-
�. WHITE-CITY ATTORNEY I. CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH No.
BLUE-CITY CLERK
GREEN-CITY ADMINISTRATOR
CANARY-DEPARTMENTAL REQUEST for ORDINANCE or RESOLUTION
Date Request made by Department
10/7/77 Bryan Auttin Planning
INSTRUCTIONS: File request in the City Administrator's Office quickly as possible but not later than noon, one week prior to the Council
Meeting at which it is to be introduced. Print or type facts necessary for City Attorney's use in preparation of ordinance. In a separate
paragraph outline briefly reasons for the request of Council Action.Attach all papers pertinent to the'subject.All appropriation requests must
be cleared and approved by the Director of Finance before submitting to City Administrator's Office.
Preparation of an Ordinance or Resolution is hereby requested:.
Please prepare Resolution per a.ttachecl `''samplA- a
.p,v5Xoving applica3t Qn for
coastal zone management grant funds for the purposes of reimbursing the '
City for costs incurred in preparing a Local Coastal Program consistent
with the .requirements of the California Coastal k?ct of 1976.
r
s
Desired effective date Signed: Approved as to availability of funds
10/17/77
I 1 t Director of Finance
City Attorney—Please prepare and submit.printed copies to this office by:
City Administrator