Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Approval of Council Comment Letter Bolsa Chica Draft Loca
THE NIEIE A L CcOal[.][N C , OF THE JUANEIRTO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS ON RECEIVED FROMJ�2"" RESOLUTION AND MADE A PART OF THE RECORD qT OF THE CEiVERAL GOUh'GIL THE COUNCIL MEETING OF 1 `i_ OF THE JUANENO BAND OF MISSION ,INDIANS OFFICE OFTHE CITY CLERK CONNIE BRO WAY,CITY CLERK OC TOBER 8, 1994 WHEREAS THE GENERAL COUNCIL OF THE JUANENO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS CONSISTS OF ENROLLED MEMBERS HAVING 118 OR MORE CERTIFIED JUANENO INDIAN BLOOD AND OVER 18 YEARS OF AGE, ; WHEREAS IN FEBRUARY, 1993, A LEGAL ELECTION FOR TRIBAL COUNCIL OFFICERS TOOK PLACE AS PROVIDED BY THE CONSTITUTION OF THE JUANENO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS, ; WHEREAS IN MARCH, 1993, THE LEGAL ELECTION FOR TRIBAL COUNCIL OFFICERS WAS VOIDED BY A QUORUM OF TRIBAL COUNCIL MEMBERS, ; WHEREAS IN APRIL, 1993, A TRIBAL COUNCIL ELECTION WAS HELD BY A SHOW OF HANDS AND NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONSTITUTION OF THE JUANENO BAND OF .MISSION INDIANS, ; WHEREAS IN MAY, 1994, A MOTION WAS SET FORTH AND APPROVED BY THE GENERAL COUNCIL TO VOTE BY REGULAR AND ABSENTEE BALLOT TO HOLD A NEW ELECTION OR NOT TO HOLD A NEW ELECTION, ; WHEREAS IN AUGUST 27, 1994, THE GENERAL COUNCIL OF THE JUANENO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS DETERMINED TO HAVE A NEW TRIBAL COUNCIL ELECTION, ; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE GENERAL COUNCIL, IN ITS CAPACITY ACCORDING TO ITS CONSTITUTION, HAS DETERMINED THAT THE TRIBAL COUNCIL IS HEREBY DECLARED NONEXISTENT, AND THE PERSONS WHO ARE PRESENTLY PURPORTING TO ACT AS THE TRIBAL COUNCIL OF THE JUANENO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS, NAMELY, DAVID BELARDES, MEAN FRIETZE AND ALFONSO OLIVARES, HAVE NO AUTHORITY TO TAKE ANY ACTION ON BEHALF OF THE JUANENO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS IN ITS ENTIRETY. • • Page 2 Transportation/Circulation- On a daily basis, there will be substantially less traffic from this alternative than the LCP proposal. Noise - It is expected that noise will be below levels considered significant since the use of the area will be passive. Aesthetics - This alternative would leave most of the site as open space and avoid the types of aesthetic impacts that would be associated with housing development. Socioeconomic/Public Services and Utilities - There would be no population growth associated with this alternative and no change in the jobs/housing balance. Recreation - This alternative would have a positive impact on recreation since a substantial portion of Bolsa Chica Mesa would be devoted to this use. ALTERNATIVE TWO The second alternative land use plan for the Bolsa Chica is based on the assumption that a bio- diversity park may not become viable. Therefore, the City has prepared a set of principles which we believe should be the framework for creating a new land use plan alternative for the Bolsa Chica. As an introduction to the planning principles, it is important for the County to understand that the City of Huntington Beach views the Bolsa Chica as a single entity that should be master planned as one geographic unit regardless of jurisdictional boundaries. The City also believes that it should be an equal partner with the County of Orange in determining the future land use plan and negotiating the development agreement for the Bolsa Chica. If the Bolsa Chica is to be developed, it is the City's desire to see a project that benefits both the City of Huntington Beach and the County of Orange. The draft LCP fails to acknowledge a City role in the review process and does not include all properties within the Bolsa Chica area. Therefore, the following principles are designed to promote a cooperative planning effort for the Bolsa Chica property that would include all properties: 1. The Bolsa Chica project should be a financial benefit to the City of Huntington Beach. Any development plan for the Bolsa Chica must articulate how Fire, Police, Recreation and Library service delivery to Bolsa Chica over the next 20 years will be accomplished. Services should be delivered with the least cost to Bolsa Chica residents and the least impact to the citizens of Huntington Beach. 2. The Bolsa Chica project should be a balanced community with a mix of land uses that minimizes vehicle miles traveled and impacts to city services. Page 3 3. The Bolsa Chica project should not exceed the City's infrastructure and service capacity for: streets water public safety libraries schools parks/recreation sewerage cultural activities other city services 4. The Bolsa Chica project should be consistent with the City of Huntington Beach General Plan. 5. The Bolsa Chica project development standards should be the same as the City of Huntington Beach standards including: • lot size • height • design standards • open space • park dedication • city soil remediation standards 6. The Bolsa Chica project should reflect a compatible building density and type with neighboring City residences. 7. The mesa-lowland relationship should be maintained through careful site planning of open space, parks, trails, ecological reserves or other open space amenities. 8. The natural topography of the mesa should be maintained by limiting grading, terracing or other similar methods. The bluff face should be preserved and protected with a significant open space setback area. Existing mature trees on-site should be preserved rather than replaced. 9. The Bolsa Chica project should be responsible for guaranteed restoration of the wetland. 10. The City desires the most environmentally sensitive restoration of the wetland. 11. The Bolsa Chica project should preserve and restore on-site historically significant structures and incorporate them into the site planning of the property. Page 4 12. The Bolsa Chica project should preserve cultural artifacts in designated open space areas that have been determined to be archaeologically and historically significant. 13. The Bolsa Chica project should be designed as if it would ultimately be annexed to the City of Huntington Beach. 14. Once the LCP and Development Agreement have been approved, the City should be responsible for building plan review, approval, inspection services and other"permit processing" aspects of implementing project entitlements. The City should also be responsible for the collection of fees to cover the costs of such services. 15. The Wintersburg Flood Control Channel should be improved in order to provide an enhanced drainage system and flood control. In addition to the principles cited above, a more detailed review of the Bolsa Chica LCP by City staff has raised several issues. PP. 1-7, Community Setting, Section 1.2.1 The actual numerical density of adjacent properties in Huntington Beach should be stated so the reader can determine if the proposed land use plan is compatible with existing conditions. Pr. 1-11. Property Ownership, Section 1.2.3 Does the County of Orange have written authorization from the various property owners in the Bolsa Chica for the Koll Real Estate Group to file an LCP amendment on their property. The LCP should state whether the Metropolitan Water District, Fieldstone corporation, the Oceanview School District and D.E. Goodell concur with the LCP proposal. z. 2-1. Overview, Section 2.12 Why does Option A make wetland restoration dependent upon"a mitigation bank program" involving future and, as yet, undetermined third party funding for land acquisition of the wetlands. It appears that Option A views the Bolsa Chica in its totality and acknowledges the relationship between the mesa and lowland. However, Option A fails to require wetlands restoration of the lowland as a mitigating measure for development. Pg. 2-6, Bolsa Chica Mesa-Residential, Section 2.1.3 How will this LCP proposal be consistent with the County's Housing Element. What types of affordable housing opportunities will be made available as part of this project. How will this project comply with the Regional Housing Needs Assessment for the City and County? Page 5 Pe 2-7, Northwest Lowland- Options A and B Land Use and Implementation for Wetlands Restoration Program, Section 2.1.6 Option A needs to be more definitive with respect to wetland restoration. Permits for development on the mesa should be linked to specific phasing of wetland restoration of the lowland. Pt 2-5, Planning Area Density, Section 2.2.2 The Bolsa Chica LCP indicates that density is to be calculated "on a gross acreage basis." Gross acre should be defined specifically in the section. The City determines density on a net acre basis. The County should consider using the same definition. Pa. 2-7, Planning area Boundaries, Section 2.2.3 Policy No. S - The amount of commercial acreage should not be limited to a maximum of ten(10) acres. Neighborhood commercial opportunities should be planned throughout the Bolsa Chica development. Residents should be encouraged to walk to neighborhood serving commercial uses to avoid vehicle trips to one (1) central commercial center. Pg. 2-8, Housing Element Compliance, Section 2.2.7 This section should specifically outline how the Bolsa Chica project will meet state and county regulations for affordable housing. What programs will be used to encourage the development of affordable units. Pe 24, Fire Station, Section 2.2.17 This section states that an agreement between the landowner/master developer and the Orange County fire protection agency shall be in place prior to any final tract map. This agreement should include not only"on-site" fire protection but also guarantee for"back up" fire protection in case of multiple or larger scale emergencies. Pg 2-13, Reduction of Traffic Congestion/Vehicle Trips, Section 2.2.23 This section of the LCP indicates that the Bolsa Chica project will be a pedestrian oriented community. However, how the transit service will be accommodated is unclear. How the bikeways and pedestrian walkways will link together internally and externally is unclear. A plan which illustrates how a pedestrian oriented community will be developed should be added to the LCP. The plan should show linkages that are internal and external to Bolsa Chica. Page 6 Residential Planning Area Regulations and Standards The development standards outlined in this section should be replaced by the City of Huntington Beach's Zoning Regulations, in order to create a community that is compatible with existing homes. The City has provided a comparison matrix of the City's Zoning Code and the County's draft LCP as an attachment to this letter. Pe. 2-18, Environmental Review and Alternative analysis, Section 2.2.49 Conclusion The conclusion reached regarding the environmental impacts of the LCP is based on a faulty premise and remains unsubstantiated. Pg. 3-19, ESHA Protection The 1.7 acre Warner Avenue pond located on the western edge of the Bolsa Chica Mesa is surrounded by pickleweed vegetation and contains some fish species. This ESHA should be preserved until guaranteed restoration of the wetlands occurs. Under Option A, wetland restoration remains an uncertainty. The eucalyptus grove ESHA on the Bolsa Chica Mesa should be preserved in place. Site planning for the mesa should use the grove as an open space design feature to enhance the project. Pg. 3-23, Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas Policies The LCP should specifically state the ratio of tree replacement for the loss of the eucalyptus grove on the Bolsa Chica Mesa. Public Access and Interpretation Policies The LCP should specifically state the type of educational opportunities that will be available for the public to view the wetlands under Option A and Option B. Pa. 3-24, Implementation and Phasing Policies (1 lb) Identify the endangered and threatened species that will be affected during grading and construction. The LCP should also spell out the nesting and breeding season to avoid future disagreements on the issue. Pa 3-45, Water Ouality Management Policies This section of the LCP calls for a Water Quality Management Plan, Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan, and a Best Management Practices Plan. However, there is no discussion of when these plans are to be prepared or how these plans might affect the site planning, and wetland restoration of the Bolsa Chica. Page 7 Pg. 3-47, 48, Tidal Velocity, Section 3.2.3 This section refers to the problem of potential scouring in Huntington Harbour caused by increased tidal flow velocity. Proposed mitigation is vague at best. It merely states that"impacts will be mitigated by the applicant on a pro-rata basis for remedial action". How would this be accomplished, especially considering the long-term, after all units are sold. Pa. 3-52, 53, Physical Resource Policies, Section 3.3.2 Physical Resources Policies, Number 3, the statement reads that"the risk to life and property from surface subsidence at Bolsa Chica shall be minimized by full compliance with oil extraction and monitoring techniques as regulated by California Department of Mines and Geology." As stated in the previous analysis of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), the developer must be required to perform a subsidence survey to determine if any change in elevation has occurred since the survey was performed in 1986. It is important to re-establish a base line from. which to continue to monitor any subsidence that may occur through natural or man made causes. Policy 6 should specifically indicate the required setback distance from the bluff face for future homes to be safe from erosion. Pg 3-59, Cultural Resources Policies, Section 3.4.2 Policy 3 and 4- Once an archaeological research design for Bolsa Chica has been completed, any significant cultural deposits should be preserved in designated open space areas. The actual site planning for the project should not begin until the results of the research is complete. Pg 3-76, Visual and Scenic Resources Policies-Policy, Section 3.5.2 Policy 17 and 18 - The definition of height needs to be explicit in this section. The definition should include a provision that limits the amount of fill to no more than two (2) feet when construction is adjacent to existing homes in Huntington Beach. Also a section on design compatability with specific criteria should be added to the LCP. Pg. 4-4. 4-7, Public Access and Psitor Serving Uses The visitor serving uses identified in this section are outside the Bolsa Chica boundaries. A greater emphasis on including visitor serving commercial uses in the Bolsa Chica Plan should be considered. The visitor serving uses should complement the educational and recreation opportunities planned as part of the wetland restoration. The ten (10) acres of neighborhood commercial proposed in the LCP is inadequate to support 3,200 new units. The LCP states that this plan will create a pedestrian oriented community. However, this will not be achieved with only ten(10) acres of commercial in one location. Neighborhood commercial opportunities should be dispersed throughout the land use plan to minimize vehicle trips inside Bolsa Chica as well as outside of the Bolsa Chica. 1 1 1 BoIsa .chica � Issues and General � Information 1 1 October 24, 1994 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 B01sa lca Issues and General Information October 24, 1994 Prepared by the Department of Communh5r Development Planning Division Bolsa Chica Reference Handbook October 24, 1994 Table of Contents Page # 1. Introduction 1 General Information 2 2. Land Use Plans -------------------------------------------4 Koll's Proposed Plan ----------------------------------------- 6 OptionA --------'--------------------------------'-----'--.. 9 OptionB..................................................... 12 NoProject....................................................1 5 3. Wetland Restoration _17 Issues----- ------ -------------- ------------------------ 1 7 Summary of Proposed Restoration Plans ____________________ 17 Koll's Proposed Plan ----------------------------------------- 17 OptionA.... .. ...............................................23 OptionB----------------------------------------------------- 29 NoProject.. .................................................... 4. Tidal Inlet 34 Issues- -- -------------------------------------------------- 34 General Information 34 5. Bolsa Chica Street Extension 44 Issues 44 --------------------------------------------------------- General Information (Refer to Appendix D) 6. OR Production-- ----- -----------------------------------•- 45 Issues 45 General Information - - -- - 45 7. Fiscal 51 Issues.. - 51 General Information 51 Page # 8. Parks and Recreational 54 Issues 54 Proposed Park and Recreation Facilities ____ 54 -----•------------------ 9. Schools--__ _ 58 Issues--------------- ----•-... .-- - - --- ------ -- .. -- 58 General Information .. - -- - - 58 10.Cultural Resources 63 Issues -- - - 63 General Information 63 Appendices A. Environmental Impacts B. Mitigation Measures C. Bolsa Chica Coalition Plan D. Cross-Gap Connector Report E. Coastal Act Sections Bolsa. Chica Reference Handbook October 24, 1994 Exhibits Exhibit Title Page# Table LU-2.0 Land Use Summary by Gross Acres 5 Figure LU-2.1 Koll Land Use Plan Map 7 Table LU-2.1 Koll Planned Community Statistical Table 8 Figure LU-2.2 Option A Development Plan 10 Table LU-2.2 Option A Planned Community Statistical Table 11 Figure LU-2.3 Option B Development Plan 13 Table LU-2.3 Option B Planned Community Statistical Table 14 Figure LU-2.4 Map of Existing Uses 16 Figure WR-3.1 Koll Master Phasing Plan 18 Table WR-3.1 Koll Summary of Proposed Habitat Acreage 19 Figure WR-3.2 Option A Master Phasing Plan 24 Table WR-3.2 Summary of Option A Restoration Plan j' Committments 25 Figure WR-3.3 Option B Master Phasing Plan 30 Table WR-3.3 Summary of Option B Restoration Plan Committments 31 l Table WR-3.4 Wetlands Restoration Phasing and Security Program 32 Table TI-4.0 Engineers'Design Objectives and Solutions 36 Figure TI-4.1 Tidal Inlet Plan 37 Figure TI-4.2 Tidal Inlet Cross Sections 38 Exhibit Title Page# Figure TI-4.3 Tidal Inlet Cross Sections 39 Figure TI-4.4 Beach and Jetty Profile 40 Figure TI-4.5 Shoreline Change 41 'Q Figure TI-4.6 Revetment Location Plan 42 Figure TI-4.6 Typical Revetment Section 43 ' F" OP-6.0 Existing Oil Production Facilities 46 Figure g Figure OP-6.1 Bolsa Chica Oil Leases 47 Figure OP-6.2 Oil Well Locations Relative to Option A Phasing Areas 49 Figure OP-6.3 Oil Well Locations Relative to Option B Phasing Areas 50 Table FI-7.1 Comparison of Plans Annexed Prior to Development 52 Table FI-7.2 Comparison of Plans Annexed Durin or P During ,or Development 52 Table FI-7.3 Comparison of Plans Annexed Not Annexed 53 Table PR-8.0 Public Parks and Recreation Facilities 57 Figure SC-90 School Sites in the City 59 Table SC-9.1 Estimated Student Generation 61 Table SC-9.2 Existing Schools in Bolsa Chica Area-- Enrollment and Capacity 62 Table CR-10.0 Significance of Archaeological Sites 64 g:losugilbLsachca\handbook\conteWs.doc � Lintroduction 1 General Information 1 INTRODUCTION ��. This handbook is intended to provide an overview of the issues associated with development of the Bolsa Chica area and begins with a summary of general information on the Bolsa Chica area followed by a"Land Use Plan" section consisting of brief description of the major components of the three plans which have been processed by the County during `93-'94 as well as a"No Project" alternative. These plans consist of the following: �. ♦ Koll's Proposed Plan (hereafter referred to as the Koll Plan); ♦ county's Proposed Plan with Option A for Lowland Development (hereafter referred to as Option A); and ♦ County's Proposed Plan with Option B for Lowland Development (hereafter referred to as Option B). ♦ No Project Alternative Issue areas included consist of the following: Wetland Restoration, Tidal Inlet, Bolsa Chica Street Extension, Oil Production, Fiscal, Parks and Recreational, Schools In addition a summary of Environmental Impacts associated with each plan, Mitigation Measures associated with each plan, and the Bolsa Chica Coalition Plan has also been provided as Appendices. The information contained in the following pages is intended to provide a general overview of the issues and plans and may not be comprehensive. Information presented is based upon analysis and data provided in the previously prepared Draft EHVEIS (prepared by the City of Huntington Beach), Draft EIR No.551 (prepared by the County of Orange), and Revised Draft EIR No. 551 (also prepared by the County of Orange). It should be noted that to date, none of these documents has been finalized or been certified. Therefore, it is possible that the final/certified document(s) may include different information than is presented here. Bolsa Chica Handbook 10/24/94 • • Page g _ Bolsa Chica General Information ❖ The Bolsa Chica area consists of approximately 1,700 acres of which approximately 1,588 acres are located within the unincorporated area of Orange County and are being planned for development under the County's proposed Local Coastal Program (LCP). The remaining acreage is located within the City's jurisdiction. ❖ The sub-areas within the Bolsa Chica have been distinguished by the four topographical areas within the Bolsa Chica described below: 1. Bolsa Chica Mesa (also often referred to as"the Mesa" or"the Upland") is the higher land form area to the north along Warner Avenue and Los Patos. 2. Huntington Mesa refers to the high land area located to the south of the Bolsa Chica area along Seapoint Street. This is the site of the Bolsa Chica Regional Park. 3. Central Lowland refers to the relatively flat areas between the two mesas, extending inland to within approximately 1,200 feet of the existing homes in Huntington Beach, and includes the existing Ecological Preserve. 4. Northeast Lowland refers to a 185 acre area located between the mesas and extending approximately 1,200 feet westward from the existing residences. This is jthe lowland area which has been proposed for lowland development under the Koll Plan and Option B. ❖ There are approximately 1,270 acres in the Central and Northeast Lowlands, combined. of which approximately 917 acres have been designated as"Waters of the United States" by the US Environmental Protection Agency(EPA). These waters are interspersed with oil roads, drilling pads, and other high ground within the lowlands, and are under Federal permit jurisdiction. 4- The State of California Department of Fish and Game operates an approximately 204 acre State Ecological Reserve within the Central Lowland, along Pacific Coast Highway. This restored wetlands area contains a walking trail and interpretive displays, and is open to the public year-round. ❖ There are approximately 300 oil wells in the Central and Northeast� Lowlands,' approximately 180 of which are active and producing. The estimated life span of the remaining oil wells ranges from 20-30 years. There are also 350 water injection wells, several oil and gas pipelines, storage tank farms, a former drill mud and tank waste disposal site, a gas processing plant, and various support facilities on the site. �` • • Page 3 •'• The East Garden Grove Wintersburg flood control channel nuns through the lowlands • (both Central and Northeast), parallel to the Mesa, and empties into outer Bolsa Bay. The Channel is under the jurisdiction of the County of Orange and is managed by the Orange County Flood Control District. ❖ There is currently a World War II era bunker located on the site that has been partially demolished and has been identified as eligible for listing on the National Register of Historical Places. •'• There are currently a number of arterial streets within the City that end at the Bolsa • Y tY Chica boundary. The County Master Plan of Arterial Highways and the City's Circulation Element show these streets continuing through the Northeast Lowland area. ❖ The Newport Inglewood Fault runs through the site, extending in a southeasterly direction across the Bolsa Chica Mesa, the Central Lowlands and the Huntington Mesa. 1 i � 2 .Land Use Plans Ko11 Plan i Option A Option B No Project • • Page 4 LAND USE PLAN This section provides a general description of the three land use plans for the Bolsa Chica that have been processed by the County during `93-'94 as well as a"No Project" alternative. The plans consist of the following: ♦ Koll's Proposed Plan (hereafter referred to as the Koll Plan); ♦ County's Proposed Plan with Option A for Lowland Development (hereafter referred to as Option A); ♦ County's Proposed Plan with Option B for Lowland Development (hereafter referred to as Option B); and ♦ No Project Alternative. The major components of each plan have been summarized followed by a brief, but more specific, description broken down by topographical area. A matrix of the proposed land uses and acreages for each plan has been provided in Table LU-2.0 for quick reference. Land Plan maps depicting the proposed land use distributions under each plan have also been provided in Figures LU-2.1, LU-2.2, LU-2.3, and LU-2.4. r • • Page Pa 5g TABLE LU-2.0 LAND USE SUMMARY BY GROSS ACRES Bolsa Chica Land Use Plans LAND USE DESIGNATION KOLL PLAN OPTION A OPTION B MAKMiJM UNITS 4,286 2,500 3,200 CONSERVATION: C Existing Ecological Reserve 307 307 307 C Central Lowland 791 792 791 C Northeast Lowland 185 TOTAL CONSERVATION 1,098 Acres 1,284 Acres 1,098 Acres RECREATION: R Bolsa Chica Regional Park 57 57 57 R Mesa Comunity Park 19 17 17 R Beach Entry 4 4 4 R Lowland Community Park 6 - 15 R Trail(Boardwalk) - - 1 TOTAL RECREATION 87 Acres 78 Acres 94 Acres PUBLIC FACILITY: PF EGGW Flood Control Channel 3 6 6 PF Water Storage Reservoir 2 2 2 PF Fire Station 1 1 1 TOTAL PUBLIC FACILITIES 6 Acres 9 Acres 9 Acres RESIDENTIAL BOLSA CHICA MESA: 24 L Low(3.5-6.5 DU/AC.) 54 143 144 ME Medium Low(6.5- 12.5 DU/AC.)(') 52 71(b) 71(b) MH Medium High(12.5 - 18.0 DU/AC.)(a) 82 H High(18-36 DU/AC.) NORTHEAST LOWLAND: 183 - 169 L Low(3.5 -6.5 DU/AC.) TOTAL RESIDENTIAL(`) 395 Acres(c) 214 Acres ) 384 Acres)` PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY 3 Acres 3 Acres 3 Acres GRAND TOTAL 1,588 Acres 1,588 Acres 1,588 Acres (a) Categories of residential density are based upon gross acres,including roads,common recreation facilities, slopes,and landscape areas. (b) Neighborhood commercial facilities,not to exceed 10 acres,may be included within Medium High Density Residential on the Bolsa Chica Mesa. For the Koll Plan,the maximum total number of dwelling units for the Bolsa Chica Land Use Plan shall be 4,286. A breakdown of units by density and acreage has been provided in Table LU-2.1. (d) For Option A,the maximum total number of dwelling units for the Bolsa Chica Land Use Plan shall be 2,500. A breakdown of units by density and acreage has been provided in Table LU-2.2. For Option B,the maximum total number of dwelling units for the Bolsa Chica Land Us Plan shall be 3,200. A breakdown of units by density and acreage has been provided in Table LU-2.3. iBolsa Chica Handbook 10/24/94 Paget! _ KOH Plan 1 This plan will allow for development of a maximum 4,286 residential units on the Bolsa P P Chica Mesa and Northeast Lowlands; the plan also includes a wetlands restoration program with a tidal inlet; and development of a Bolsa Chica Street Extension between the Northeast and Central Lowlands. The proposed land use designations for each topographical area has been briefly describe below and is depicted on Figure LU-2.1. Bolsa Chica Mesa--Residential The Bolsa Chica Mesa is designated predominantly for residential use with some supporting recreational and public facility areas. Approximately 3,410 dwelling units is permitted in a mix of housing types and densities ranging from 3.5 to 36 dwelling units/acre. The plan proposes lower density residential uses primarily along the westerly face of the Mesa(adjacent to Outer Bolsa Bay)with higher densities along Warner Avenue and the southerly facing bluff. Please refer to Figure LU-2.1: 1993 Koll Land Use Plan. The plan also includes a 18.8 acre community park component that is proposed to extend from Warner Avenue across the Mesa to the wetlands area. The park is proposed to provide both trails and other recreational opportunities for residents and visitors of the area. Vehicle access on the Mesa is proposed to be provided by the a Mesa Connector which connects Warner Avenue to the Bolsa Chica Street Extension(BCSE). The plan also designates a 1 acre area for a water storage reservoir on the Mesa to serve the project area. Huntington Mesa--Bolsa Chica Regional Park Within the Bolsa Chica area, the Huntington Mesa is planned exclusively for recreational use, and will be devoted to the Bolsa Chica Regional Park, a 106 acres linear park providing trail connections between the Huntington Central Park and the Bolsa Chica �. State Beach. This park will provide nature-oriented and passive recreational areas and is planned to include an interpretive facility, pedestrian/bicycle trails, equestrian trails, and vista overlooks. Central Lowland--Wetlands Ecosystem Area ,. This plan designates the entire central lowland area, approximately 1,097 acres, for conservation use as a Wetlands Restoration area. The plan proposes incremental restoration of the wetlands based upon the phasing out of oil production activities. It should be noted that this plan includes a tidal inlet across PCH and is proposed to be funded by the applicant. The Wetlands Restoration Program for the Koll Plan A, including the restoration of various hydrologic regimes and ESHAs, and appropriate buffers between restored and developed uses, has been described in Section 3. Bolsa Chica Handbook 10/24/94 LEGEND LAND USE DffMCT Q CONSERVATION ® RECREATION r rr--Fl PUBuc F amy p� © TAW DITISIIY RE3mFNML US-65 DU/ACRE) R • F ]L MEDIUM-TAW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (65-M5 DU/ACRE) �P�' I • M� MEDNM-EEEOH DENSITY RPSIDPNIIAL 025-18 MACRO HIOH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL cg9y '� •' ICD © 08-36 DU/ACRE) �Q�p4 9,` ti� ••J-• -• ��` LAND USE PF -- ••'"�•• • • M � ^ • PLANNINO AREA DESIGNATION sr •�.� •1-- -- `,J( 4C ML PF .. COUNTY LCP PF L 15 t • © AREA BOUNDARY 49 / ' 1� 4A EMERGENCY P MH ACCESS ML l3 Q • H H / yog 12 • C � H 1D 10 q R MH H IB • 9 3,P ML / ML L 7 S 6 • 1RA C �% Ii •' 1C 1A I I PACFIC COAST RWWAY -SCR BOLSA CHICA STATE BEACH TIDAL ,! 3E P A C I F I C 0 C E A N Figure LU-2.1 ` FEET Ko11 Plan N o 1600 BOLSA CHICA PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MAP Source: Koll Red Estate Group J 'Qacf.B Table LU-2.1 1 Koll Plan PROPOSED PROJECT -PLANNED COMMUNITY STATISTICAL TABLE Land Use Category Planning Area Gross Acres Dwelling Units Est-(a) Miss Open Space C Conservation lA 221.7 - - C Conservation 18 73.4 - - C Conservation IC 113 - - C Conservation 1D 791.0 - - R Recreation 2A 39.3 - - R Recreation 2B 34.4 - - R Recreation 3A 6.8(`) - - R Recreation 3B 12.0(`) - - R Recreation 3C 4.0 - - R Recreation 3D 2.0 - - R Recreation 3E 3.8 - - Total Open Space 1,198.7 - - PF Public Facility 4A 3.4 - - PF Public Facility 4B 2.0 - - PF Public Facility 4C 1.0 - - Total Public Facilities 6.4 - - Residential ML Medium Low(6.5 - 12.5 dulac) 5 12.1 125 150 L Low(3.5-6.5 du/ac) 6 24.1 100 140 ML Medium Low(6.5- 12.5 du/ac) 7 12.8 135 160 MH Medium High(12.5- 18.0 du/ac) 8 25.1 419 480 H High(19.0-36.0 du/ac) 9 34.7 695 860 H High (18.0-36.0 du/ac) 10 20.6 438 520 ML Medium Low(6.5- 12.5 du/ac) 11 16.4 182 205 H High (18.0-36.0 du/ac) 12 26.7 737 870 MH Medium High(12.5- 18.0 du/ac) 13 26.9 425 480 ML Medium Low (6.5- 12.5 du/ac) 14 123 154 154 L Low(3.5 -6.5 du/ac) 15 1933 876 1,100 Total Residential 395.0 4,286 - Pacific Coast Highway - 33 GRAND TOTAL ALL 1,603.4 4,286 4,286td' w :Fztimaatedzumber of.d vtlting tints per.planmmg.area o> Hannan nianber of dwel}mg nab per.�hmmg ales W ;16A net:park acres contained m PAs 3A and 38. .Total dweIIing ixhits aidzin the P!aueed Commaa:ey LCP area be minted to 4,286 Sources;Based<on.psaposedLUPby;FOi MA j Dka mt i2MM • • Page 9 Northeast Lowland--Residential Development This plan designates the area for development of low density residential single-family detached homes at a maximum density of 6.5 dwelling units/acre, two neighborhood recreation areas totaling approximately 6 acres and a 1 acre fire station site. The plan also proposes the extension of Talbert Avenue and Graham and Springdale Streets into cul-de- sacs within the Northeast Lowland development area as well as a Bolsa Chica Street Extension (BCSE)between the Northeast and Central Lowlands. The BCSE is proposed as a secondary arterial connecting Bolsa Chica Street with the proposed lowland residential development with"emergency" access through to Garfield Avenue. O Pion A This plan will allow for development of a maximum 2,500 residential units on the Mesa only; wetlands restoration without a tidal inlet and through mitigation banking; and no Bolsa Chica Street Extension. The proposed land use plan for each topographical area has been briefly describe below and is depicted on Figure LU-2.2. Bolsa Chica Mesa--Residential The Bolsa Chica Mesa is designated primarily for residential use with supporting recreational and community facility areas. A maximum of 2,500 dwelling units is permitted in a mix of housing types and densities ranging from 6.5 to 18 dwelling units/acre. Although not specified on the land use map, the County has indicated (in the text of the LCP)that single family detached homes and multi-family attached condominiums and/or apartments will be developed and that lower densities will be located along the edges of the community, especially adjacent to Outer Bolsa Bay and the existing Los Patos neighborhood. Higher densities will be clustered in the middle of the Mesa, bisected by a 17 acre community park. The community park component, also referred to as the Mesa Community Park, is proposed to extend from Warner Avenue across the Mesa to the wetlands area. The park includes the existing Warner Avenue pond and proposed to provide both trails and other recreational opportunities for residents and visitors of the area. Vehicle access on the Mesa is proposed to be provided by the Mesa Connector, a four- lane-divided secondary arterial with a landscaped median, parkways and parking areas. The plan also proposes an underground water storage reservoir on the Mesa to serve the project and potentially serve the existing neighborhoods in Huntington Beach as well. Huntington Mesa--Bolsa Chica Regional Park The proposed land use designation for the Bolsa Chica Mesa under Option B is the same as that for the Koll Plan; please refer to the above discussion under the Koll Plan. Bolsa Chica Handbook 10/24/94 LEGEND LAND USE DLSIMCT : / ® RBCRFATtort ® PUBLIC FACRlilf Ill WMR)M-LOAV DDIM RESIDERnAL (6.$-12.SDU/ACRE) PIP. A i;.7.. . ON MPDRIM-HIGH DEN=RPMDOM&(12.5-18 DU/ACRB) / � / \ �•:•:•;::::ti't:;:;�+y / ECCW Flood // .1� I::::::ti: :: :.t';: ENNMOIMORHOOD OOMMERCIAL / Confrol Channel \\ / r:::::. . :::::.lni © PLANNEDAREA CONBOUNDSQn 'Y IUNTI (FIRE STATION ,,.,�„ P. r.�............... . .....: . .......: ... .......: ........ .:: ...... ..... ....:.... .. . .::::::::. . . ..... w�................... .................................................................................................................... / - (WATER RE9ER VOIRIFA\ J 5 / 1 / / C: i 3• t� r I 1 i ti r Q I Ir i ttl ;:o r. I i : ;: .tr: r a n MES A COMMUNITY OMMU T Y PARK ,1. :r 'h 1• tt I". r r 7 ftlJ04 9 :•1 _.yQ` �cT.. / t!!x. 1 P / 1 .. .3 •i • h YIJI. " .ems I �S t f 1. 1#I / a. 1 t5 1 .Y c It I♦ I . . ..... .. ....:.. .. .. . e..1�/ I 1 .v i .t BOLSA CHICA STATE BEACH ____ p -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PACIFIC OCEAN Figure LU-2.2 OPTION A BOLSA CHICA DEVELOPMENT PLAN _ LAND USE PLAN 00800150, ^- PAC,9— 11 Table LU-2.2 OPTION A PLANNED CONMUNM STATISTICAL TABLE Bolsa Chica Planned Community v.::..::.:::........::::::..w:ry::::}:}::.:%it:t•.;{.}v:::::i::::i::::x{: .:.. .v.x , .. ..>} •,iv.. ...h! .... .. .:v .✓. : ..................... .............. ...........{Yt.A�11tI�I�Gr:• 3R�SS�:; .-.};..;......,.:..:........:..:..:.,......:....:..:...:....v::•}}}:•>:•:::::}:•:::. :}•::.::..:j.::}y::::t�:.if�:•;.•:.`lt,^.:••:.%:•: ..f.• •.;,;;..t;...,: ::..u}"''ys•..+.u:w• .:{a•;::i¢%:i;:• ... :::}..t:.•:v.tr.}.:.\}t•..•::}:nr:.};:�:.•:•::::•:::., :.4.:x:•>.}•..:.: •,•:l.}x.<}.'.L;.;%.. $c.,': .,.kt .5: LANDItSE�CATEGORY<v>;<;> :5.............. ,,:.:.,.:.:,.:.;n....}tt::.:}}.o}}:a.^<:{.}:t):..:v�.y'.$;:a}:,:.k":t.,v:..:Y:::::,............:o::•:::u:::,.:::.::::::.-::tn,.>..t.,:a;:..:',L'ii.:::,::::�.}} �(,44 y>.j�: CONSERVATION C Conservation(Wetlands Ecosystem Area) IA 222 — — C Conservation(Wetlands Ecosystem Area) 1B 74 C Conservation(Wetlands Ecosystem Area) 1C 11 _ — C Conservation(Wetlands Ecosystem Area) 1D 792 — — C Conservation(Wetlands Ecosystem Area) 1E 144 — — C Conservation(Wetlands Ecosystem Area) 1F 41 — — TOTAL CONSERVATION 112" RECREATION — — R Recreation(Regional Park) 2A 38 R Recreation(Regional Park) 2B 19 — — R Recreation(Local Park) 3A 11 _ R Recreation(Local Park) 3B 6 l`t R Recreation(Beach Entry) 3C 4 — — "" TOTAL RECREATION 79 — — PUBLIC FAciury PF Public Facility(EGGW Flood Control Channel) 4A 6 — — ' PF Public Facility(Water Storage Reservoir) 4B 2 PF Public Facility(Fire Station) 4C 1 (C) TOTAL PUBLIC FACELJ 'Ilr S 9 — RESIDOUTALO' ML Medium Low(6.5- 12.5 DU/Ac) 5 75 710 938 MH Medium High(12.5- 18.0 DU/Ac) OP) 37 550 666 ML Medium Low(6.5 - 12.5 DU/Ac) 7 35 250 438 MH Medium High(12.5- 18.0 DU/Ac) 8 34 580 612 ML Medium Low (6.5- 12.5 DU/Ac) 9 33 410 413 TOTAL RESIDENTIAL — 214 2,500 PACInC COAST HIGHWAY 3 — GRAND TOTAL ALL I m 2,500 2,500 Fstimated number of Dwelling Units per Planning Area. cu Maximum number of Dwelling Units per Planning Area. k' Local park and public facility acres abown on this Statistical Table am estimates based upon the best available information. IA Categories of residential density are based upon gross acres,including toads,common recreation facilities,slopes,and laadaeape areas; and shall apply to each Planning Area not any particular subarea or pwjecL r" Neighborhood commercial facilities,not to exceed 10 acres,may be included within Planning Area 6,consistent with Chapter 5, Residential Regulations and Development Standards of the Planned Community Program,Zoning Code Section 7449,and the Orange County General Plan. `D The maximum total number of dwelling units for the Balsa Chia Planned Community shalt be 2,500. • • Pa e i g _12_ Central Lowland--Wetlands Ecosystem Area The plan designates the entire central lowland area over 1,000 acres for conservation use as a Wetlands Ecosystem area. The plan proposes incremental restoration of the wetlands based upon the phasing out of oil production activities. It should be noted that implementation of the Wetlands Restoration Program under Option A will depend on the establishment of a mitigation bank for third party funding of the land acquisition and restoration activities in the lowland. Third parties with off-site wetlands mitigation requirements may use the mitigation bank to satisfy those obligations. However, no potential third party sources are known at this time. The Wetlands Restoration Program for Option A, including the restoration of various hydrologic regimes and ESHAs, and appropriate buffers between restored and developed uses, has been described in Section 3. Northeast Lowland--Non-tidal Wetlands Habitat The plan designates this area as a non-tidal, mixed habitat, with restored upland native grasslands and does not propose any significant grading or the introduction and management of water flows. Further discussion regarding the Wetlands Restoration Program for this area has been provided is Section 3. O1ption B This plan will allow for development of a maximum 3,200 residential units on the Mesa and Lowlands; wetlands restoration without a tidal inlet; and connection of Graham Street and Talbert Avenue in the Northeast Lowland. The proposed land use plan for each topographical area has been briefly describe below and is depicted on Figure LU-2.3. Bolsa Chica Mesa--Residential rThe proposed land use designation for the Bolsa Chica Mesa under Option B is the same as that for the Koll Plan; please refer to the above discussion under the Koll Plan. Huntington Mesa--Bolsa Chica Regional Park The proposed land use designation for the Huntington Mesa under Option B is the same as that for Option A; please refer to the above discussion under Option A. ' Central Lowland--Wetlands Ecosystem Area The proposed land use designation for the Central Lowland under Option B are the same as those for Option A; please refer to the above discussion under Option A. However, unlike in Option A, under this plan, wetland restoration activities including the dedication of the wetlands area, funding for the Wetlands Restoration Program, and monitoring and maintenance, are proposed to be the responsibility of the applicant to mitigate the impacts of lowland development on the wetlands. The Wetlands Restoration Program for Option B, including the restoration of various hydrologic regimes and ESHAs, and appropriate buffers between restored and developed uses, has been described in Section 3. I Bolsa Chica Handbook 10/24/94 LEGEND LAND USE DISTRICT ® CONMVAnON / ® RECRPAnON / ® Pl/BLR;PACIIIIY © LOW DMMY RES DMAL (3.3-6.5 DU/ACRE) e ® MWRIM-LOW DENSITY RESIDNMAL (6.3-12.3DU/ACRE) / 4�r �/ (:. FROM M®IUM-19011 DENSITY RESIDPNIIAL(12.5-18 DU/ACRE) // ECCW Flood \4r / �' t; Control Channel ® N10010ORIl00D COMMERCIAL \V/ Q f \ COUNTY L.CP ED AREA BOUNDARY (WATER RESERVOIR( / /�- s \ a.r ::. . R�6 {:lF.IAFr:;aTJ1T1F)M:::: i! .......... .?� \ / v P �t Y I Q F O I AOQI •r I Ir t� I •E s r- •e } ..I / b .j `::•:•i:•::�:•:i::....:.:•:::ti•:r�s:�•:•:•:•iti:��:r:::�tr:: ..............................• • ••••• • • : ••�:�::•::•::•:�:•:�:{•:ti•:•:�:ti:�::•:ti•::•:•:�::•:�:"�'•:�•:�:�:�::•::tiff ::�::::::::i::.�.�;:•:::�:•:i:i;�:::...;;:::ti•::•::: "•'•'� MESA COMMUNITY PARK tel:. f 3 q �r .t' 4 ti1C r 14' r f. r. RDPO :C.: r r �i Rtpl 0 RIP,' I:OC s r, ••y pry,Y. R RA ,R• 1..a P .I RA. �3 :. / +l 3• .., l n f. 11 ................................................................................................................................................................... lv. a ................................................................................................................................................................... ................................................................................................................................................................... .................................................................................................................................................................... .... .................................................................................................................................................................... I I I .... ...... . .. l s f...... ...... . ..... ......... • 4 n .......................................................................................................................................................................:.........:...:.:. }'e�l,'l,,s,t• 11 /- - BOLSA CHICA STATE BEACH w-- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PACIFIC OCEAN Figure LU-2.3 OPTION B BOLSA CHICA DEVELOPMENT PLAN LAND USE PLAN �-00 10 © 0 400 eao reoo PAC-,& it Table LU--2.3 OPTION B PLANNED COAD&UNM STATISTICAL TABLE Boba Chica Planned Community ..................:.....:...:.:...........:.:..:... .:a,.?v,..,>:..>:< ,,:�.�..:F m►7Gr',,. ..ts�80SS:{>::s'.: �TC�'[I�t11��.:..;,:...� :}: .y..: '. .. :v:�;{::.4xvv,:{.:+.i:iiv.i};:?v:}^/.tt:.:::.;{x.:'.,lf,Cv;S}?4•M;3�k v '}'i,.:{:ri:•l t�:y,}i'r� l�{i .. ... v..� ...v..,4r:;vv::':.•:<:}y...:,}.;..::v%':'•v:i.� :. qlv.{: v}}.�..L.v.••r.r.� -'�K L,Y: :i�T�.O��:•t4Y:,:2•:� .v...'J• .. vx..vv. nx.{v{v 4f.!u%•:..•:: '`;:j::!}:::.� :?r G'uYG,• �1}i,C; �Sy:}�'? ............ CONSERVATION C Conservation(Wetlands Ecosystem Area) 1A 222 — C Conservation(Wetlands Ecosystem Area) 1B 74 — C Conservation(Wetlands Ecosystem Area) 1C 11 — — C Conservation(Wetlands Ecosystem Area) 1D 791 — — TOTAL CONSERVATION 1,098 RECREATION R Recreation(Regional Park) 2A 38 = _ R Recreation(Regional Park) 2B 19 R Recreation(Local Park) 3A 11 R Recreation(Local Park) 3B 6 (`) R Recreation(Beach Entry) 3C 4 R Recreation(Local Park) 3D 15 — R Recreation(Local Park Trail) 3E 1 (`) — TOTAL RECREATION 94 — — P[TBLTC FACILTTY PF Public Facility(EGGW Flood Control Channel) 4A 6 PF Public Facility(Waiter Storage Reservoir) 4B 2 PF Public Facility(Fire Station) 4C 1 (`) — — TOTAL PUBLIC FACILITTIFS 9 — — RESIDENTLAVO •-� ML Medium Low(6.5 - 12.5 DU/Ac) 5 75 710 939 M 1 Medium FTigh(12.5- 18.0 DU/Ac) 6(e) 37 550 666 ML Medium Low(6.5- 12.5 DU/Ac) 7 35 250 438 MH Medium High(12.5- 18.0 DU/Ac) 8 34 590 612 ML Medium Low(6.5- 12.5 DU/Ac) 9 34 410 425 L Low(3.5 -6.5 DU/Ac) 10 41 175 267 L Low(3.5-6.5 DU/Ac) 11 128 525 832 TOTAL RESIDENTIAL 394 3,200 — PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY — 3 — GRAND TOTAL ALL 1,588 3,200 3,200 0) --� W Estimated number of DwcMag Units per Planning Area. t" Maximum number of Dwelling Units per Planning Arta. N' Local part and public facility acres shown on this Statistical Table are eadmet••based upon tho bear available information. fO Categories of residential density are based upon groan acres,includlrtg roads,common recreation facilities,slopes,and landscape areas;and shall apply to each Planning Area not any particular subarea or project. `~ Neighborhood commercial facilities,not to c=ced 10 acres,may be included within Planning Ate&6,consistent with Chapter 5, Residential Regulations anid Development Standards,of the Planned Community Program,Zoning Code Section 7-949,and the Orange County General Plan. m The maximum total number of units for the Bolsa Chka Mesa(Planning Areas 5-9)shall be limited to 2,500;the matomum for the Northeastern Lowland(planning Areas 10-11)shall be 900;the maximum total number of dwelling units for the Bolsa Chia Planned Community shall be 3,200. • • Page l�5 Northeast Lowland--Residential Development Option B designates the area for development of low density residential single-family detached homes, and a 15 acre combination community park/fire station site. In Option B the entire Bolsa Chica area(both Bolsa Chica Mesa and Northeast Lowland areas combined) are restricted to development of a maximum of 3,200 dwelling units. No Pro, ect This plan assumes that there would be no development on the Mesa or Lowlands. The area would continue to be undeveloped and would be managed as present. No means for wetlands restoration are included as part of this plan. Under the"No Project" alternative, it is assumed that the Bolsa Chica property would be acquired by one of the State or federal resource agencies which would manage restoration of the wetlands. Such acquisition would be required to occur by a specified deadline or the property would be subject to the processing of an LCP as is currently being conducted. The proposed land use plan for each topographical area has been briefly describe below and is depicted on Figure LU-2.4 (Existing Uses). Bolsa Chica Mesa--Upland Habitat ' The Bolsa Chica Mesa would remain as undeveloped upland habitat. No development would occur on the Mesa under this plan. Huntington Mesa--Bolsa Chica Regional Park The proposed land use designation for the Bolsa Chica Mesa under Option B is the same ' as that for the Koll Plan; please refer to the above discussion under the Koll Plan. Central Lowland and Northeast Lowland The Lowland areas are currently occupied by oil production roads and equipment, as well as the State Ecological Preserve. Under the"No Project" alternative, it is assumed that these uses would continue indefinitely. Bolsa Chica Handbook 10/24/94 �\j ♦I/I.I �. '��i. ,�. �y,r°' °°i • / �� •,aka �. a, • ,•'r11i': /'•��� :IIIIIjI,�,�',�.•/' /:�j' '( `""�:�`'����. �� / '��� ,� V �o�•,���d ��" ��� , �\ ,%/�fj\�•G�''�i, c�> .% �'�;�i�.�''�. VA 1I I �/,�. �l/ '•� F',C+''��;• '\ ,1� yrl/ice./i 1�♦ / .•`r �tr�i``♦'♦` �3 I;.�����°,�.�� t'� '1 . 1.0:., � � ,.`',n'p''•,;•',`11:,,:�'%):',L.�? �\� ra."�`� /�'.,.y • O1':` ♦,r/ia,'''�.��, r � . �'t'• .•`/.,, II ` iyr,,ktY`',.r''♦�: �♦�,,.• � <fii'F $••'.•?.:i r a, • � : �� � �'��•,.�'"'•, c�,�gF% .'' 1 }`/,a )' • ��/�Y°I'°�.�• � fV `� •7�:;7C ��`r`�i%,{e�lv's''•'•.o' ), .•°/'° ® ♦_11�'�'r �P F ��� `. ♦�+° ( 4' 3 .• �.�(., %, /fit' r`v,, S�. ISi I a°•i ,.•,/.•;; � � �,�•t• / ♦ y., ti%.�C,,; 1.C:, .•`�'',;'' ,•��,���\,, `'��\♦,`• 4�. ;,',�,/•� , I "'�'`'' .•,.``:�;'%'a, � •''' ail/1 j, ''c�i\� �° I,�y^•1Li: 41: 4� �t .t��.�S�a,%a,;',%':.�,,j�tC`,. ., .' `a:'',, f'v�;%.•, l...a'' I , ,w �',, ������F� n .J 4r%,'ai1. .�i,,'�(•��J��d•�d ii''J`f•r`y. GQ.r \` / ., I� ���I �,,,�,i♦ ���'�4/ !" rdF,��{:•E'''�� ,""I,,• ���'rr• •' �.�i l\�.:`�,'jy's�lnilslli � �I a�� ' .1•.�•.,, / N l 11 91 off`, /• .�%�i .y�°ti _ �," '',;;Zf'€e�i' aEb�@��:3Bx�l{{ I {�i:�;r�l�l ��a���,�`� ���i I �� ��� '`,,' �� ��.. , {%�1'11I1mt•IIr' l'gg11�1 IL III��� � 5t ' �o S 'I ����� , S • • I � ' 40� E�i�l�xig / c i • i 1 � 3 .Wetland Restoration Issues ' Summary of Proposed Restoration Plans Koll Plan Option A Option B r • • Page �? WETLANDS RESTORATION With the exception of the"No Project" alternative,which does not include any wetlands restoration component, each of the proposed land plans includes a wetlands restoration program. This section provides an overview of the general issues regarding creation of a wetlands restoration program as well as a brief summary of the various wetland restoration programs proposed under each land plan alternative. Discussion of each component of the wetlands restoration programs(including creation/preservation/restoration of wetlands, Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHAs), and buffers; protection endangered and threatened species; phasing and funding requirements/responsibilities; and monitoring and maintenance programs) have been provide below. A matrix of the main components under each plans has been provided as Tables WR-3.1, WR-3.2, and WR-3.3. Exhibits)AR-3.1, WR-3.2, and WR-3.3 depict each restoration in graphic form. Wetland Restoration-Issues 1 ♦ Identification and prioritization of values(including resources, species and habitats, ' etc.)which the restoration will promote(Preservation vs. Restoration vs. Creation). ♦ Economic feasibility and funding sources (costs of implementing/monitoring/maintaining the wetlands restoration program). ♦ Phasing out of oil production activities (remediation of oil fields and compatibility with ' on-going oil operations). Wetland Restoration--Proposed Plans r Koll Plan ' Hydrologic & imes The Wetlands Restoration Program component of the Koll Plan is similar to that proposed ' in Options A and B below as it includes a mix of Full Tidal Areas, Muted Tidal Areas, Seasonal Ponds, and Perennial Pond Areas. However, the Koll Plan Wetlands Restoration Program includes a Tidal Inlet which will provide superior water quality for the wetland area and is generally considered the optimum restoration plan. A summary of the acreages of each habitat type has been provided in Table WR-3.1. 1 Bolsa Chica Handbook 10/24/94 • • Page a6 ♦ Full Tidal Areas The Koll Plan proposes creation of full tidal wetlands in the central area of the Bolsa Chica lowland connected to a new tidal inlet. This open water bay area is configured to extend from the tidal inlet at the southern-most part of the property to the outfall of the EGGW Channel under the BCSE. The full tidal wetlands area in the central lowland will aid in the mixing of ocean waters with the discharged freshwater flows from the EGGW flood control channel outfall, thus reducing sediment and chemical loads downstream and in Huntington Harbor. The Plan also includes a second full tidal wetlands component. This consists of an expansion of the Outer Bolsa Bay through the creation of three additional acres of full tidal wetlands. Once the new tidal inlet is constructed, the culverts which presently allow tidal exchange between Inner and Outer Bolsa Bay will be blocked and storm water runoff will be directed out through the new tidal inlet. This is expected to have an direct beneficial effect on water residence times and circulation in the adjacent ' Huntington Harbor system, enhancing water quality both in Outer Bolsa Bay and Huntington Harbor. ' With closer proximity to the ocean, the total number of faunal and floral species found in full tidal wetlands at Bolsa Chica is expected to increase. The tidal inlet, the newly created tidal areas, and expanded areas of open water in Inner Bolsa Bay is also ' expected to attract some fish-eating bird species. Expanded tidal mudflats will enhance foraging for numerous wading birds which also present an additional food resource for a variety of predatory birds. The jetties and their attached fauna and flora will likely attract waterfowl and shorebirds feeding on shellfish and are also expected to provide additional resting and roosting areas. The subtidal waters of the new full tidal wetlands is expected to provide increased fish diversity by providing direct access ' to the lowland without having to pass through natural and man-made habitats. ♦ Muted Tidal Areas: ' The Koll Plan proposes to maintain the existing Muted Tidal Areas in Inner Bolsa Bay and 2 new Muted Tidal Areas in the Central Lowland. One of the new muted tidal wetlands areas will be located just north and east of Rabbit Island. The other will border approximately the entire length of the BCSE. Please refer to Figure WR-3.1. These Muted Tidal Areas will be isolated from one another and are intended to have unique tidal characteristics. However, a common linkage of the Muted Tidal Areas will be provided by their proximity to the Full Tidal Area. This will allow for pickleweed growth and is expected to expand and enhance the quantity and quality of pickleweed habitat in the Lowland. The general mix of habitats planned for at these Muted Tidal Wetlands is vegetated salt marsh and tidal flats. ' Bolsa Chica Handbook 10/24/94 • Page Q1— ♦ Seasonal Ponds : ' The Koll Plan includes both retaining existing and creation of new seasonal pond habitat. The elevations of the Bolsa Chica area are low and will allow for easy water management, especially during very wet years. There are two principal freshwater sources for these ponds--rainfall, and surface run off from the Huntington Mesa. It is intended that water levels will be annually managed in such away as to enhance the availability of pond habitats for longer, more consistent periods of time. Some water control and drainage structures may be added to assist in water management. The seasonal pond habitats are important to various resident and migratory birds which use ' the area. ♦ Perennial Pond: ' The Koll Plan includes the creation of a Perennial Pond at the existing Perennial Pond habitat and non-wetlands areas along the southeastern edge of the Central Lowland, at the base of the Huntington Mesa. The desired salinity range for this pond is to be maintained through freshwater runoff from the Huntington Mesa. Evaporation and ' salty groundwater conditions are expected to facilitate the creation of the brackish water conditions. Pond water levels will be managed with excess rainfall or runoff permitted to drain to or from adjacent Seasonal Ponds. 1 Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHAs) Bolsa Chica area contains several existing ESHAs including Coastal Sand Dunes, Rabbit Island, Eucalyptus/Woodland, and Warner Avenue Pond which are proposed to be retained or replaced, under Option, as identified below. ♦ Coastal Sand Dunes : ' Coastal sand dunes are presently located within the Bolsa Chica area along Pacific Coast Highway and will be retained, unless proposed for removal by another project, such as Caltrans PCH widening project. Sand supply to the dunes is proposed to continue to be provided by sand blown from the Bolsa Chica State Beach. ♦ Rabbit Island: Rabbit Island will be retained. Also planned for preservation and enhancement are the ' pocket wetlands and other wetlands surrounding Rabbit Island. ' Bolsa Chica Handbook 10/24/94 »� aw dw or w ow tea: WI good "I so) Sol so] go, go; LEGEND ..................................................................................................................................... 000 1 DEVELOPMENT PHASING ® WETLAND PHASING Ebk PUBLIC PARKS PUBLIC BEACH g 0 COUNTY LCP ARPA BOUNDARY �If gy T! a r gsq 9y9 Q C • PLAN BASED ON WETLANDS RESTORATION ..� ' PLAN/ CONSERVATION PROGRAM ALTERNATIVE \C\61 Seasonal 4A "� • - ^� ho 1-LCP PLAN WITH TIDAL INLET. PARK PHASING ^ „-WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN CONJUNCTION WITH / i •� -�. •r �d ' Ponds URBAN DEVELOPMENT. i O /�--- oo Urban •: • � � B � u O Development Mted tidal --Perennial 0 Ponde �! Urban 3A 5A 30 Development Muted Muted Tidal Muted Tidal Tidal Muted Tidal -- Seas 5B 51) 2A Ponds ` ti Muted Tidal Full Tidal Seasonal `''a 0 : Ponds 1A Muted Seasonal eP/ IA Ponds Full Tidal fr�v y Urban Development ;:;� ,r ► j IC tea' / Rabbit Island , Inner Bolsa Bay 6A f•� Muted Tidal Muted Tidal p; / Full Tidal ' Full Tidal = ,; A II C T PACIFI COAS HIGHWAY 6D Full Tidal •fir T .�a A 0`S. , •13 !.... .. .,w._. �.: ,...w.:•�:.�..::�',,;��.ti= �_ �'-'.TIb�AL':�IIVLET°I P A C I F I C o C E A N Figure WR-3.1 K011 Plan .� Bole a ch'°a wetrand8. Reetorat.i°n Plan MASTER PHASING PLAN Source: Williamson & Schmid. ON11 Engineers _ roo goo occ uai co uoo . • �E I`I ' WETLANDS RESTORATION PLAN EXECUTM SUAU "Y t Table WR-3.1 Koll Plan SUMMARY OF PROPOSED HABITAT ACREAGE* Bolsa Chica Wetlands Restoration Plan t HABITAT ACREAGE HABITAT LOCATION WETLANDS2 ESHA BUFFERS TOTALS Full Tidal Wetlands Central Lowland 264.0 - 0.3 264.3 Outer Bolsa Bay 50.9 4.01 8:3 63.2 ' Whipstock Area 11.8 -- -- 11.8 PCH at Huntington Mesa 3.3 3.3 Muted Tidal Wetlands Inner Bolsa Bay 121.5 9.61 -- 131.1 ' By BCSE Connector 243.5 -- 18.0 261.5 West Pocket Area 75.8 4.6 80.4 Within Inner Bolsa Bay 9.7 -- -- 9.7 ' Seasonal Ponds Seaward of BCSE 142.6 == -- 142.6 Inland of BCSE 68.2 4.4 72.6 Perennial Ponds 10.2 -- -- 10.2 ' Rabbit Island 3.8 51.0 -- 54.8 TOTAL PROJECT 1,005.3 64.6 35.6 1,105.5 , r * Source: Williamson& Schmid NOTES: 1. These are coastal sand dunes located along Pacific Coast Highway. 2. Mitigation for Warner Avenue Pond is included in the wetlands and is not considered an ' ESHA. .� • • Paged_ ♦ Eucalyptus/Woodland Eucalyptus trees located on the Bolsa Chica Mesa will be removed and new woodland/scrub habitat will be planted on the slope face of the Huntington Mesa, adjacent to or within the Bolsa Chica Regional Park, to mitigate their removal. ♦ Warner Avenue Pond : The Warner Avenue Pond has been incorporated into the perennial pond restoration ' efforts identified above. Buffers and Transitions The Koll Plan Restoration Plan includes several buffer areas including a Bolsa Chica ' Mesa/Outer Bolsa Bay Buffer, the Bolsa Chica Mesa/Lowland Pocket Buffer, the Wetlands/Lowlands Buffer, and the Wetlands/Edwards Thumb Buffer. The buffers are proposed to consist of a combination of the following components: native vegetation, ' fencing, landscape areas, open unvegetated areas, and public trails. Transition areas include berms/levees between wetland habitats, and between ESHAs and wetlands to serve to isolate and control the hydraulic conditions of adjacent wetlands habitat types, as well as to provide access to conduct field surveys, maintain water control structures, and serve as monitoring/research platforms for the overall wetlands system. Proposed berm/levees include a Full Tidal/Muted Tidal Transition, Muted Tidal/Rabbit Island Transition, Inner Bolsa Bay/Coastal Dune/PCH Transition, Muted Tidal/Seasonal Pond Transition, Seasonal Pond/Emergency Access/Perennial Pond Transition, and a Seasonal Pond/Perennial Pond/ESHA Transition. ' Endangered and Threatened Species The Wetlands Restoration Plan for Koll Plan includes opportunities to create and restore ' habitats and vegetation that are expected to attract and sustain the following endangered, threatened , and candidate species: The California Least Tern, California Brown Pelican, Western Snowy Plover, Elegant Tern, Light-Footed Clapper Rail, Peregrine Falcon, and ' Belding's Savannah Sparrow. Phasing and Funding Requirements/Responsibilities The timing and phasing of wetlands restoration involves a variety of logistical and economic considerations. I response to these issues, Koll Plan proposes to implementation of the Wetland Restoration Program over 6 phases; implementation of the phasing plan is depicted in Figure WR-3.1. The timeline for implementation of the plan is proposed to run from 1998 to 2020; however, implementation of each phase of the Wetlands Restoration Program will be dependent upon the depletion of oil resources and ' the removal of oil facilities. Funding for implementation of the Wetlands Restoration Program is proposed to be the responsibility of Koll under this plan. Bolsa Chica Handbook 10/24/94 • • Paged_ Monitoring and Maintenance Koll Plan includes several programs for maintenance and monitoring of the Wetlands Restoration Program. These consist of the following four programs which have been generally described below: ' ♦ Construction-Period Conservation Proms: This program is intended to minimize the impacts to target species at the Bolsa Chica during construction ' activities. It takes into consideration management practices, timing, posting requirements, disturbance control measures, noise control measures, education of construction personnel, toxic materials procedures, and trash disposal procedures. ♦ Construction-Period Monitorin and Maintenance Pro m : This program is g � P gr ' intended to monitor that design elevations and habitat specifications are met. It takes into consideration monitoring of stormwater runoff, grading, water quality, tidal elevations, oil resources, habitat, marine life, birds and mammals. ' ♦ Five Year Post-Construction Period Monitoring and Maintenance Program This program is intended to ensure that the performance criteria for the five years immediately following construction are met and maintained and includes monitoring for engineering concerns, habitat creation/restoration requirements, marine life protection, and protection of target/non-target species. ♦ Long-Term Monitoring and Maintenance Prggram : This program begins upon completion of the Post-Construction Program and is intended to monitor the success ' criteria for the Wetlands Restoration Program for ten years or until the County of other approved agency determines that the system has reached equilibrium. Option A Implementation of the Wetlands Restoration Program under Option A is dependent upon establishment of a mitigation bank and identification of third party mitigators. At this ' point no such bank or third party mitigators have been found. Therefore, under Option A, the following restoration plan is conceptual and may undergo some modifications to meet the needs of future third party mitigators. A summary of the acreages of each habitat type ' has been provided in Table WR-3.2. Hydrologic Regimes The Wetlands Restoration Program component of Option A includes a mix of Full Tidal ' Areas, Muted Tidal Areas, Seasonal Ponds, Perennial Pond, and Non-Tidal Areas. 1 ,. Bolsa Chica Handbook 10/24/94 M ? MIMIM. 1modulkmImIm, loft llow• pE& loin ice. l "s IK li li Imiml LEGEND EARLIEST START DATE* /� \ EXISTING RESTORATION / 1998 Q 2005 s s P 2010 4 2015 / NWF 2020 coUN1Y LCP s ARFA BOUNI]ARY q / renni ~ ` , , '•BASED UPON ACQUISITION/FUNDING. q/ y �� }I Ponds s • itit'{jfk }n Is i, s E fit f#( +�, #fi _ tdi i3 . OIL ATTRITION. AND COMPLETION OF T /� .• "'.� t I s isT�_ ` a ss ! / ��rr!.,' c C!L tf ' 11 �f(t'� THE SANTA ANA MAINSTEM PROJECT �., "� 7��:^�k r li4 � n t 4 I �• � i- � ?B „ o'} y lzt%' }q 10,0±#1 t,n ��� #9 e a$Qa�Bon�ali �•iy4. • 1 / Non Tidal rr r ] IS} Irr �fM' Seasonal Muted ,# I Nli y� , ' ! Isl' IifF ti c T v i{,f 11Mut}ed ;' 'F4 Residential � ' �, ' try +, , � � � Ponds Development Tidal .,, �s 't Seasonal. `4 Muted y1 Tidal Muted Tidal Non +': Seasonal Ponds 1\ / Full Tidal lA cr9� ;,, Tidal Ponds Seasonal ,. f'Tft Full Tidal Muted Tidal Ponds eP `` Residential ,m DFG Cell """ PQ` Non Tidal •/ Development Non—Tidal ' Y' ;; aA / (Rabbit Island) Non Tidal +`� ;t} II '� II �•'' .ryl:.ii'1T {r1,� Full Tidal 1 l•. - 1. A.. H F 1-i l i .......: :.',;;r,•rA OCEAN<` PACIFIC s: Figure WK -3.2 OPTION A �, BOLSA CHICA MASTER WETLANDS PHASING PLAN WETLANDS RESTORATION PROGRAM ® 0 400 800 1600 �� as WETLANDS RESTORATION PROGRAM Table WR-3.2 SUMMARY OF OPTION A RESTORATION PLAN COMMnWEM Bolsa Chica Wetlands Restoration Program _P.WAion of a minimum of Full Tidal Areas 206.0 — 4.0 16.7. 226.7 (2)new California least tern nesting islands. Muted Tidal Areas: Creation of a 9'berm/dOw nif cietrt to contain 100-year Muted Tidal A 164.8 — — — 164.8 storm discharge from (East of Full Tidal) EGGW Flood Control Muted Tidal B 156.6 — 9.6 — 166.2 Channel. . (Innar Balsa Bay? — • Creation of a 100-foot-wide — — Seasonal Ponds 330.5 330.5 buffer for the Wetlands Ecosystem Arm. Perennial Ponds 9.9 — — — 9.9 • Maintain e:csting wetlands Non-Tidal Areas: values of State Ecological Reserve. Non-Tidal A (Rabbit Island) 3.4 — 51.0 — 54.4 • Creation of an approximately Non-Tidal B 10-acre perennial pond' (Adjacent to Full Tidal) 155*0 — _ = 155.0 • Maintain allon-Tidal Area Non-Tidal C of misted habitat between the (Northeastern Lowland) 188.2 1882 9'bam/diikc and the existing Lowland development in Huntington Beach. LCP AREA ' 1017.1 185.5 64.6 16.7 1,283.9 Creation of 20.5 oases of ESHA within Bolas,Chico CITY JURISDICTION Regime P&- AREA 9.1 2.7 TOTAL WRP AREA 1,M6.2 198.2 64.6 16.7 1,295.7 Source: Williamson do Schmid i The Wetlands Ecosystem Area,includes the collective area created and restored wetlands;existing and replaced ESHAs buffers; and non-wetlands restored grasslands. = Restoration Activities arc preservation/restoration/creation activities not necessarily tied to specific hydrologic regimes. �� Includes CDFG and RPA 6A. • • Page oj4o, _ ♦ Full Tidal Areas Option A proposed the creation and restoration of Full Tidal Areas in the center of the Bolsa Chica Central Lowland by increasing the tidal prism by widening the connection to Huntington Harbor at Warner Avenue and by dredging an improved flow path through Outer Bolsa Bay. The Full Tidal Area in the Central Lowland will aid in the mixing of ocean waters with the discharged freshwater flows from the EGGW Flood Control Channel, thus reducing sediment and chemical loads downstream. Within Full Tidal Areas, the planned habitat mix includes salt marsh, mudflat brackish marsh, open waterlbay areas and tidal flats. ♦ Muted Tidal Areas: Option A proposes to maintain the existing Muted Tidal Areas in Inner Bolsa Bay and ' new Muted Tidal Areas elsewhere in the Central Lowland; please refer to Figure WR- 3.2. These Muted Tidal Areas will primarily be isolated from one another and are intended to have unique tidal characteristics. However, a common linkage of the Muted Tidal Areas will be provided by their proximity to the Full Tidal Area and their hydrological connection to the full tidal regime by culverts. This will allow for pickleweed growth and is expected to expand and enhance the quantity and quality of pickleweed habitat in the Lowland. The general mix of habitats planned for at these Muted Tidal Wetlands is vegetated salt marsh and tidal flats. ♦ Seasonal Ponds : Option A includes both retaining existing and creation of new seasonal pond habitat. �r The elevations of the Bolsa Chica area are low and will allow for easy water management, especially during very wet years. There are three principal freshwater sources for these ponds--rainfall, the Springdale Pump Station, and surface run off from the Huntington Mesa. The seasonal pond habitats are important to various resident and migratory birds which use the area. ♦ Perennial Pond Option A includes the creation of a Perennial Pond at the existing Perennial Pond habitat and non-wetlands areas along the southeastern edge of the Central Lowland, at the base of the Huntington Mesa. The desired salinity range for this pond is to be maintained through freshwater runoff from the Huntington Mesa. Evaporation and salty groundwater conditions are expected to facilitate the creation of the brackish 1 water conditions. Pond water levels will be managed with excess rainfall or runoff permitted to drain to or from adjacent Seasonal Ponds. Bolsa Chica Handbook 10/24/94 ' • • Page ♦ Non-Tidal Areas : The Non-Tidal Areas of Option A will be separated from the Muted and Full Tidal Areas by existing oil roads and/or berms. These areas are proposed where water cannot be introduced wither because of public safety issues or where the tidal prism is not sufficient to provide proper tidal flushing. Non-Tidal Areas are expected to contain a variety of water-dependent plant species due to the high groundwater levels, water infiltration from adjacent areas or rainfall and surface runoff. Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas ESHAs Bolsa Chica area contains several existing ESHAs including Coastal Sand Dunes, Rabbit Island, Eucalyptus/Woodland, and Warner Avenue Pond which are proposed to be retained or replaced, under Option, as identified below. ♦ Coastal Sand Dunes : Coastal sand dunes are presently located within the Bolsa Chica area along Pacific Coast Highway and will be retained, unless proposed for removal by another project, such as Caltrans PCH widening project. Sand supply to the dunes is proposed to continue to be provided by sand blown from the Bolsa Chica State Beach. ♦ Rabbit Island: Rabbit Island will be retained. Non-native weeds and debris will be removed to enhance the habitat value of the Island. ♦ Eucalyptus/Woodland : Eucalyptus trees located on the Bolsa Chica Mesa will be removed and new woodland/scrub habitat will be planted on the slope face of the Huntington Mesa, adjacent to or within the Bolsa Chica Regional Park, to mitigate their removal. The new woodland/scrub habitat is proposed to consist of approximately 20 acres of native trees and scrub species. �' ♦ Warner Avenue Pond The status of this ESHA is unclear as sections of the LCP indicate that it is to be maintained while other sections state that it is to be removed as part of the widening of Warner Avenue. Buffers and Transitions The Option A Restoration Plan includes several buffer areas including a Bolsa Chica Mesa/Outer Bolsa Bay Buffer and the Bolsa Chica Mesa/Lowland Pocket Buffer. The Bolsa Chica Handbook 10/24/94 • Page 4_ buffers are proposed to consist of native vegetation, landscape areas, open unvegetated areas, and public trails. Transition areas include berms/levees between wetland habitats, and between ESHAs and wetlands to provide elevations useful for resting, nesting and foraging areas. Proposed berm/levees include a Full Tidal/Muted Tidal Transition, Full Tidal/Rabbit Island Transition, Inner Bolsa Bay/Coastal Dune/PCH Transition, Muted Tidal/Seasonal Pond Transition,Non-Tidal Muted/Tidal Pond Transition, Seasonal Pond/Perennial Pond/ESHA Transition, and a Muted Tidal/Non-Tidal Transition. Endangered and Threatened Species The Wetlands Restoration Plan for Option A includes opportunities to create and restore habitats and vegetation that are expected to attract and sustain the following endangered, threatened , and candidate species: The California Least Tern, California Brown Pelican, ' Western Snowy Plover, Elegant Tern, Light-Footed Clapper Rail, Peregrine Falcon, and Belding's Savannah Sparrow. Phasing and Funding Requirements/Responsibilities The timing and phasing of wetlands restoration involves a variety of logistical and economic considerations. I response to these issues, Option A proposes to implementation of the Wetland Restoration Program over 8 phases; implementation of the phasing plan is depicted in Figure WR-3.2. The timeline for implementation of each phase of the Wetlands Restoration Program will be dependent upon the depletion of oil resources, the removal of oil facilities, and identification of a third party mitigator to fund and implement the program. At this time no third party mitigators or funding mechanisms have been identified. Monitoring and Maintenance Option A includes several programs for maintenance and monitoring of the Wetlands Restoration Program. These consist of the following three programs which have been generally described below: ♦ Construction-Period Conservation Pro am : This is intended to program minimize the impacts to target species at the Bolsa Chica during construction activities. It takes into consideration timing, posting requirements, disturbance control measures, noise control measures, education of construction personnel, toxic materials procedures, trash disposal procedures, and monitoring of stormwater runoff, grading, water quality, tidal elevations, oil resources, habitat, marine life, birds and mammals. Bolsa Chica Handbook 10/24/94 • • Page gq �, ♦ Post-Construction Proms: This program is intended to ensure that the performance criteria for the five years immediately following construction are met and maintained and includes monitoring for engineering concerns, habitat creation/restoration requirements, marine life protection, and protection of target/non- target species. ♦ Loxes-Term Monitoring and Maintenance EM& am : This program begins upon completion of the Post-Construction Program and is intended to monitor the success criteria for the Wetlands Restoration Program for ten years or until the County of other approved agency determines that the system has reached equilibrium. f on B HydroloiticReRe 'games The Wetlands Restoration Program component of Option B is similar to that proposed in Option A above and includes a mix of Full Tidal Areas, Muted Tidal Areas, Seasonal Ponds, Perennial Pond, and Non-Tidal Areas. With the following exception. Option B proposes fewer acres of Non-Tidal area, since it includes residential development on the Non-Tidal area proposed for the Northeast Lowland area in Option A. However, with this exception, hydrologic regimes will generally be the same as in Option A. Please refer to the descriptions under Option A. A summary of the acreages of each habitat type for Option B has been provided in Table WR-3.3. Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHAs) tBolsa Chica area contains several existing ESHAs including Coastal Sand Dunes, Rabbit Island, Eucalyptus/Woodland, and Warner Avenue Pond which under Option B are proposed to be retained or replaced in the same manner as in Option A. Please refer to the description of Option A above. Buffers and Transitions The Option B Restoration Plan buffers and transition areas are identical to those proposed under Option A with the following exceptions. ♦ In addition to the buffers proposed by Option A, wetlands buffers along the new lowland development will be provided. The buffers are proposed to consist of native vegetation, landscape areas, open unvegetated areas, and public trails. i Bolsa Chica Handbook 10/24/94 WWI LEGEND EARLIEST START DATE• / EXISTING RESTORATION 1998 C� 2005 2010 2015 // / ��faM / ;'` 2020fA. '; .00000 ARFA u PRY 9 enn *BASED UPON OIL ATTRITION, �Cq S '� ..+�' _ r''', ' s '� Ponds AND COMPLETION OF THE T �� _.�' 2 SANTA ANA MAINSTEM PROJECT �.. �' . 5 {' ° Residential �;; , S as.� • , / F .-. �., sib` 1. , �s. fj;,.,.. ♦.'. 1 / /----/ Development v 1D ,_' [, 3eao�aJ 1 9B Muted •.�£< # , ,1'z'Pond , t ;_:{,. Seasonal • :. y . Residential % / o . Tidal i Ponds Development ti 4 4B I MufSeasonal Tidald Muted Tidal ,: 3A >A Ponds Full Tidal Non Seasonal ' cou S' Tidal Ponds ; .�� is 5A Seasonal Full Tidal Muted Tidal Ponds e Residential Q Development Non Tidal +: DFG- etell Non—Tidal ?A • (Rabbit Island) } Non Tidal ,I II � , It', %hr�1.t II Full Tidal SA . ':h• ATE. AA ., ,. :.,. =.a.:..�4:a 1'L' - - �S_�LL•. 'i'y.:...;.�q �:,..�ui:..aa- i.�=i 'ci' :, PACIFIC ;OCEAN Figure WR-3.3 OPTION B BOLSA CHICA' MASTER WETLANDS PHASING PLAN WETLANDS RESTORATION PROGRAM ® 0 400 800 1600 WETLANDS RESTORATION PROGRAM Table WR-3.3 - SUMMARY OF OPTION B RESTORATION PLAN CO BoUa Chita Wetlands Restoration Program — '.•;. '. :... ..................+..:..::{::..}.i..%<v.+4+}.•,::non^.::n ��+f wx .� n n :b�:. •.. •r+ Y:-' i:.• ` }�yi� :i•` ��,�k . �j;��y, ~x' i}J/K+ :�L• .:..:: �•. ��i� },..�•.,...(,�.,7�7,::•:1;�5!�7,.7:7R7.•1.?•. „ }. ....................... • Creation of a miniamm of(2)new Full Tidal Area 206.0 4.0 16.7 226.7 California least tern nesting Islands. Muted Tidal Areas: • Creation of 9'bena/dile sufficient to Muted Tidal A 151.7 — 13.1 164.8 contain 100-year storm discharge from — (East of FullTuW) EGGW Flood Control ChanneL Muted Tidal B 1%.6 9.6 — 166.2 • Creation of a 100-foot-wide buffer for (Inner Boles BayY I the Wetlands Ecosystem Area. — Seasonal Ponds 323.5 — 7.0 330.5 Perennial Ponds 9.9 _ _ g.g ' Ma's°�ng��values of State Ecological Reserve. Nor-Tidal Areas:Non-Tidal A • Creation of an approximately 10-acre (Rabbit Island) 3.4 51.0 — 54.4 pm=viW Pond- Non Tidal B — _ • Creation of 20.5 acres of ESHA within (Adjacent to Full Tidal) 155.0 155.0 Bolsa Chita Regional Park, �n:;•:••n•� ::.:;u>Y• f •�k•ci:` fy;Y��.+e:. x,.: +;�}:ea:. v �i^•`y3c%'r,..'•'va;;r,;,w..: . :.,•pY�.s... F:f7 ;#,: F:;• :9K• '' Y.'•:. xifi•.s`"°I. 'c'.,.','F fF{:9 f^n,: ..,,•: :. x+itf/+xv q.:. v +$•i:..: ..)...:...:..:..1.•. ::::�a::L.•�fic'.••�. .... •..'�*n5::•f»s 'M +5:e:•>• v.Yn K+?4'i�:tr.Jk. �fir.•':�:�:t:3;:t.'.''•,::.M::s'r�i,;: UP AREA 997.0 64.6 36.8 1,099.4 — QTY JORISDICPION AREA 9.1 — — 9.1 IF TOTAL WRP AREA 1,006.1 64.6 36.8 1,107.5 i Source:Williamson&Schmid — 0 1 The Wcdands Ecosystem Area includes the collective area crested and restored wetlands;existing and replaced ESHAs buffers;and non-wetlands restored grasslands. — 2 Restoration Activities are preservation/restomtion/creabon activities not necessarily tied to specific hydrologic regimes. �J ) Includes CDFG and RPA 6A. r ' r r LAND USE PLAN Table WR-3.4 OPTION B WETLANDS RESTORATION PHASING AND SECURITY PROGRAW) Bolsa Chica Land Use Plan X . LANDOWNER OBUCAIION COUNTY OBLIGATION; 1.After the completion of the latter of: 1. Within one year after 1. Issue all permits necessary completion of the milestone, for completion of • Issuance by the Army Corps of the landowner shall commence Restoration Phases I and Engineers of Section 404 Permit(s) Restoration Pbases I and 2A, 2A,and the EGGW Flood for Lowland residential and improvements to the Control Channel. development and wetlands EGGW Flood Control restoration;and Channel. • The removal by FEMA of the Lowland from the 100-year floodplaio a) 2. Complete construction of Restoration 2. Provide security,in form and 2. Issue grading permits for Phases 1 and 2A,and the EGGW substance satisfactory to Eh1A Lowland residential Flood Control Channel improvements. and CAO(e.g.a performance development and issue, bond or letter of credit), upon application,building adequate to assure completion permits for up to 600 of all remaining Restoration residential units in the Phases(Pbases 3-0. Lowland. 3. Complete construction of Restoration 3. Provide a letter of credit to 3. The County will: Phase 3. County for cost of Restoration Issue up to a cumulative Pbnses 4-6. total of 900 building permits for Lowland residential development. • Assure that responsibility for administration of contract for Restoration Phases 4-6 is assumed by a public agency or non-profit orgaairstion. u) For Option B,kVk. WM of the Walatds Restoration Program sill be assured thrat=b a phask,and security P^ov+r+s oomlstmt %ith the milestone identified in this Table 8-1. Z Thls mikaw.aball be eroded for delays beyond the tosaoablo control of the Lumlouter/Master Developer,iueludmt the conviction of any buVL m(mchdiot all appeals)related to Bobs Chien LCP/land use approvals floe'),State.and Federal).de elopnwit of the project site.amrenoaemal issues,and/or intpk osittim of L.CPAartd use approvals. • • Page ♦ Option B includes development in the Northeast Lowland instead of the Non-Tidal area proposed by Option A, as such the transition area between the Muted Tidal/Non- Tidal areas has been deleted. Endangered and Threatened Species The Wetlands Restoration Plan for Option B includes the same opportunities as Option A to create and restore habitats and vegetation that are expected to attract and sustain the same endangered, threatened , and candidate species. Please refer to Option A above.. Phasing and Funding Requirements/Responsibilities The timing and phasing of wetlands restoration involves a variety of logistical and economic considerations. I response to these issues, Option B proposes to implementation of the Wetland Restoration Program over 6 phases; implementation of the phasing plan is depicted in Figure WR-3.3. The timeline for implementation of each phase of the Wetlands Restoration Program will be dependent upon the depletion of oil resources and the removal of oil facilities. In Option B the timing of restoration and development is closet tied to the phase-out of P g P Y oil operations. In this Option, the applicant is responsible for funding of the Wetlands Restoration Program. Table WR-3.4 provides a summary of the proposed phasing and security program; specifics for funding of the restoration program are anticipated to be handled through a development agreement with the applicant. Monitoring and Maintenance Option B includes identical means for maintenance and monitoring of the Wetlands Restoration Program as Option A. Please refer to the description under Option A above. creation/restoration requirements, marine life protection, and protection of target/non- target species. Bolsa Chica Handbook 10/24/94 1 1 4 .Tidal Inlet Issues General Information I r T Page �. I TIDAL INLET This section provides a summary of the issues associated with development of a tidal inlet. (Note: No tidal inlet has been proposed as part of the County's LCP, information on the tidal inlet is based upon the inlet design proposed by Koll when the project was being ' process through the City of Huntington Beach, as depicted on Figures TI-4.1, TI-4.2, TI- 4.3, TI-4.4, TI-4.S, TI-4.6, and TI-4.7. Tidal Inlet--Issues ♦ Beach Safety: At high tide currents may potentially pull swimmers and surfers in the inlet. The revetments may also provide obstacles which may result in collisions (by surfers/swimmers) or hazards to those attempting to climb around the revetment. . ♦ Value to wetlands restoration effort: The tidal inlet provide optimum tidal flushing P P g and superior water quality for the wetlands restoration area. ♦ Erosion impacts to adjoining beaches and bluffs ♦ Impacts to existing recreation resources: In addition to the beach safety issues, construction of the inlet will result in a loss of usable beach area in front of the inlet. j ♦ Construction and Maintenance Costs Tidal Inlet--General Information ♦ The design of the tidal inlet was based upon the following goals. Table TI-4.0 summarizes how each goal has been designed into the tidal inlet: - minimize probability of closure 1 - minimize erosion of adjoining beaches and seacliffs - minimize hazards to beach-goers - minimize visual impact of jetties - minimize maintenance dredging - minimize wave penetration to wetlands 1 Bolsa Chica Handbook 10/24/94 I • • Page 35 ♦ To meet the above goals, the tidal inlet was proposed to be 250 feet wide, 7 feet deep (below MSL). Jetties extend 650 feet perpendicular from the new bridge at Pacific Coast Highway. ♦ Environmental impact anticipated with the tidal inlet to include the following: - shoreline north of line would erode+ 30 feet - shoreline immediately south of inlet would have+25 feet of accretion. (Could be used to mitigate for above) - there would be+ 50 feet or erosion approximately 1.5 miles north of _ PP Y Huntington Beach pier, due to permanent flood bar sand entrapment. - there would be erosion at the seacllffs, causing potential undercutting and bluff failure. - as a result of a major storm, sand on the south side revetment could be eroded, exposing the rock revetment. At worst case, the storm would occur immediately following the approximately 5 year sand replenishment. Since there has been no commitment by any party to replace the sand, the south side of the jetty could go for 5 years without a beach, for a distance of 1,000 feet. ♦ Previous studies identified the following mitigation measures to minimize impacts of the inlet. 1. Erosion at the cliffs can be mitigated with a revetment perpendicular to an abutting the inlet to the north and south. a. North side would be 500 feet long, and built at the shore break of the existing sand beach. This would initially be covered by one foot of beach sand. b. South side would be 1,000 feet long and built against PCH. Excavated 1 sand would be replaced to restore as much beach as possible to covering up the sloping face of the revetment. The 12 foot wide top of the revetment and some of the slope face would be exposed since the top of the revetment would be higher than the beach sand. C. Elevation of the revetment would vary from+10 to +13 MSL, with the toe at -5 MSL, and side slopes at 2:1. Therefore, the base could be as wide as 64 feet. Bolsa Chica Handbook 10/24/94 PEE Table TI-4.0 MOFFATT AND NICHOL, ENGINEERS' DESIGN OBJECTIVES AND SOLUTIONS Objective Solution for Objective 1. Minimize probability of inlet closure to Extend jetties far enough into the ocean 5- to 25-year recurrence interval. that only the 5- to 25-year storm event will carry enough beach sand into the inlet to close it. 2. Minimize erosion on adjoining beaches Reduce jetty extension into the ocean to a and seacliffs. minimum to reduce the impact of jetties as littoral barriers; reduce the volume of beach sand captured in ebb and flood bars to a minimum, or place beachfill equal to the volume of sand captured in the inlet. 3. Minimize hazards to beach goers Extend the required jetties beyond the adjacent to inlet. normal distance beach goers venture into the water. 4. Minimize visual impact of inlet control Reduce height of structures to a minimum structures. to prevent their vertical projection; reduce jetty extension seaward to minimize horizontal visual impact of structure. 5. Minimize maintenance dredging. Extend jetties to the seaward limit of the ' shoreface (about a depth of 30 ft) to eliminate almost all movement of beach sand into the inlet. b. Minimize wave penetration into the Extend jetties seaward and minimize wetlands. channel width. 07 , G50' grid J Bcoch Poth h A Oz NOTES w 1, 8athylnetry from U.S. 6 Wef/orxJs--' Army Coro.., Of Engneers, ko c o a� Gondi Pion Survey Sqn (\' v Gabriel River To Toe Of✓ctt F' WJ/*5 Newport Boy, ' .y • May) /980, - - -- --- -- -- - __ -- 2. ,Daturn /s A15L •�e11 / • Ac h ve Oil We'll r v •Well x Di/ Well . Beacham Figure TI-4.1 �EI TIDAL INLET PLAN � o 200 SEPTEMBER 17, 1.991 Source: M&N, 1991a � �-:-�� +� � � r � � fir->: :�• �r r � � rr � �. � Q2E-I M I 475 ' I6' a50` 30' s' IF/0.0 io 5, f � T p. El.-5 EL JB y Fl. - 7 8 ion Stone -� J f 9 I/V M.SL --- I Ton None SECTION q 250 Conc. COD•�X fC i�'S le' Below Mod Line fl.+13 �A C Poving fl. -7 Sond fill Elf ' 1.5 iCet.Prll,7 f/..-32 / Ton rocJJ &one v Note: Dofum /s MSL S E C i l O N n Figure TI-4.2 FEET 0 40 80 TIDAL INLET CROSS SECTIONS, Source: M &N, 1991a ,< r ,r ifo, •, 6222E-1?!91 250' 1 8 Ton Stone Iyz Yorl es l..+8 Tc`l.*13 M.S.L. El. - Quorry Run 4 -8 /-Ton 5tonc 300 To 20000 Ston s CT 0N n /Vbfc- Datum /s M5L Figure TI-4.3 FEET TIDAL INLET CROSS SECTION �'� k,4 0 ao eo Source: M & N. 1991 a rr r - -ter ar ar +�r rr rs ar err:.: sr rr �r rr ri rt r� r�. �s • •. __2E•12/91 -too -, Sfa, 328f/G -� El, t l3 J �� l0 vef fy Profile o E/. /O ` a 44 � -4D O /00 200 300 400 .500 600 700 XO 900 /000 //00 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 D/SfOnCe Offshore from Cops Of fng1neer Bose%ne (Feet) LEGENO NOTE Dec. 19 78 ------ Ju/y l9 79 Zero (0) ,Disfonce From June 198 0 Corp 5 Of Engineer f.�se%ne �----- Apr. 198 2 /s 30 Feet .Seaward From -- Dec. 198.2 Eaq& Of' Pocrfic Coos), H1915woy. -o Figure TI-4.4 0 BEACH AND JETTY R.OFILE Source: M&N, 199la r ~ THE GENERAL COUNCIL OF THE JUANERO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS r f p Cv� RESOL UTION aECENED FROM"pFk�F THE�tECORDS T OF THE GENERAL COUNCIL AND MADE A MEETING of 1`� OF THE JUANENO BAND OF MISSION INDIANSnAE o©F,,GE obKWAY ciN CLERK OC TOBER 8, 1994 CONNs ADDENDUM I - n r o �t C� P N THE JUANENO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS RECEIVED FROM -Pu6c AND MADE A PART OF THE RECORD 1. THE COUNCIL MEETING OF I� October 0, 1994OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CONNIE BRO6KWAY,CITY CLERK Mr. David Belardes 31742 Via Belardes. Seri Juan Capistrano,, c.:A 92675 Dear Mr. Belardes: As you know, on August 27, 1994, the General Council of the Juaneno Band of Mission Indians voted to have a new election of the Tribal Council . At present the Election Committee is . proceeding with this process. On October 8, 1994, the Genera1 . Counci1 of the Juaneno Band of Mission Indians held a special meeting to resolve the issue of your legal status concerning the Juaneno Band of Mission Indians. This is to inform you that a resolution was approved by a quorum of the General Council to declare that the position you claim you are holding with the Juaneno Band of Mission Indians is nonexistent . You a.re hereby notified that you have no authority to take any action on behalf of the Juaneno Band of Mission Indians and to cease any and all activities associated with the Band in the capacity of. a Tribal Council officer. You are also advised to turn over all property of the Band not 'limited to reports, contracts, minutes, tapes, bank records, non-profit reports and funding information, all written correspondence, certifications, genealogies, artifacts, and any purchases bought with Band funds, or donated to the Band. Sincerely, Sn_niI Johnston Interim Spokesperson The Juaneno Band of Mission Indians APPR S. OVED BY CITY COUNTUL CD 94-88 R RE VEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION Date: November 7, 1994 CFTY C ERK Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Submitted by: Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrator,-z,p,_P Prepared by: Melanie S. Fallon, Director of Community Development/ Z_�Xi Subject: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS - COUNTY OF ORANGE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM FOR THE BOLSA CHICA Consistent with Council Policy? [XI Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception Statement of Issue,Recommendation,Analysis,Funding Source,Alternative Actions,Attachments: ZA,6o�cw,ems, teG< f STATEMENT OF ISSUE: Transmitted for City Council consideration is the City's response to the County of Orange Local Coastal Program for the Bolsa Chica. There are two (2) alternatives discussed in the City's response. The City's preferred alternative for the development of the Bolsa Chica is that of a bio- diversity park. The secondary alternative offers a set of planning principles which would be the framework for developing a City initiated land use plan. Also attached under separate cover is a letter to the Board of Supervisors requesting that the City become an equal partner in the o Development Agreement negotiations. -� RECOMMENDATION: 7 m (D x.,_ rn rn Motion to: "Direct staff to transmit to the County Board of Supervisors its comments c the' r Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Program, and letter regarding City participation*-he Development Agreement negotiations." BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS: On September 30, 1994, the County of Orange circulated Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Program (LCP) for a 45-day review period which closes on November 14, 1994. On October 14, 1994, the staff met with the Bolsa Chica Committee to discuss the City's response to the LCP. The staff distributed a set of principles which could be used as the basis for formulating a response to the Bolsa Chica LCP. The Bolsa Chica Committee reviewed the planning principles and directed staff to have the entire City Council consider two (2) alternatives at the Study Session on October 24, 1994. The Bolsa Chica Committee also suggested modifications to the principles which have been incorporated into the report. The City Council further modified the two (2) alternatives at their Study Session and agreed to have the Bolsa Chica Committee conduct a public hearing on October 31, 1994, to receive comments. It was suggested at this meeting that the two (2)principles should be amended in the following way: Alternative 1 - This would be the City's preferred alternative and would not include a sunset provision. Alternative 2 - Add a principle regarding seismic safety. It should be noted that the last official action taken by the City Council on the Bolsa Chica was the adoption of a resolution in 1989, supporting the Bolsa Chica Coalition Plan. The Coalition Plan was the result of the county of Orange, City of Huntington Beach, California States Lands Commission, the Amigos de Bolsa Chica and Signal Landmark working cooperatively over a six(6) month period of time to develop an alternative land use plan to the 1986 Local Coastal Program. The Coalition Plan excluded a marina and navigable ocean entrance and provided for a minimum of 1,000 acres of restored wetlands with a tidal inlet. The plan also called for a range of residential densities up to a maximum of 18 dwellings units per acre. In order for the City to re-examine and update its official position of the Bolsa Chica, the staff and City Council has prepared a pair of alternatives which would be pursued concurrently for the Bolsa Chica. Summary of Alternatives as Discussed in the City's Letter of Response Alternative I The bio-diversity park alternative was originally developed from comments by the united States Fish and Wildlife Service. "As originally envisioned by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, virtually the entire property would be used for conservation purposes, with passive recreation uses, native habitat restoration and environmental education opportunities." This alternative could be achieved if a land swap or purchase of the property was agreed to by the property owner. In order for this alternative to be successful, a governmental agency would need to take responsibility for restoration of the wetland and maintenance of the property. Development of a bio-diversity park should be explored in a cooperative effort between the City of Huntington Beach and the County of Orange. The benefits of this alternative as spelled out in the Environmental Impact Report for the Bolsa Chica include: Geology/Landform-Maintaining the natural topography with only minor changes. Biological Resources -Establishment of more natural habitat on the Bolsa Chica Mesa would have significant positive impacts on biological resources. This alternative would enhance habitat diversity for small land mammals, raptors (including owls) and common birds. Transportation/Circulation- On a daily basis, there will be substantially less traffic from this alternative than the LCP proposal. RCA- 11/7/94 2 (CD94-88) Noise -It is expected that noise will be below levels considered significant since the use of the area will be passive. Aesthetics -This alternative would leave most of the site as open space and avoid the types of aesthetic impacts that would be associated with housing development. Socioeconomic/Public Services and Utilities -There would be no population growth associated with this alternative and no change in the jobs/housing balance. Recreation-This alternative would have a positive impact on recreation since a substantial portion of Bolsa Chica Mesa would be devoted to this use. Alternative 2 The second alternative for the Bolsa Chica is based on the assumption that a bio-diversity park may not become viable. Therefore, the City has prepared a set of principles which we believe should be the framework for creating a new land use plan alternative for the Bolsa Chica. As an introduction to the planning principles, it is important for the County to understand that the City of Huntington Beach views the Bolsa Chica as a single entity that should be master planned as one geographic unit regardless of jurisdictional boundaries. The City also believes that it should be an equal partner with the County of Orange in determining the future land use plan and negotiating the development agreement for the Bolsa Chica. If the Bolsa Chica is to be developed, it is the City's desire to see a project that benefits both the City of Huntington Beach and the County of Orange. The draft LCP fails to acknowledge a City role in the review process and does not include all properties within the Bolsa Chica area. Therefore,the following principles are designed to promote a cooperative planning effort for the Bolsa Chica property that would include all properties: 1. The Bolsa Chica project should be a financial benefit to the City of Huntington Beach. Any development plan for the Bolsa Chica must articulate how Fire,Police, Recreation and Library service delivery to Bolsa Chica over the next 20 years will be accomplished. Services should be delivered with the least cost to Bolsa Chica residents and the least impact to the citizens of Huntington Beach. 2. The Bolsa Chica project should be a balanced community with a mix of land uses that minimizes vehicle miles traveled and impacts to city services. 3. The Bolsa Chica project should not exceed the City's infrastructure and service capacity for: streets water public safety libraries schools parks/recreation sewerage cultural activities other city services RCA- 11/7/94 3 (CD94-88) 4. The Bolsa Chica project should be consistent with the City of Huntington Beach General Plan. 5. The Bolsa Chica project development standards should be the same as the City of Huntington Beach standards including: lot size height design standards open space park dedication city soil remediation standards 6. The Bolsa Chica project should reflect a compatible building density and type with neighboring City residences. 7. The mesa-lowland relationship should be maintained through careful site planning of open space, parks, trails, ecological reserves or the open space amenities. 8. The natural topography of the mesa should be maintained by limiting grading,terracing or other similar methods. The bluff face should be preserved and protected with a significant open space setback area. Existing mature trees on-site should be preserved rather than replaced. 9. The Bolsa Chica project should be responsible for guaranteed restoration of the wetland. 10. The City desires the most environmentally sensitive restoration of the wetland. 11. The Bolsa Chica project should preserve and restore on-site historically significant structures and incorporate them into the site planning of the property. 12. The Bolsa Chica project should preserve cultural artifacts in designated open space areas that have been determined to be archaeologically and historically significant. 13. The Bolsa Chica project should be designed as if it would ultimately be annexed to the City of Huntington Beach. 14. Once the LCP and Development Agreement have been approved, the City should be responsible for building plan review, approval, inspection services and other"permit processing" aspects of implementing project entitlements. The City should also be responsible for the collection of fees to cover the costs of such services. 15. The Winterburg Flood Control Channel should be improved in order to provide an enhanced drainage system and flood control. FUNDING SOURCE: Not applicable. RCA- 11/7/94 4 (CD94-88) • ALTERNATIVE ACTION: The City Council may make the following alternative motion: A. "The City Council may modify the City's response to the County Local Coastal Program (LCP) and forward it to the County of Orange for consideration." ATTACHMENTS: 1. City letter of response to County Local Coastal Program (LCP) 2. City letter regarding Development Agreement participation MTU:MSF:HZ:kjl RCA- 11/7/94 5 (CD94-88) MAYOR Linda Moulton-Patterson City of Huntixigtoxi Beach MAYOR PRO TEMPORE P. O. BOX 190 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 Earle Robitaille. COUNCILMEMBERS Ralph Bauer Victor Leipzig Jim Silva Dave Sullivan Grace Winchell November 14, 1994 County Board of Supervisors Thomas Riley, Chairman 10 Civic Center Plaza, Suite F Santa Ana, CA 92701 Dear Chairman Riley, The purpose of this correspondence is to provide the County of Orange with the City of Huntington Beach's initial comments on the Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Program (LCP). The response is written to convey the City's philosophical position as well as its practical reaction to the Bolsa.Chica LCP. The response reflects two alternative approaches to analyzing what is best for the Bolsa Chica and the Huntington Beach community. If a land use plan is approved for the Bolsa Chica, it is the City's desire that the plan incorporate planning principles which result in a project that benefits the City of Huntington Beach and the County of Orange. The preferred alternative that the City believes should be pursued and analyzed as part of the LCP is development of a bio-diversity park. This alternative was originally developed from comments by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. "As originally envisioned by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, virtually the entire property would be used for conservation purposes, with passive recreation uses, native habitat restoration and environmental education opportunities." This alternative could be achieved if a land swap or purchase of the property was agreed to by the property owner. In order for this alternative to be successful, a governmental agency would need to take responsibility for restoration of the wetland and maintenance of the property. Development of a bio-diversity park should be explored in a cooperative effort between the City of Huntington Beach and the County of Orange. This alternative would sunset at a mutually agreed upon time if it became apparent it was not viable. The benefits of this alternative as spelled out in the Environmental Impact Report for the Bolsa Chica include: Geology1andform-Maintaining the natural topography with only minor changes. • Biological Resources - Establishment of more natural habitat on the Bolsa Chica Mesa would have significant positive impacts on biological resources. This alternative would enhance habitat diversity for small land mammals, raptors (including owls) and common birds. TELEPHONE (714) 536-5553 Page 8 Pe 4-9, Public Parking and Staffing Area Policy 4.2 -Provisions for bus and van parking should be incorporated into the Mesa Community Park. The City also believes that a minimum of 150 parking spaces need to be provided for a 15 acre park that will have active uses. Pa. 5-4, Regional Circulation, Transportation, Section 5.2 The proposed Area Traffic Improvement Program (ATIP) discusses that the key arterials for consideration of full funding by the developer are Warner, PCH and Bolsa Chica. However, the developer would only dedicate right-of-way for PCH widening and only "fair share" funding of the improvements adjacent to the project site. This would appear to set a new precedent. Please refer to page 5-5, ATIP financing policies, section 7. It states: "In order to ensure ATIP funding before a final map is recorded for any phase of residential development, a funding program satisfactory to the director of EMA shall be established for the specified ATIP improvements for that phase at the time of tentative subdivision map approval". Please refer to Page 5-5, Section 10. The last line states: "Non-participation or lack of cooperation by public agency members in implementing ATIP improvements shall not result in the County withholding development approval". Those two sections seem to contradict each other. How can one "ensure" ATIP funding yet, if the cities are unable to supply their share, the developer is relieved of ATIP compliance. This doesn't seem to be consistent. This whole section seems to shift the burden to the cities for helping the developer meet his own conditions. Each city is expected to abandon its own capital improvement program to facilitate Bolsa Chica development program priorities. This appears to be a new approach to mitigating impacts of new development. A more traditional approach might be to prepare a development agreement that includes all of the affected cities as well as the County and the developer. In addition, the traffic impacts and proposed mitigations (ATIP) of Options A and B are based upon the assumption that Pacific Coast Highway (between Warner Avenue and the Orange County/Los Angeles County Line)will remain classified and operate as a primary arterial. The ATIP proposes to reclassify and construct Warner Avenue and Bolsa Chica Street as eight lane arterial Smart Streets across Huntington Beach, Westminster, and a major portion of Fountain Valley, which will be a very significant adverse impact of this proposed project. Page 9 No traffic modeling scenarios have been performed utilizing Warner Avenue and Bolsa Chica Street in their present arterial configuration and reclassifying Pacific Coast Highway as a Major arterial between Warner Avenue and the Orange County/Los Angeles County line. This traffic modeling scenario must be performed to investigate all reasonable alternatives to mitigate the potential traffic impacts of this proposed project. It is feasible to configure Pacific Coast Highway for six travel lanes, two bike lanes, and a center left turn lane within the existing eighty-four foot (84') wide right-of-way. Huntington Beach has secured approval from Caltrans for this type of configuration on Pacific Coast Highway between Beach Boulevard and Golden West Street. It is very likely that significantly less adverse traffic impacts (from a qualitative and quantitative basis)would occur if Pacific Coast Highway were classified and operated as a Major Arterial between Warner Avenue and the Orange County/Los Angeles County Line. It is important to note that Pacific Coast Highway is classified as a Major arterial from Golden West Street to Warner Avenue. Pa. 6-5, Option A Development Policies, Section 6.2.1 Policy 10 -Water supply for fire protection, reservoirs, piping, gallon per minute, fire hydrants, etc. shall meet city specifications. Pa. 6-11, Item 2b, Section 6.2.2 For"Option A", the fire station location shall be determined based upon a study of response time criteria. The LCP needs to identify an outline of requirements for this study. Pa 6-23, Item 11, Section 6.3.1 The LCP should provide greater detail for the emergency access road for"Option B". Information on roadway width, supporting weight of fire apparatus, roadway length and the total distance is necessary. Huntington Beach fire Department Standards would require the bridge to be a minimum of 24 feet wide, and built to withstand fire apparatus weight. Seismic studies would also be required for the bridge. Local Park and Community Facility Policies Policy - A public school site location should be identified and incorporated into the LCP, to support either Option A or B. In addition, civic meeting space should be accommodated as part of any community facilities plan. Pe 6-27, Item 2c, Local Parks and Community Facilities, Section 6.3.2 The LCP includes a one (1) acre site for a fire station at end of Talbert"Option B." How is this location the most efficient route to meet response standard? Page 10 Pe 6-27, Local Parks and Community Facilities, Section 6.3.2 The plan, as presented by the County addresses the issue of youth sports fields in the fifteen acre park identified in Option B. The need for youth sports fields is not addressed on the mesa. The two parks referred to as 3A and 3B which total 19 acres are extremely linear in nature. City staff has gone on record in the past indicating that because these parks are on a fault line, there will be limitations for building sports courts, rest rooms and recreation centers. In addition, the linear nature of the park does not allow sports fields to be constructed. If Option B is not developed, the residents in this area will not be served with regard to active recreation. They will then demand either additional sports fields to be developed on other parcels of land or will impact surrounding recreational open space. Another issue relates to maximizing recreational open space at a school site. If a school is developed in Bolsa Chica, consideration should be given to including a park adjacent to it. This would maximize the recreational open space potential for such facilities as active ball fields. The plan does not address cultural or human service needs within the Bolsa Chica area. A lack of development of these types of facilities will create a greater demand on existing city amenities. Pg 7-5. Item 4, Oil Production Component, Section 7.2 This paragraph requires that clean up of those development areas and the wetlands conform to Federal, State and Local laws as well as applicable agreements. This is required under the coastal Act 3-260. What laws or standards does the County of Orange have to enforce clean up of the contaminated areas? As stated in the comments for the DEIR, no standard exists other than the City of Huntington Beach clean up standard, Specification 431-92. Pa. 7-5, Item 7, Oil Production Component, Section 7.2 This paragraph states that all new development shall be designed in accordance with the provisions of California Public Resources Code Section 3208.1 and the California Department of Conservation, Division of Oil and Gas. This code section deals primarily with the abandonment of oil wells and not construction standards. The Division of Oil and Gas can prohibit the construction of a building over a hazardous oil well or one that does not meet their current day standards, but it does not address those construction standards for building over properly abandoned oil wells or near active oil wells. Pr. 8-1, Phasinie and FinancinP of Public Community Facilities, Section 8.3.3 Ine iciency in Providing Government Service The Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan assumes the County will provide the basic governmental services to the Bolsa Chica area. This approach creates a number of financial inefficiencies. For instance, the LCP assumes the County will provide police and fire services including the location of a fire station within the unincorporated area. Two thousand five hundred (2,500) or three thousand two hundred (3,200) homes do not justify the cost of a fire station. An Page 11 efficient way to provide police and fire services would be to serve the entire Huntington Beach area(including Bolsa Chica)by one agency. Since the City is already providing police and fire services to Bolsa Chica for the entire surrounding area, the City should, logically, provide police and fire services. Other municipal services can be analyzed similarly. These include; street maintenance, sewer maintenance, parks, library, recreation programs, etc. Stated simply, it is very inefficient for the county to provide governmental services to 7,000 to 14,000 residents in a county unincorporated area when that area is surrounded by a developed, incorporated city. This approach would result in the county duplicating costs of services provided by the city. The LCP is similar to the draft Environmental Impact Report in terms of being very general in describing fiscal impacts and fiscal approaches. The LCP lists a variety of"potential" approaches to financing services such as fees, assessment districts, Mello Roos tax districts, reimbursement agreements, hook-up charges and others. The second major area lacking detail is the feasibility of the Mitigation Bank for Option A. The Mitigation Bank is proposed as the financing approach for the wetlands restoration, with no requirement for developer funding of such restoration(Option A). No details are provided on who the potential participants (i.e., funding)would be under this option, how the land owned by the developer would be valued, and how restoration would be guaranteed. In addition, the LCP is too general in terms of phasing, project home values and costs of infrastructure. This leads to an inability to conduct an accurate review of the projected costs and revenue. Project Feasibility The County has not released a fiscal impact report on the Bolsa Chica project showing how the County would finance the various governmental services required by the Bolsa Chica area after development occurs. Without such analysis, it is unclear how services will be financed and what assumptions are being made. It is not even clear that the project is"feasible" from a County fiscal point of view. With the state taking over 60% of the County's property tax revenue in the last two (2) years, their share of the property tax dollar is now reportedly 8% of the total property taxes paid. This is compared to the City's 19.5%. Since property tax revenue is the primary ongoing revenue flowing to the County from this project, it is potentially a development that will be subsidized by the rest of the County taxpayers. Without a fiscal impact report, it is impossible to determine whether County services would be subsidized. City Fiscal Impacts As previously summarized by the City's consultant, Public Economics, Inc., the impact of the development of the Bolas Chica as proposed would generate City costs $0.67 to $2.8 million per year more than the increased revenues (not including the impact of the fire department costs for one or two additional fire stations). Therefore, if the project is developed as currently described under either Option A, Option B or the developer plan, the City is facing potential negative fiscal impacts due to the development. Page 12 Wetlands Restoration Financing Neither Option A or Option B of the LCP provides sufficient detail to understand how the restoration of the wetlands will be financed. Under Option A, a Mitigation Bank is proposed with no apparent requirement that the developer contribute to the Bank or participate in the cost of restoring the wetlands. The developer would apparently be compensated for the wetlands area land value under Option A prior to wetlands restoration. No details are provided on who the potential participants are for the Mitigation Bank. Under Option B, $30 million cost to the developer for wetlands restoration is mentioned. There is no detail on how this cost was determined and there is no way to determine from the review of the LCP whether this amount is adequate. More importantly, depending on what the separate development agreement requires (currently not available for review), there is no guarantee that the $30 million would even be available. Under the approach outlined in the LCP, a letter of credit or performance bond would not be required by the County until a grading permit is issued for the lowlands development. A worst case scenario would be that the developer, in early phases, develops, sells the homes on the Mesa and does not generate enough profit to fund the $30 million wetlands costs. At that point, the developer would have no way to post a performance bond for the wetlands restoration, and a letter of credit would have questionable financial value. With no money for wetlands restoration, abandoning plans for lowland development would be possible, leaving Mesa development and no additional wetlands restoration. If Option A is approved, a fire station will be built prior to recordation of a tract map for the 500th residential unit. (Will a temporary facility paid for by the developer be the sole station funded due to the development or will the developer also be responsible for a permanent station?) A fully staffed fire station whether permanent or temporary needs to be constructed and put into service prior to placing combustible construction materials on the first project site. Fire access roadways, water lines and fire hydrants are required to be operational when combustible construction materials are placed on any site. The greatest potential for a `conflagration" will be during construction of the project. Emergency Access When is Option B emergency access to be installed with the bridge over EGGW? This access or clear roadway must meet Fire Department Standards and be provided prior to combustible construction. Oil Production ReMations Pr. 3. Required Setbacks, Section 9.3.2 This section requires that no building shall be closer than 50 feet from a producing oil well, or 20 feet from an abandoned oil well. No mention is made as to the well abandonment requirements or has it been identified that these distances are appropriate? Page 13 I Additional Issues not Addressed in the LCP Water Supply: The LCP,does not address the issue of water supply or its availability. A document such as this one should address this issue, because of its overall importance to the ultimate use of the properties within the Plan. The water supply issues for the area within the LCP are significant. The basic points that should be addressed in this Plan are: 1. Where will the water supply to serve the area come from? The obvious choice is the City of Huntington Beach system. Are there other possibilities? Others that have surfaced include the drilling of groundwater supply wells within the LCP area or drilling of wells within the City of Fountain Valley. In the latter option, the water would need to be transported to the LCP area for service. How would this be done? One option that has been explained involves the construction of a water line within the County of Orange Wintersburg Channel right-of-way. Perhaps the channel right-of-way should be included in the LCP area. If the City of Huntington Beach system were the source of water supply, improvements would need to be added to mitigate the impact of the new connections in the LCP area. As an example, if the development plans proposed in the current DEIR are considered, a minimum of one new groundwater well would be needed for the City system. If the source of supply is independent of the City system, two wells would be needed. Is the water quality in the LCP area adequate to serve as domestic water? If not, what treatment would need to be done,what would it consist of, where would it be located, and would any environmental effects occur from the treatment process? Initial indications are that the groundwater quality in the area does not meet the State Department of Health Services standards. Additionally, in accordance with acceptable water supply management practices for Orange County, the entire water supply cannot be supplied by groundwater. A supplemental water source must be used to serve that demand over and above the amount available from the safe groundwater basin yield, which is determined by the Orange County Water District(OCWD). This supplemental water is typically purchased from the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) through the Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC). However, unless the City is the source of water supply for the LCP area, the water supplier would need to either construct water lines to connect to the MWD facilities, located approximately eight miles north of the LCP area, or contract with another local agency, such as Fountain Valley or Seal Beach. Fountain Valley could be used as a supplier of this water through the previously mentioned pipeline that would be constructed in the Wintersburg Channel. Seal Beach could be used as a supplier if a pipeline was constructed from their pipeline facility located in Pacific Coast Highway in the vicinity of the north City of Huntington Beach boundary. Another possibility that has been mentioned as a source of supplemental water is the OCWD Green Acres Reclaimed Water Project. This project, however, is not currently being designed with the necessary capacity to serve the LCP area. Page 14 2. What additional facilities would be needed to serve the LCP area to the level of service that the City of Huntington Beach currently offers its customers? To serve the LCP area adequately, a water storage facility must be constructed. The size would be dependent upon the amount of development in the area. Based on the two major options presented in the most recent DEM the size of the water storage reservoir required is approximately nine million gallons. If the area were served by the City of Huntington Beach system, this storage amount could be added almost anywhere within the City system. If it is to be served by an independent supplier, the storage would most likely be located within the LCP area. It is not clear how the LCP addresses this issue. Additionally, requirements of development for the Holly-Seacliff area within Huntington Beach provide for a water reservoir of the same size to be located within the LCP area. This assumes that the City of Huntington Beach, who is obligated to provide the site, obtains such a site here. Since this water reservoir would be used to mitigate the impacts of Holly-Seacliff, it is not clear how the LCP proposes to deal with this issue in itself. Would the City be prohibited from locating a reservoir in the area? If the area is to be served by an independent agency, would it be prohibited from locating a reservoir in the LCP area? In both cases, if a reservoir is permitted, what guidelines, regulations and determinations would the facility be required to comply with? Without appropriate LCP guidelines stated in this document, the issue of water supply for the area cannot be resolved. Additionally, the requirements and guidelines that would have to be met to provide a reliable water supply for the area must be included in the document. Without these, the LCP is incomplete. Drainage The document makes virtually no mention of flood control issues. What should be especially dealt with by this development is the annual flooding issue on Pacific Coast Highway. During the annual flooding related closures of PCH, traffic congestion results on other major traffic components. Sewer The document makes virtually no mention of wastewater discharge or treatment. Certainly the sub-standard pumping facilities in Warner Avenue should be addressed. Page 15 The City of Huntington Beach appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Program. We look forward to working cooperatively with the County of Orange to arrive at a mutually beneficial land use plan for the Bolsa Chica. Sincerely, Linda Moulton-Patterson, Mayor LMP:HZ:kjl Attahcments: 1. Zoning Matrix 2. Development Agreement Letter XC: Board of Supervisors Michael Ruane, Director Environmental Management Agency Tom Mathews, Planning Director (k1241) Provision Page# LCP ZSO Parking Screening-Abutting 4-5 Min. 36"to max.42"in height. Min.20"berm in 10'wide landscape street area;in less than 10'wide,max. 32" tall wall. Parking Screening- 4-5 Min. 36"to max.42"in height within 20'of point of intersection. Min.20"to max. 32"within 5'of Intersections (driveway/streets driveway. 4-5 Are 4.5.7 and 4.5.10 intended to be separate sections? One says that screening is to N/A be approved by OCHBP with no specific provisions, other than opacity, while the other section provides specific screening requirements. Which one takes precedence? If the two sections are to be implemented concurrently(i.e.,screening • needs to be provided in compliance with the following provisions and is subject to OCHBP approval)the two sections should be combined. 4-5 4.5.10(3)should clarify that elevation can be used in lieu of screening, if parking is N/A to be provided at a lower elevation than the adjoining property. If the parking lot is at a higher elevation,for instance 1-2 `, it will be more visually intrusive which is what the screening is intended to minimize. 4-6 4.5.10(4)(a,c)and 6(a,b)are confusing;does this mean that screening consisting of a Setbacks based upon height of fence. masonry or solid wall needs to be setback and need to be setback 20 or 50'from Screening walls are below 42"and can ultimate R-O-W? If the only distinction between the fences in 4.5.10(6)(a)which therefore be built up to the prop. line. requires a 20'setback and those in 4.5.10(6)(b)which requires a 50'is the opacity, sub-section be should identify that it applies to opaque fences. • Attachment (k1241-13) Bolsa Chica Draft LCP- Implementing Actions Program Comparison to City Zoning Code Provisions (Contd.) Low DensitXResidential Planning Area (Option B only) Provision Page# LCP ZSO Density 5-1 3.5-6.5 du./gross acre overall in low density planning area. Individual projects may be at higher density and units counts for the planning area may exceed the"estimated" number of units identified on the statistical table,but density and total unit count of the planning area as a whole will not exceed 6.5 du./gross acre and 900 units. • This provides no assurance that the areas adjacent to existing residential will be built out in a similar product type to units in the surrounding areas(which are at a density of approximately 4.5 du/gross acre), especially in light of the proposed development standards. Permitted Uses 5-2 SFD;SFA;Planned Developments;accessory and oil uses;public and community SFD only(unless planned care facilities;and parks subj.to CDP approval. development)and other appropriate use subj.to use permit approval by the Zoning Administrator or Planning Commission. Building Site Area(Min.) 5-4 4,000 square feet;exception of minimum 5,000 square feet within 300'of existing 6,000 square feet residential adjacent to Bolsa Chica area. This is not consistent with the minimum lot sizes of existing adjacent residences which are a minimum of 6,000 s uare eet. Building Site Width(Min.) 5-4 40' 60' No change in minimum lot width requirements is proposed for lots within 300'of existing residential adjacent to Bolsa Chica area. This is not consistent with the minimum lot widths of existing adjacent residences which are a minimum of 60' wide. Building Site Coverage 5-4 50% 50% (Max.) Building Height(Max.) 5-4 35' 35' Attachment (k1241-14) Provision Page# LCP ZSO Setbacks-Front 5-4 Along through travel streets 15' 15' Setbacks-Front(Garage) 5-4 18' Front entry 20' Side entry 10' Rear en 5' Setback-Side 5-5 10.'aggregate 10%of lot width,minimum 3'but need not exceed 5.' Setback-Street Side 5-5 5' 20%of lot width,minimum 6'but need not exceed 10.' • Setback-Rear 5-5 20' 10, Parking 5-5 Refers to County code requirements,provisions not specified. See attached City of Huntington Beach Zoning and Sub-division Code Section 231. Patios(Setbacks) 5-5 3' (non street side prop.line);and 10' street side prop.line. Minimum 5' from rear and side prop. line. The setback for patios along a street side prop. line are greater than the minimum setback for a residential structures along the street which would typically have greater bulk and therefore greater aesthetic impact. Projections(such as eaves, 5-5 Maximum 4'into any required setback or 3 feet from property line. See attached City of Huntington Beach cornices,chimneys,staircases, Zoning and Sub-division Code Section balconies and similar features) 230.68. • These setbacks are not consistent with the City's standards. Furthermore, it is confusing to implement. Is this truly intended to be one case or the other? If so, architectural projections can go to a zero property line if the setback is 4'or project more than 4'as long as a minimum 3'setback from a prop. line is maintained. Or is the intent to allow a maximum projection of 4'but no closer than 3'from any property line. This should be clarified Attachment (k1241-15) Provision Page# LCP ZSO Fence Heights(Max.) 5-5 For areas where the main building is permitted,fence heights are subject to the same 42"within front setback;6'behind height requirements at the main building(35'?) front setback. Higher subj.to Use Permit approval. 5-5 42"within front setback. Same 5-5 6'within other setbacks. Same. • • Attachment (k1241-16) Bolsa Chica Draft LCP- Implementing,Actions Program Comparison to City Zoning Code Provisions (Contd.) Medium-Low Density and Medium-High Residential PlannirS Areas STANDARD PAGE# LCP ZSO Density(Medium 5-1 6.5-12.5 du./gross acre overall in medium-low density planning Similar zoning classifications consist of RM(7-15 du./net acre), Low) area. Individual projects may be at higher density and units RMH-A(15-25 du./net acre)and RH(25-35 du./net acre)* counts for the planning areas may exceed the"estimated"number • of units identified on the statistical table,but density and total *The RH is the closest zoning in the City of Huntington Beach to unit count of the planning areas as a whole will not exceed 12.5 the proposed multifamily standards. du./gross acre and the max.unit count for each respective medium-low density planning area. Density(Medium 5-1 12.5-18 du./gross acre overall in medium-low density planning Similar zoning classifications consist of RM(7-15 du./net acre), High) area. Individual projects may be at higher density and units RMH-A-A(15-25 du./net acre)and RH(25-35 du./net acre)* counts for the planning areas may exceed the"estimated"number of units identified on the statistical table,but density and total *The RH is the closest zoning in the City of Huntington Beach to unit count of the planning areas as a whole will not exceed 12.5 the proposed multifamily standards. du./gross acre and the max.unit count for each respective medium-low density planning area. Permitted 5-6 SFD;SFA;Planned Developments;Multifamily units(except not Similar residential uses,other non-residential uses permitted Uses(Medium within 300'of the curbline of Los Patos);accessory and oil uses; subject to conditional use permit approval. Low) public and community care facilities;and parks subj.to CDP approval. • Why is 300'measured from "the curbline of Los Patos"instead of ultimate R-O-W as is common in other sections of the document. Permitted 5-8 Same as Medium Low but includes commercial and does not Similar residential uses;other non-residential uses permitted Uses(Medium have the multifamily restriction within 300'of Los Patos. subject to conditional use permit approval. Low) Section only provides development standards for residential,for commercial it references an existing County code section. Attachment (k1241-17) Note: None of the CM posed standards for development of the Med.Low Areas are consistent with the * . low density residential units Wong Los Fa tos. SrANDARD PAGE# LCP zS0 ............... .....I... .............:� ..... ..... .......... ... .................. ...i.a.- ............ ........... .... ..... I ..... .... .................................. . ....... . ..... .... . . .. ............... .............. ......... ..:.:.,:..... ............................ ........ . .. Development 5-11 to 5-16 ........................................... ................ .......... ......... . ��i�i�i;i��; ....X.: .. ....... ........... ........ . ......-X-:-X:.......................I......... ....... . . .....I .......... ............. .. .............................. ....... i. .. ............................................................. ..'.....'.................:........................''......................,........................................,........1.."............"..........1...................I......................................I...........................................................................................................:.........................................................S.......,.I.I...............'.II.I..................I....M...................,...I.................,.,..I..........'......,."......................................................................,...,...............I.........................................................................I............................................'......................'................I................1"'.......,..................I.'.......,..,...................I............................................................ ........... SFA ::.�..X::,:.�X..'...X.:::�".�.:::::.�.......;:�.�....:::.�X......�:�:.�...;::.�......;..�:.�..::.�X...-..:..�I..�.-..*:.�........�'.�..I:.;X.....,%.-:i:.�....�..:....ffi:.:l...�..;...'.�l.�..i:..�....�..:�...::.i....�..:.�...�:.:....;..i.�..::........I.....�...............,........�.�,.....�......�,".......�...q......�.,".......�i..:.......i,".�.......i....--.-:,...-_"I..i..:.__'..-:...-I..:..W::...i:.-i...`-..::....:.-:..�..:,..�:-i.....]-.i.....::.i....i-.i....�.:.i....:.�` ...:i..:...%...:..�.......:...:..:......:�:...........:......... :............:........�...:.......:...:.......�...:.........:...:.......:...:........:...........�...,......:..::................�.:..:.......:..:...,......�.�.:...:...........:.�.:...,.....".::...-...... ......I..:,........"".:........."...:,................................:.,.......:...................,....................:...........'... .. ..............I......................................1.........R..:........:......:.'..1...............:....:....M............:....�:..........................:.......:.......:....:.:......�:.......:... ::.......:......:..........:......:.:....'.:.:......:.:.............:.:.......�.....'.......�...'........................... ....................................................... - ..:."� . ..i . RMEAStandards :.....::X::. .:....X,..;.: ..X......":;: ;.-.........;: .........7... ..-::..."...I......::......,.....:.::...".....::.............:.::.".......:::....'.......:.::."......::...........:::...".......:::.....,.......:.::.. .�::.::....T....:::......' ......:.:......::......:.:�...-........:::........'�...:.:,.......,...::...,.......:.:�..`.. ...:;...n. ........:..........:::.....:. ......:.::..".j........,:.............:.::..".e .......:::...........:.::.........::...':........: �;.: :.:.: ..�.: '�.:....:.:�:.:::..: i.:...:-.�....'�::.:i:::...-::..�......::4.:....,...:.':.:: ..::.:..".-......-"�:...... -...-.::Xi...., �,..::..:."i....-.--::..:..��:....,X:.:.�:.:.::..: .i.:-..-".::......:.::.X.-::.. ......:.�-..".-::... ::.. ..�.:-..-".::.......:.�:.X% 00 s.. :fe t 2 500 square feet .. ... ... .... ... .. Building Site q O ""' . K: 6 000�qe f6Vt 2I500 square feet ,O:O"g'square '& L.d16 (Max. I du/lot) .:Q. �.Ti.&. 41, ��� max J d J2 99+ max. I du./lot'if X . �. j.2 i*:::Area(Min.) , ..... ( ( "-:::�: O "1�_W--um�i .... sqft jpt:16t area 25'wide or less; .... ..��: :: 25'or eater- I - ............................................................................... 11. .. ... ... I . :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::,.,.,.,.., ..................''.. ... ............................. "'.:............................ .......... .."... .. ,....", I '....",1, 1, ....................................................................................... .. .. ....................................................... :.... ......................... ... .."'. ....''.". . 11 ........................................... .... .. ............................. - - ...................................... ....................................%............ ... ... ... ....................................... ..,.:::........*:'-:'-:'-:'-:'-:.............. ..... """"' ... "I".. ......"...".. ....." ..:.:.:.:.:.:::X-:-:-:-:.... .... .................. ....::::::::::. ........ ........ ..... I...................""".... ....."'. . ... .........................,........................................%.... .... ................................................................. du./1,900 sq.ft.) .,.:..,..,.:.:.:.:.:.::....,.,.,.,.,........-----------------............-....... ........ ,..." I ......"".. .I". I . ...................................,................................................... ....'. ................................................................ .-.-.-..-.-.-.-....................:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.: ....... ... ,..........."....I 11 .....................................,........,.,::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::�: ::.: .................................................... ........................'.'.'................................................. ,. .......................... ......... .... ... .................... . ...........I................................................ . ... ... ........ ...". .......... '' ....... ......................:................................ ... . . ............................ . ...................................... ....... ... ........... ... .... ........................................................ ... .. ....................................................... .....%..:::::::::::::::,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,...,....................... ...... . .... . ..................................................... ..:.:.:...........:............. .................................................. .... .. ....... I ..... ( - . . I...::.....:.....................................................................�:.X........................................................I...........:....:....................................."....................................................................................................................:.................................................................,..,....................................................................................:.....................................................................,.1................'......................................,.........,................................................................................. ............................,................,,I.................................................................I..........."..........I1......"".........................................................................".....I.......................I.....................................................................I........".....................................................................,........,"...."........................................................................I............1.....'....I.I............................V.................................'......................................................'.................................I........I....I...................".............................................................,.............,............................'................................................"..............'.............................:..........'................................"................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................'...................................................................................... .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................-..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................:.........................................................'..............................................................,............................................................................................................................................................................'............................................................................."...............................................................'.......................".................................................................................,....I....�....:.................................'.....'..........................'...........�.....:....................................................................."......I...........:....................................................'...................'............:....................:..........................................................".....::.......................................................I.......'...'......................:..........................:.........................:.........................'.:..............................I............................'.........'......................:.....................:......................................................."...:.......................................:..:.'.............'..................:............................................:...........................'..:.................................................................."...............:..............................................................................:.........................................................I.......................................................:................................................................:.....I.....................................................................................................................................:..............................................................................................................................................:...............................................................................................................................................................................................................:...........................................................................................................:.................................................."..................................................................'.....................................:..................................................."............................:...........................................................................:......I.:...................................................."."....................:..................................................................................:.......................................I.........................'........................:..............................................................1..........:........:...............................................................""'......I...............:...................................................................................:.,..................................................................'..........:.......:.........................................".....................,............................:...................................................................I-...'.'................:.............................................................................:........:.'.......... ......................................................I,...........:.......:..........................................................................................:.'..............................................................'.................:...................................................................................:.'....................................................................:....................................................................................:...............................................:,...................................................................................: ...........................................................: 3 '030 ) gh :.::.$.�:�:i..*.....:::::.........a:::....::.........::.1,.....X..:....i....:..::.*�-i-...-.X..�X:.":-::......-....::I............X:...........*'...-_:::::i........�.::.......X.,.::.............:...........Xi ._..:..::.�-;ii...;..-,:.......:............,:.....:....o.--:::b::�:.�..�...s.......':..........'-....:7.i......__.:..:-.:�-'%....�..:.....:.'1.........:...._....---_.'-..:::,...�...................-"...P,...-.-._'........:-,...�..:................:...:.*....--_.�::::X'-..�...=...................-:.......,....w...V.:::...O-.d: ......�..............'......:......._-:�..::,.".'.....;...:.............'.........-......:::..:-.�l........�..-..............:1'.. :.:..:i..::.'......�..."........r...V......:,:......:::..-.:-..:.......;...............:''..:.X.:::...::i:.......':.'.....�'........�,".:..........::::..-.�.........:..'.:.....�......:..,::.�:.......::::...:�:........"::..:....'... .:-."'...r....�............:::..�-..........::......-�.:"..::.�:.......:.:::...::........::........q...)--.:".:...�'-.V..........::::...........::.:... :.':::::.:..�"::.......11.':i...........:!........-:i�'',..:�...;.."...........�........'.."-..fi::...".1.].::m...:::...;::........:....%....%....:.,�.-....::.::'"".::-...;.........:.........'.. .::::.....1X::::is...::.."�.i...;"::.................'..:j...,.:::...::-....X:.X....�.X.........,....:::...�.*:::.....::......::.......;:.........I""....:j.....,..:::....::.......,:.......��..... .:.:::.:.....1::::....:.........:.:..:..i....�:.. .:"...:j..........,..:::............,::..":....:..X::".......1X:::............-."....:�.:"'...:..."..�.........,:::............,.::....;.....'".....�$:.....:...X::................. i..-",."..:...�........,,..'.�............X.......:......::i......�'::.....:..%::................::......-�..,""......:...:...�..�..................:.........:�..::...-:-....;':..%............"..::..'::.-.......:::...........X:.....:...;.......,.:.::.8........:�...::.........-:.....�':......I-,.:.:...:.....:::....:........':.....:...�.:.......-..,:'-;."............."i...::........--:...-..-...�'...l.:::.....:.......::...........'X:.....:...:........:::...........:...:......-:....-..-...�":......--::...:.......,.:...::........':.....:...;:......i"::...........:i...j:........--:...";--..-...i:......::.:...�:...........:...:�........'X:..'...:....::...�:.:.�".............:�....::j........-:....-.....:...-�::..�,'............i....:......':.-...:........:..:�i::..............::....::j:.......--:....-.....�....�:...::.:..�:A............x.i....:......'::..-...:...:.....�j::.:.�."............::....::j:.......--:....--....': ... �.:.:.�.............i....::�........'::...";:.:....:...�::.:..:::.......:::..:ji.....--:.::...�':....:..�::....:::..........i:....:�..::.......�::.......:.�::.:::......:i:..j�.--:."::...�*::........:..��.::..:-':.:.........i:....:.X':.......�:.:........: :�::.-.-'::........:i:..ji.::."::...�"1::........:..�.::..:.:.......i:...:�:.:..9.....�:.:......... .:�.;:.:.-.:�.......�:..ji--:.4.':...�:.:............:.::.:,X;.........i:...:�.:.......�.":.:.....:...�.::.:....:�.......;:.ji::...:...�.:.:...........�.i.:.:.:..;.........i:....::.......�::......:...:o.....:�.::...-..;�.......;:.,.:i..:...�..::.........::.....�.::::.::.........::...:::.......i.:.:.........:.......,.::::..-.-:�........;:.::..:...-.-:..:...�..::....... .......::::.:X........i:..::.'..%::........'...-:.:.................:::.....-.;�........;:.:.-....-:...:.......::.......:...........:::.:...:"X-........:.*.:.....X...':..........:.:....'.....:::....:...-:;........�..:..........-:........:"..........�....:...:"":-.........".:.........':........:-.........-....�..,..:...t.-.-:�...........:......-....-:..,..........""....;'.......--...-`:.."XX-........,:......:...':.'.........�-....... .'.:-.."...;�.".......:...:�.....%.:......-....-:.....:.-......"...."...,'...."...-..."..-".."..:"--........:......:...':.....'.".....i..�......:'.:.-..".._�.......-.-:......:....-....-:�.......-......i..-..:-.,.'..........."..-.::--......:.....:...:i..............._--.....:.:.-.."....�.":...............-.:....:..........:....'.-.......:....--....:.,.'.....".-......"..-`."::-........:......:...:�................_.....:,.:.-.."...".:........:....:......:.........:......'.-......:. X..........:..,..'...... .....'......,..-`X.....:.:..:...:...�............ .:�......"....:'.:..-..........":....."........"......:..... .....'.-....:-....,:-.........X%.......:.....:...:....:.;............,..".;..........."-.-:�..........,.....:...........:..'....i..........".. :.....'.-...-".X:-........,�......:.........::...."................-..-,..,.".....:...-:.".-:�.........:...........:......,.............:,:..........'.�.........,.-".:-.........:........'::....... :......... :'..,-.'..'.........�........:...-:�........:....................-:....-........I.........,...........::....�.........................:....:.:.........�........�.....:........:............�...........�:...'..::..........:.............:............:.......:....::................�....:.......:............�'...I.......:..'..:........:.......:.......:.............�.......:...�:...... .......�.....................�.............:�:I...............:.........:........:...........�.......::......X..........�....:.................�'...........................:...............:..........�..........X............�...::...............�......:...................:.........::.......:.....�....................�....::..............�........................:.........:.......:....�.......X............�..:............�...................:....:.......:....:.....................�.:...........�......................:......:.......:......�........X...........�...:�..........�............................:...:.......:...�..................�..:............�................ ......:....:�........::....�......................�....:..............�.......................:.......:.........:...:.....�.....�.....................�..............�.................................:-........:.........�.I............................................�............................:�...I..............,.....�.......................�.....................I..........................................:......:..........'..I....� ..]....I.......'............�............�....................:.............:...............�..........:.................I.. ......................".........:................................................:............�......:...:..................................................!......................I..........................:...".......�I........:................................................�.........,..........I..........................:............�............:..........:.....................:............�,,......................................................:.......:...........................................:'.........................................................:......................................................... ........ .............................................................................................................................:...'........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ............................. ............................................................................................................................................................................... .........................................................................................................I.'........................................................................................:................'.............................................................................................................:....................".........".................'I................................................................."....................................'.............................................I............'................................".......................................,...................'..............'............II.........I.................... ...............................'................................................ .....'....I...........................................................................................,...................................''.............................................................................................,...............................'.........................."..............................................................................................................................................................................'.................................................. ..................... ....................................................................................................................................................................... ................................................................................................................................................. ........................................................................... ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. .................................... .............. .......... I25'..... .. .: ..:..:. .�!�.. .1.............:....:.::...'a:X.....:.'..::.....X::.........:::..........-..........:...-,,.-'.:.....-::a*......;:"X-.....:.V ......::......:...I......:X::...::..................:.....1*.:....:.�......:`:.....:.....:.:......:...... ..:::.:...:......:...... ..:....:...-....:::.....-:*-.....:-.....-,. ........::........::..... :.:::...::.....:.........'.....:.....:...::.......::.....':...........::.....i...::....X:............,....-.-.-.X:::....-::........::......:.......*:........i.,.:::...::......... ...........:!.:...:-.:......X::.....'.;:........:.:.....".......::...:..............:....-.�.:.....-:.`........::.....::.......::.........:::...:...............'.....::..,.:...::.........::......:.........:.:....%..�....::....:........`......:....-:j:.:.....-:...".............::.....::.......::..... :::..................:.....".::...:...::.............:::.......:::........:.:......::......... .`.....,....-.:::..:....-............-:I.....::........::........:::...........&......".,...."::....:..%:.:.:........::X.......::........:.:.......I.::........ :.........:j;.":......::...........iI........::........::......,...:::.......X.:.'........"::..:.....:.:.........:.. .....:::........:,:....:.....::..........'..*........::-:.:......::.........:.�:§:. .....::.........,........:...:.:...:::..._......-.,........"::;'...:. ....*.:........:.:....�..::........"::.......�...:.:::,..........'..::....::-:::......;..........::.....::........::.......:.:.....:::".:...... ..X-.:..'.,.. ..":::...:....`:.........."*:....... ...:::........::........�...:,::::...:.;..........:........:j-::':.. ...:.........;...... ::........::........�.:.-....:::.:...X:.........-..�.........':::...:....::.........X::......::........::..... ....�...:::::........:".......... ....::........":I.........::.........:..........:..:....:::........"..... _':.........::......�.........::....%.....�.....:::::.,...::.................:.:..............;:........:.-.........�....:X:.....:::..i.................:..........X::.... !.........::.... ..�.......::,:.,...�.Y........*.......:..........."..... .:.........:.-..........�.....::..:::....�............X:..........::........i.........:X........�.....-...:::.,....................',:............:............":.........:..........�....::.-.:::"............ .....:...........".'...........i.........:......�.....':*:."..............,.......','............`....x...:.........:...'....].....:...::..................::..........."..........i................�.....:..::....... "..,..... .......'::................'.........,.......i....:.-.....X...........'........ ..-.....::..........."....:-......i............;.....':...'"::......._..,...............'::...............:.........:......,.....:.....:.-...',..':......"........:......::...........". .-...........i......:.....�.....':...'.'........*..,..... :....'::............. ::.....::......,.......:.......-....i'......-'.......:......::.........%'..... .:X.......i...........�.....':..---'....... .-.'.,.... ........'::......... .:.::.....:X......"....�........-...."... .:::...............::......... :..::......i:......�:...':..---'.... ..::.,.......,:.......'::....... "--:..::::.....:.:.......::.....-...". .,..:.......::.......::....... : '...::.....i:.......�:....':..-......:.,..... :,.......,::......... :..:::......:...".....i�...".:.-...:'....,::X...... ...::.........:.......:-'...::......j:.......;;.....':........::.,......,..........,::....... :..::.....;:.......:�...".:.-...!..::........:..........:..........::.....::.:...1::.....;;.....':...---*:... ..:.,......,.::.........,:............:::.....;:...::'....i�..".:.-...-`.'...::X......::..........X........ .::.....::.:.......�;.....':..;:.:....::.,.......,.::.........,:........... :::.....;:......i�....:.-...:..::.....::......:::....................:::.....::.:.......�;.."...':.:.%:......::.,..... ,.:.......,:-..........:::.....�:..,....:�...:.-..'..1... .:::......::..........:......... ::.....:i:...-....��.....':...`..... ..::.,.....,.::.........,;........ �..:::.....�:..,....��...".:.-..:�.;:X........:::..........�......... X:::.....:�:......��.....':.:..........::.,.......::.........,;........ .:.....�:...........��...:.-..-:......::...... :::..........�........":.....;:...........�:.....':.:.�......'.::.,........::.........,�...... .:.....�:...............;...".:.-..:..0.... ....,::.......-:.........�.....-- ..'.....;:..........';.....':.X..::.......'':%.,......,.......,�.....-..":.....�:...........,�...:.-..:::...::...... -".........�........ ....'.....�:.......�;.."...':...:.'...'::,.,.....:........,�......%..:.....�:......:......�;....:.-..-:..:......":......�........�...... ..'.....;:......-.....��.."...':.:.....'....''.,...... .......,�........ .......;:......, :"....��..:.-..-:..... .::......:.........�.......... �..-.....::......-.".....;...':.X..:;..".....,......_.......,�:........':. .;:......,.......�:.-..:.�..........................�.........." .::.....-:"....::....;"...':...:..".'...........,.....,�:........'".'..�:.....,�......�:'...��.:.-:-:..:...-.......... .1.....�...............i:.....-:':........::....;....':.X..:�..".'.....:!......�:........',.'......�:.....,'�.......:...�..-..:..:...-.......�.. .."... .�..........".....�:.....-:".......:....;;-...,...:..".'.....::. ..,]:.........,%.......�:.....,;..........,:...;�.-.-:.�.:.......... .....�...........".........�:....-:".........,'......:;.,.:..:i..".'.....:....... ,..�:........::%.... �:....,..........��-:�:.....................�..........::.......::.....-:"........ '.....i;..".'.....:......:,,�:........."::...... .:X.....,�......::...;�:...:...........:.. .�..........::.....:......-:".......�:.....i;.�.".':.....:.�......: .,�;.........::.......::....,......:::-..:�"..-.:.�:...-'............. ..�..........'.-...-.....:"........--"..,.....:;.....'.X..i.......:.'..".... ....,�:......... .:........:.:.........:."-..�-..*..'.,..-..:.i1..... .::......�.....,..�........ .'.....:..,:...............i. BuldngSte :.N� ..:-.......: .: .. � . .. .... .: .-:. :X-X . idh MinW .) .....'...i........::."..... ............;:.........;.-' '.......:".:....,'1::....,..-.-.:.$:.."....... .:.........,..�...............-' ....:.......-".::.....�.-.'....: ........:.:.'...... :....�:.........'�--' ..:".:....,:.......:":.:....".'....................,..;..........�:..-'%..:.......-"�.......i.i-.'.....:........: .:........�:.........:. �.-'...:....,:.........:....�:..".�.............:.:..........,..�............-'.-"......-"-.......�-..."......:..........................:.f"......:.X... ...�;............,. .'....:.....:...... ��...-.':.i:........"........ ....-....................:..- ...,..;............... .:: ..:..-":.....- -'.-.. .I..:....':..�-....'.... ........................... :.'........ ......:.:..........' ......:......:... I:.i:............. ......: 0 .. . i i ... Building Height 35? 35 architectural 45�.4 . t6V....i. 5 35' A5( ( .. . ..ro .allowed an i 9 Wim: ft�� ���� . ................. M pj MV:.... ................... ..... ..... .........X.............. ....... ..... additional8' fei lss " P""I�. :Hess: ............:::::::::.`--:*---:--- .. .. ...................,::::::::::::::...%.-. than 10%of roof �% �".. .......................................... .: ��j0 ;Of- 9V�. �.. .............. ........................... area 0 .. -....... : .: i....:.; . ............................................: �� ............... . ............... ...........IE ithi, .150.::: ..'.."..:". . : . .t :. ...... .:..:...:....---'-901SW R . .." .:: ::....::::' ... .. ......A ' . ........' ..iii.!iii...iii . W.... ..... .................................. BuildingSite .5QY .. None. N...W.6... .:....................."" ..."".. 5O 'I 50% 5. /V�........ ............. Coverage Mx.) . III.....I........:':': .:..""."', Setbacks-Font 1.0, 15' from throu ::::� rof��.: , ...."...... 1 ' 12I .:.I0 . ...................... .........M:::::::...... ... street. 4: :i�ii�� -Ri :Y�! --:-:-- �' > :... ........................................ 0 ........................................ .. :. ,,"""""' SX .. . ::: . ::: :"..:: . .......................................................::::..::.::......:...................................................... . .. ::: ...e i!!......':�`:-Font P ntofVdhicular Point of vehicular Front:.. �20 Front eny20I mnf �I w!��.i>i`i:Setbacks . .. ...............x... "*... ::::--: "" .. to. en Vn.Wtd: � ..&' :i::: 1 . . 10' Side enyIO' i : '':: i::i:::(Garage) .. .. .... XX" . :.9. :''-:-. -:-- . .................."...-.-...................... c o max;.8'or capot max. 8'or ""it'... �..:::O1 : Rea en 5'' Rear eny5' :X.: : .".............r r . . ftY......................... 1.8'of:more from!: 18'of more fomW... ... ......................... ...1 ...Pf- .... .ft.�ift H]::.:" : face of:curb. street R-O-W. IfiE....... .. . Attachment (k1241-18) . Note: None of the CLoWsed standards for development of the Med.Low Areas are consistent with the existm low density residential units along Los Fatos. . STANDARD PAGE# LCP zSO ......... .... ................................................... - .... .... ..... ... ................................................ .:.:.:.:.:: ....... . .................................................... ......................................................... �i � i ::::*:,:': Development 5-11 to 5-16 ��......... .............. ............................ .................................................... ...... .:.:.:: -................ ....................I .......................................... ..................... . - .............................::::::...:::::::::: ......................Standards ::: �.:....:........:........:........:........:........:.....:....:.........:..........:..........:..........:..........S:..........F...........D:....i....:....:....:....:....:....:..".:...q,...:....:..:...:....:....:..,.:.....i...:..: SFA .::...:....:......:.....:.....:....:......:....:.....:....:........:........:....:.......:......:.....:..'..:..:.:.:.:.:.....Ao......................r........................i...�..:...�..i..�.....*...:...:..i,..:.�...:..�....:...:...::.....:...:...:......,....,...:....:..:....:..:....:..:....:..:....:...:.....:....:..:....:..:....:..:....:..:....:..:....:..:....:..:....:..:....:..:....:..:.......:...:..:...:..:...:..:....:..:....:..R...:..:.:.:...:..:..M...................................... ...........I..I....I.... RMH-A "X......"..,.........,X..:.. "..:..:.::..'x ..:.:..-...:.:..-.: ..::..-..- :.' - I ....,....I......I.................................,.........Q.................................................................'........................................4...................................................................................................................................................................................e..........:...........p................:.................:.............,.....:.......:............:...................:............6...:....................:....................:....".'............:......I..............:..........I..........:..,...........,,.....:..................:................:.............:.."................,.I........."......:,................:.......................I.........................: 5' .::..X.......:........:.:..........:.........:............:............:..............:.............:..............:............:............:............:............:.............:............:.........:.......:..:.....:"..:...........:...........:.........:'......-.......:.......-........:......-......:......-.........:...............:...X............:..'...... .....:...:::...��....:...�...:...�...:...�....:...��......�...:.....�...�.:...�...�...�...i...�...."...�..�....�..�i..�..�...�..�..�.�...��...�"..��...�...:.:...:�...�.:�..I�:........:.............-..1I,.:�.::..........................I......I...................................:................................... ............& .b...u . ... :::i %. 6 width.................................................. ... .. 10%of lot widSetback-Side ggr w .�FT :. th, ... ..jX..:.:4...:j::..:...j..:..j..:.Q...j ..:...j..:�..v..:...i...:...i-..::a..i ..i.::...i.::..i.::...,-.::.. --..., I.::....::...x ..::...-.:.:....-.:.X"...X.:..-.."..:..:-. :.:.:.-.,.:,.---.::.-"..: .:..:...,..:..,..:.�-.... ��..'. .--X.; :'.......:...<:...:...X..: above '.h minimum 3'but .. MI.M-M. .i. . j:..-..-..�:�-X...j-....�:-...j-.�.-..�::...j I...� ... I I..........................................................................................."I..I I I... ........................................................................................ ..:.1 .. ........>i::::i.::::i;::::i]::iAQ not:Madd 5 need not exceed 5.' : . .o��;5'-,..:, ..-.-.. ... ........I. ............... .. ...... ..... . . :::...X*" :.... ........ I..... ....I...... .................................................:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:::: ....... :::.... ............ ............ ......................"... . ............... ............................... X ::::::::", ... ............... :..... . ..' .... .............. ...............:.:.:.:.::,:::.:.:.:.:.:.::.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.::.:.:.:..:.:...: ............ ............... ................::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ... .. ..... I.... ............. ............ ........................ . ... .........................................................................................................................................................................'....,..,......"".'.I.,.....,. .I I..I'.'......................'...........'................."..,..".'.............................................................................. ................................................................................................................................................. ........ .::.:.:..:.::..".::..:..-.:..::.."..::..:...:..::..,..::..:."...:..::....::..:."...:..::....::.:.,.:..:.::.."..::..:...::::..".::..:...::.:...,.::.:.,.::.:....::.::..,.::.:.:..::::....::...:..::-.."....'::.:.:.::.-..."..::.:.:..::....,..X:.:.:..:..::...:..........-:.-:.."..X:.:......:.-:.".'.......::.. width ..: ...::.......: -.:...:...:............."......''.................I.........I.....'.........."'.....'......"..'.I................I......I."......II.. ............................................................................ .............................................................. :..I.........._.,:.......,-...M.......:........+..._...........:=............:... ....d.:.:..+.. .:..:.. ::�..:..�.:::::i:.:.=4. :.:".. ::..:..::.:.".::.:.'. ,.:-I..4. ::.'..'.� ..l::...l:b..l.:...i .:."..::..::"..:u..:'' :.:t....�x.i:.:.�... . .._ ...Setback-Street 10' from fare of �.0 X P&i. . . 20%:O :1 t 'd 5' :6 .14t wl: !fi* ' ?:.i -...:..". . Side curb R u":":..:: ::::::: ::::: mina um but :: .. exenee n t d .j.'. .....I ....I........... ......... ..... . ....... . :............::::::::::::::::::::: .............. ...... ... .. . ... ::::::::................................ ...... . I...I ... . ... .... .. ....... . ... ............... ... ....... ..... ......... ......":':................ ..... ... ... ...... ::::::::::.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:, I'll ........ .. ,I .... . ..... :::::::, - ......................'.'.... .'. .. .:.................................... ...::: .......'.........'."........."I .......... ................................... ....... .:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:....:.:.:..:.:.:.. .... .... . I...I.. ....I ... .............. .... .... ... '.. ............................................ 10.1 ... - ",, ..,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,..,., ......... ... ... .. .. . ......... . . .... ...... ....... :::::::.:::::'' ....... . .. .......... .... ... ... . ..... . . ...I .....I..... .. 0 ................................................................ ... .... ....... .."... . ...........: ............... ' " ... ...,:::::... .:.:.:.................................................................------ . .... .. . .... ......... ............. ..... . 1. .. ::::::::::X:::::::'...'.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.::::.:::.:.:.: . X... ............................'.'...'. ......:.:::...................................................................... . .... ... 1, .. . ... I::::: "'-:::: ............. .............................................,.",...,.......I .. ....:::. . ::................................................ X.." .. - ... ............. ..... I....I . ... ::::::::::::::::::::::::..:::::.:.::::............................ . .. ......... ................. ............. ........ ......... ... ... I...:':.:................ . .. ...'...F.x.x-:-'-'-" ... ... .... .................................. :: : 0 ......... .. ..... .:.:.:: ...... ..... ......... .5Setback-Rear ",..I.".................................................................................................................................... , :....:.......:....................................................................................:...:....:........:........:........:........:........:........:........:........:.......:.......:..........:::::..::::..::X:.:::..:X:.:..:..::..::....-,...::..::..'.,-.'..:.::.:: .1O.::::::::::::..:.:...::.......:..:..:..:..:..:..:..:..:..:..:..:...:..:..:..:..:..:............................................................................................................. 7.5 ...:.:......::.:.:I.:I:. ::..:::. :x�.�.:�.:�.:_�.::�.:�.....:.-:...'..:...�......:...":.........�..-.:...�....:... �...."..:.:....'.:.::...,..i...i.."i....i.....i"..i...i..i....i.."....i......i..i. ........�............ ..".....!....i...-,'.... ..-*-.."....*.....'....:....:....:...%.....-..".- ......: ...i....*..........: ....... .......................... .... ... ...................................................................... .................................................:.�.�.������������'...�����-..,��:�:: ���.�� �::�x�........................... ........!q...........I....::.......I.....1:II......I..........:�..............................."........................................................................................".................II.......I.................................... .............................-......j............................................"-............................................................................................................1'......."...'....:......'......:.......................................I...............................:...:.........I.......:......................:.............................................................:I..............i.....:..........�............I................................................................................7....................................................................................... .......:..."......:......:......:....�.:....:....:..':....:....:....:......'...:...:......:....:..:..:..........:...........:...'......:........'......:..........:....:..............:........:.....:.............:....:........:..............:...........:..........,.:.:.........:.......;'.....,:....:.................::... :"..,............:.:.:.....:...-"...,..........:":.:.........:'.............:"..:.......t:..:....... .:"i:.........:�.........:"i:.......::........:"�:.......:.:...... ....:'i:......-...r.........:"-:......:U.i�........,.'-:�.....e......:....'....:"�.....�.....:"......�:....:":.....�.......:... �,......":....i..........�-.........�::...�...:....:�...:..�......�i:.......:��:..:.�...:i:.:�.-.:..:...�._-.....:�]:....:...:��:...�-.....::.�:... :�.....:.....��......:�� :......�.......::�..*�.:....'...I... .:.�-.i.......i�::. ..�x..::...�..::.....�.....�:......i.....i:......�.....�:....:.....:............:....:....�....�.....i....i:.....�....i.....�,..:.:.............: ......:.I..:.......-.....:I......i,.........i..........................:.........:..................................:.........:........................:......................I....................................................._................................I.............."...I.................I... ......... ::...::..:.: .::-..:.:.X..::.......:.-.'.....-.-....... ..,....'-.X.I...,-X"....'..,..,-.:...'-.:.,..,-X.:...'.:. ,..,-.:....'-..,..,-:.:....'-....,:.-....'-.:...,:.-.'..�....k.,.....j...::.:,-.X....:.,....:"- ..,-X.... .:.......:.!..'..:.:...:. .:.!..":....:......:.!.-...,.::..... ...:.M-'. ..,.:.,. ,...:.i....,..::. .::......i ..:�.,... .:":�.....X!...:�.,...:*:....!:�,....*:.....X!.:,...�:i....!....;"..�,...... "...':....:.. ....1::..."'..:....:....:...........:"..... ...:...:..."'.......'�1.X:."...... ,..�.-:...%.....�1.:.......-:.'..i..:....'.....',:'...�1::.'... ..*-....'..i.-:.........'..�1::..:.... "....i...:.....--..... .'.1.::.i........:.-:.....:...... . Parking Rqf6t§W CdurxW . Refers to County A6 W. .-" See attached V O�4 See attached City of :. o--a Ma 4VW V 66de:Tequirements, code requirements, cede 1e ...... " E i on Huntington Beach :.I=U.pM""W. 4a :..:..:...: .:i:��i..ii:i..ii::ij:j:: .. .... . provisions.not : provisions not : y� tiiii:.�ii:.-.ii ung�and Sp Zoning and Sub- M'MWMd Sub:' . specified', specified. "..i&"d.. visi n:C de. division Code .j. I q"� S66ti.ffi�23l, Section 231. . ..,,,,,,,.......... .... . .::......-:..'...... :...:........- ........ . . .....I........... :... ............. %...... .'iii .. S".. .:21I, :: :.:.:: : ::1::............. ............ ...................... ... ...... : .......,.'..'.'.'.'.'.'.'....'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'............... .,............................................................................... ....................................................::.:.:.:.::::.:.:.:.:.% .::::: ...... .. .................. :.:.:.__....... ,, .... ,:�. .... .................... .: .::: ... .... . ....... ................................. , ....................................................................................... ..........................................................................................I.I .... ...I ...I. .............. ::.... .,,,,,,. .................................................................................. ........................................................................................ ...... '. "I'. ..... :: .'.................................... ....................... ., ., I...... . ............................. ........................................... ....................................................I. .. .. .. I .... .:::.:.:.:.:.:::......,.,:...................................... ................ ......... ................ ........................... a-3--a...--;-::...................; ' ' I....i:. . ..I...I. .:.............. ..... ................. ..... ........:::. Mi ... ::. .: .--'---...-.'- :: -- .. . :: . .. ........ . .-�. - . - - .... .X. .0 ........ .. . ......... . .& : :':,37::�(nonstreet side:......... 3' (non street side j�j�!.::j? -.�i A 0.:.......... :..t . .M.:� . . .::: :-:-:-:-:-: Patios .. .. : I..�j�!W*W.' d"""I.16haum:5........M: nimum 5'from ).� .�.... .. -:-:-:-:-:- ...I '..I ...................... . -----....................................................................... ............................................... .I I ....... . ................ . ................. ............................... ............... .::::t*. I. ... I ........ ..................................... :::. :8':::::::�: prop. line);and 5' ::""""""""""'���ii&)'���4k:d�:$..,.�'ii��:�������:........................ ................................... W ................ " ....... . ...... ...... ..... T V -�'. -.Z:...... -.-%-:X .. ... ':""":':':':':: il ", -and: .::,:,., : ::: ' . rearan si. e prop.... rear '�iTPRT.AKP�M.... ..........(Setbacks) Vrop-.1 I...I..........I. .. . . d 'd r and side prop. : .. .& ,: : K.-P .........: .........::::. .:. .... .... I...................... . ............. .. .... ...... .......... a............. OW...".......... ................................... .............. 4 ,::::i:: .. ... .............................. .:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.::..-..............:.%....... . . ... :::::::�:::::: ::::: :::: ..:.:.:.;...:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:::::::."�.",.,...,..""......... . ': x: ... : ' -- ........X.... . - . ..I .."....... ..... . -X '..................' . ..::::, ..... , : . ...... . ............................. . t::::X:X-. !: ......."...... .. ... .. !�' ::::::::::::-.'-.'-.'-.'--.'...-..�-.-.- : .. ........ I. . .::::: :::::x.......'....:.X...'.......... sere I...]� . .,:::::: me: :::: : -:110"'., .... ...�.trat.:�g.id.t��ot.60�....:.:::......: street side prop. .0iii . r.......'. :b line. ...................... :::: .' P..W.. . ......................................... .. .. ::" ............... , - . .. . ........ .. .............. .......... A ...................... ::::::::: ...... .............. :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::,...,.,....,.,- .... ............''... .. XXXXX............... ....... .....:..'-*� .. .......... ........ X .. .-x.x.:... ........ .. ........ ......I...I... . ...........:..... ....... .............. .......... . :: ..%.............................................................. .....................,.......".... .................:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.::.... :-%.-.-..__....I....%.. ..... :W. ................................................I................'.. ........... .... ............. line..........:':::::::::::::: . line. . . ........................... ... ................... ..............................................................%.......... ...... ......... ............... X ....... ........... ............ .... ........ ,:.,::.:.......%%-.-.-.-.-................................... ..................................................".. ................................ .............. .......... .................. ... ................................... ..... .................... ............................................... .........................% ... ..... ........... . . 1. : ............................................................................................................. ... .�.�.�.�............................................................................ ........................................... ...................................................... ... ............................................ The s backf6i�i�� ::�� The setback or .......... .......... ...................................... .. :����������������������������i��ii��������:���������"",..,..,.,.,.,.,...'..'.' ............................................................ ....................................................................................... .............. ................................... ........................................... . X""'.......'......",.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,..,.,.,..,. .................................. X...................... """"'............... ... .... - :::: ::.:............... ......:.:: ... ... .I :: . ::::::::::.................... .................. ................. x:.................. .. .... . :::*.,.,.:.::.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.::::.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:..:.:.:. : . .:: ::]::::: ::�:]:�:::::::.:::::::::::::::::::::: ':.:"""""""""""""" """ ' ,.. . ......I.I. ::::::::::::::::::::::::":::::: " .............. ................%. .............. ::::::::':::::::::" . .. .. : :::::: ................ "J41an p-jtreef: patios along a street .:::: ::.............::::: ... . ....................... ::::::::: :* .................:. X . ......... ............................ :X- ':........... ....................... .. . ......... ......... . x ""' ................... . ................................ ..... .. .. ...................-................... ................... . .........................................::. i. .....'....... ::.:.:. .,.::::::: ............ ................... ................................................ . ... .'.'.. .... :::::...' ::.. -._ .. ......................................::::.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.::.:.:.,:.:- ::::: :�::. .. . . . :::.:::............ .. ............'.......... . . ::........:...:::::::::.......... SI'd :: ine:aMx::.:: side prop.. line .................. .............. ...... ."... ...... : , h :�.: e are ............ ...... ........ .. ...side .......... ... ����i�:�������,."",..,............................. ........ .. ... I"....... ........:::%.. ....... . ... .: ... . ........................................... ..... .... I".. ....... I .::::................ ......... ............................................................. ......... ... . ...................:.:.:.:.:..:.:.: .:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.. ........ . ....... ... ..... .I .......... ........................................ .� O.X:........ ............................................................ .............. .. .. ...... . I... ............ ....................... .............. ............................................................. ......................... '..... ........ .......... ........................................................................... ....... ..................................:��:i�the'' ..... greater than the ..................................................... .............. .... ....... ........................ ... ......... . ........ .. ........I.. ...... ....................................................................................... ... ............................................. ...,......................................................... .......".................. ...... ..... .................I I. ....................................................................................... ........................................... ......................................................%..... ....."'.........'....... ..... ... ............ .... .................................................................... ....... ............................... ............. .... . .............................................................................. ....... ........ ........................................... .............................................:: .. ........ ..... ....... ........................................... 0 ......... ....... ......................................... """"....,...,.,.,.,.,.,..'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'...'.'..'.. ..."............ ,.".. ..I....I " : . .......... ................. .... ......................................... .........................*..... ''-"*"" ''.. .... '....*.......' ...............11111111.................... I. ... .....I. I.............................. ............ .... ... .. ..I. Miii.:se.tb�2ek:f6���������������������� min.setback or ...---..." .............................. .. �..- ............ ... .... . ...... ...-- . ............................... ............. .... .I....I. .................................. ........ ....................................... ...............I... .... .... ....... ..................................%......... ..... .................................. ............. .... I I.... I....... ............................................ ..... . ...........-................ - ...I.................................. .............. ... ................... ............................................ ..... ............ . ............... .......... .................................................................... .......................... ............,.................................. ........................................................................................ ............ ...... ..................... -...- ................................................................. ................................... ..............................,.. ............................................. .................. ............................... ............. ......... ........ ........................................... . ............... ............................................................................................ ................ ................ ....................................................................................... .. ............................... ........................... ... ........ ......................................... ........ ..... :: htial ..:........................... residential .... .................. ..............................................,................... ................... ............ ........ ........... :4�............ . ...........-......... .%....... . . . . ..................................................................................... ................ . ... ... .............. .............. ..................................... ........................:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:::::.:::.:.::::.::::.:....,............................. ..................... ........................................................................................ ........ ....................... ...................................... ........ -.................................................................................................................................................. ....................................................................................... structures .... - .............................................................................................................................................,.. ....................................................................................... . ... -.. ................... ............... ................I. ......... .............'.. ....................................................................................... . ... .............................................. .............. ....... . ...................................... ...............................................................................................................,.,............. .............I .................................................................... .. ...... ...................... . .................. ........................................... ... .... ..ov................... ........... ..... .. ...................... :structure!al. the structures along the ................................................................................. . ....,.,............................I ...................................................................., .. .................................................. ::.................................................................................... ................... .................. .......................................................................................I .... ................................... . ........ "........................ .. ... .....................",......................... ....................................................................................I... ...... ::.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.::.:::::::.:.,.,......."...............'- .. .. ............ ...... ........ ....................:::...... ...."...............I... ............................................................ . .................. .............................................................................. ... .....,............ ... .......................................................................................I street.. h* h................. street which ........................................................... . ... . .W Ic :.................................. ....................................................... . ..... ..'' ......................................................................................... ....... ... ....................... ................... . ...... .. .............. .................................................................. . ...... ....... I......"............. .......................%..................... ... ............................................................... ........................................................................................ ......I .. ..... ... ........................................................................................ ... ......�.......dl ....... .......................................................................................... I I . .............. ...... .......................................................................................I . ............................................ . ... . ..... .. .........................................................................................typica . ... ave..................... .................. ................... ................... ... .......... : h ...............:.:..�: 1�vpically have .................... ........... . ...I I.... ..... ... ............................................... ............................ .......................... I I ... ........................................... .............................................-.-.-.-.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:::.:.:- :::: :. I. ..".". ... ................................................... ............Y .............................. .. ........................................................................................ ... .............I ............................................................................... .................................................................. .... ..'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.......'.'.'..'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.......... I .... ........I ......". .. ........................................................................................ ................... :............................................................"....-..... I . .. ..... ... ........................................................................................ I ... ..... .I ............................. .. .... . ....... ....... .. . ................. .... .......I. : .bulk nd bulk and .............................. g"Mr.. ...a I .....::..... ........ .......:.X.X.:.X-X.X-:-:-: .......:... .::.. grea er ...............:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.::::::::::-- .. ..............................,.,.,.,. .:.:...:.........-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-..-. . . ::: ::.�'. ... .......................................................................... ...... ................................ . .. ..... ..... .............. . . .......................................:.X .I .. ......... ....................................... ......... .... .... ... ................................X. ........................................................................................ . ...::.:.:..........-....-...-.-.-.-.-.-.-................... . . .I. .... ............. . te��te....::..�:.��,: . .. ...I.... . .......................:::::::................. ..Ih r: i� therefore greater .. .. ........ ----.......'" ....... ..... "::x...':: ........:::::::: .-.-.-.%-... .. . . I ::::::::" .... .::...._�._...... - ............. .......... ................. ::::::::::.............. ........ : . ..:.:.:.:.:.%:X-:-:-: ........................... ....... .... ::'.........._... " ` " .. ........ ... I....I .. :::::::::.:-::_.:::.:W::::::::::::::::::::: .................................... ....... ..............:.�:i:::,...'...'..'.-.."."..'."...,:::,....'....'.. ::::::: ...- .. ................... ::..:.................................W...:::X.:...X........ : :.:.::. ............. ..... ................. ....... ................ .. impact :.:.:.:.:.:.:.::.:.::............................... : ............................... 4"Otic��::�::...:.......: aesthetic I: ...... ................. � I I I ....................... .........I.: �������i��!�!�������������������������ii��!i����I .................... ........ ". " ..�.�.......�.�.�.I.I......................... ............................ ..... ....-.-.....�.'.'.'.�.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.....................�...............:........... .... .. .............I I.......... - : I I. Attachment (k1241-19) - — — Note: None of the proposed standards for development of the Med. LowArras are consistent with the existing low density residential units along Los Fatos. STANDARD PAGE# LCP zS0 ......... .......................... .......................... . ..... .............I .... .................... ............ : : :;::......... ::,.,: : ..", ::::::;::;::::::::::::::::::::::::: Development 5-11 to 5-16 :::: — .................................. ... ........ ..........'................ I. ... ...... ......... :::,...'::.:.:.:j:.'-'..'.'.'.'..*...:.:.:.:.:.:..'.,*..'.'..................... . " �����������i������������]����������::�i�i���:�i:i:i������������� ................. .. ..................................... ::''.... ..*. .................................................. ..... .:.:....,.:::.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.,.,.,..,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,......... "��i�]��������.:.:.. ....... .:.:.:,...:.:.:....................,................. ..............................................: :: :: X .............. .... . . ....... .. .........................%................. ..................................... .. ....... ' .. ....... ............. ... ........................... '. ......... ..... ................... ............. ..................................... I. .'.X::::::::::: ................ . .......................... ............................................................................. ............................... .................... M.: '.."....", .....". *:::::::::::::T 11 : . :. .........."... ....................".'...... ...........:X-X.... . ...... . ............................ ...................."..'... ........'.....'.... .'.'..... -A ................................... :::::::X:::X.:-:-X "....". I ...:':"*Wffi0-: :::: ........... ..... Standards .:. � ��������������SFO����������:�����!����: �:::::. SFA -M ::::: RM RMH ......................................I - ::::::::::::::::::::::: ....'' ................... I .. ::.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:......:...�...............:.:.:.:Y...................."..... .... .......... .. ........ ....... .........."......I... .... .................................................. .......... ... .:.::::.::..:...::::::::::::::::::::. ::::::::::: ................. ,.......�...... — . .............:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.::::::::.:.:.:.::.::.::::::.:..:.: ..... ..... ... I......... . .... ..�.�.�.....�.......................�...............�.........................a... . . .......... _.........................". ... .... ... ...... .. .............I....... ....... ..........attached i....K. ... . :::.."..,.,.,...,...:�:: :::.:.:.:.:: ... .' :::: .. .......... . .. : i:::::::::: . ::.:. .... .....':':::':':':'fi-'a"' . ..... .. ........... ..::cif: Projections such M � 4':::into�.:: Maximum 4' into ][,? . ..S66 atta h d C't ist�. See attached Ci :..$ ii . ::: .. 6" f" c e : .. aximuin ...into..::::::: .....WAMW :'An ::.� i y ILY of i e ......CL,::i�::::�;::.�::�:::::::.i.:��i::i��:�...X-X-:::... " .. ........... ........................ .. .... . . . .......................I ...................... .........................,%..................%.....:�:�:� � i�i�:]i�� X....:.:::.......... ... , .. ..................... .... ...I.... I................................ ................ :-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-: ,.:.:.:- ' ***"J. .....: ........ . ................................ -- - ..iB .......... . . . ............ . .. * B h Huntington B ................ . as eaves,cornices, :..;M.req ................'......... any required ��pp..;�p��-tied::::;:::;::;::::;:::"'. '*''" H R on�:...eac. :::ixi:: each iijin tj..'n : : . I --.i.......�.���:�i���:�����������������i���� P:ii�_t ........................................ ... .0 .::........ .... ........... ... .�.y . . . ......... .. .. .. ...R. ..... ..... .............. . ..q ... .... ..... ..... ::i::i-.... .........I �:**.*...�.�*-.�.*.:::::::::::i::::: .... .......................... ... ......... ... ... . ..*:�-:-:-:-:-:'-'-'-'- . .... .... I . .-.---::::-X- .. .. .... ib...:.:.:.:.:.:.:.: .... "' :.i.g��":.i.:���:i!.:F:.�.................... setback :::ftom'." setback or_', feet ::::m . " Zonin and b....������ Zoning and Sub- .... , ... ................... . . . , � ...... ........ chimneys, .I I.. ..... . .... . :::::.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:...:.:.:.:.�.::4:.::.:.:........... :::::g n. . ....... . ......... .W........... : . ............. ... I fi t '•:sef .............W W ....".........................................................."... ..... : ..................................... ............... - : ...............................I. ... ........ ... ... ... ........................... . ; 1'.......................:. ..:: ...........h.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.::.:........ ....... ............................... . :....-.'.'- :::::::: .................... ::I e::::::::::::.. ". .Code ................... - :: . . .. I ..............................::: .: -bak.::g:':'6 0:..:':': division Code:: division Code ..&W, el'o".&"::::::::""","",".."", staircases, pro ertv.:�:inr.�����:i:�:�. :::: from property line. - e..--.Wi . , .:......-TA:setback WN: ....::::::: : vi ion ivi 'I — . ...............I. .... . X :.. ..::: .. . ... ,. stm ....... ..p......-................ .::w..................... ......... . . .. ........... .......I.................. ... ..I ............................................... ... ............. � .............................................................................. ..................... " I ................................. ........................................... ... .......... ...................... .9 ..I ............................... . ..:...%...................................... ............ I . " M�-:-:-:X:2 ,ff X :a :::::::::::::::: .: . ....................... .:. .:.:.:.: .a .: ...................... .: :::: 1: . : ......— :or.:, Ss.":::.-..UEV� �q'.............. ection::2 ...................... ::.:.-._-.RM.. " , I...I........ ..... .. . . :............. .� I. .. .9""""""""" I ....'...... ............................."..... I, : .. ' :':..... ... S ' :: 3069 : Section 230.68. S .......................................................... .. 1,................................................."....". ...... :-:-:-:-:-:-:-:I;:.:.,::::.:.:ffi:.:.::.:.:.,...... ................... ,, balconies and I "............ ,...............................",. I I ffi .... . .. 6 . ............................... ..............."..... :::.:.:.:.::....... i . ............ . ...... . ......................................... ......................................................I........ ................................................,'........1, ..........�..'.................................... . ..' .... . ................................ .:...:..::::::.. ..::::::::::::. ' ............................................ : .. .. ......: ... ........... . ................... .,.:.:.:""', '- "'."'.............. .... ........... ............I......................................... ......... I ................................ :Vm 'fi""', "".." ........ .............. ..........................I. : . .... ............................. .... : similar features) .. ......................................................,..... ..." I ...........................................,............. .." : .. M t"'I"'......."I"." ...I. .... .................. .... I ..................................."..". .'."' i............1909R. W.A.:..... ... .... .... ................................... :::::.-. ............... ...... ...... ..I... .... . .............. ......... ... :.:.... .:..:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.: .:.:.,......,.,.,.,.,.....,.,.. ...................... .......I I.....I ' .... . ........ ........................... ......... .............. "-'-:-':-'"-.'-.'--X-:-:-:::-X-::::-:-:-'" . ........ .................... :-.:"....................'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'........................ .............. ..... ................. ::: ...................... - .... .......................... . ............... : * .............................................. .. . . ............... .. ... ..........................:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.,.,--,................................................................................"I ::: W' ' -': ,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,, , . ................................ ::.:::: I ................................................... .lu ;R::::::: ... ..........'.......'. .. . ................ :X.:......... .... ..... I. ..................................I . PA.;...a. ............................ .. ... . .......................... ..... ... ............ --................................................. .. .... :::,..................................................................I : .:i::��":�:���ii:i�::::::iiiiii �i���i�������""""",......""". . ............". I ....... .......... .................. ii:�::iii�' . ................... ..........". .. .............. :::::::;..-"** ...................................................... ..... . . ...... ::: ..................... . . ' * ............................... ........I..... : • ................. ....... ......... ...- .*.............. '' ........................... ., ... .............. : I ...........................................,. .. . ..... % - ::-----::::::::.:.".,..".,,,,..'. ::::........::;-::::..-.::::.;...............,.............................................................................. ;�P-1�m�.n�M��:i:.�:�������������.................................. . .. ...... .......................................................................................... .. ............ ............. . ....... ::: .....,............................................................................... : ........... ............. . I .. ..................................................................................... .:.;:,:::::::�::::"","",,."""' I .. ::::::..:.;.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.::::... ........... :.. ................. ...'..: ... .:::::::::: ........... , ::�ikfi"V:" ........... ........... . . ....:: :: .............................. ....................... I... .....: -::-X-X-:.:-X.:..........X.:............ ......................... ....... . ................ : ..... .... ..................................................................... ............ .. ..................... ........ ........I I ..................... ................. : . X .................. ... . ................................................................................. ....................... ...................:��:::::::��:m;i�i��;:;:;�����;���i�����i������:]:���.......................................I...... .. I ....... ........ . ............ : . .......... ....... . ............ .: ........... ....... ............ .... .......................... .................. . ................................................................................. ............ ......... .. ......................... ................................... ............................................. ........................................................................................ ..................... '...... ..................... . ...................:-:-:-:-:-:-:-- ::. ... . I ....................................................................................... ...... .... ....". ..................... ::':'iO�:..................... .. .... ......................... . .. ....................................................................................... ... ... ,. ................. ... .:.............. ... .. �.................................................................................... . .. : I ......... ... . .. ................. ... ..... . . I I.:. .......... ............................... ...... ........... .. . ... ....... .. "..... ............ .:,: ,: I ......................... :.:.::.:.:.::.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.,.,.,.,..............,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,................ . ....... ' '' .. . ..................................................................;...,........ the ...... I I -1 x,x, ..... ..... ":::::::.-...... :::.: " '"' ........... I .............. .�� . . . ..... . Fence Heights :F6 :areas.where:th6. For areas where the ;:""-A-'-U'.f4""""""""h-'e" ":':':: 42" 'th' front........... . . . �= .. :�i�:.'�]....... ��XX..� ::::::::.:.:.:. :it i::;mi in: . 42"within front 4 . N&N. :............ ........................................................ - ��: , I .......... ........ I. .... .. .. .... :����:!..�;i!i��:i��:W.'.'...:.�..!.�.���..... t .................................. ... ....... ...................... .......... . . ...... ...'.'.....' ...... ' ................i:::::::::�:::�i�i�i;i;i�]�::i�:; .. ........... ..... ................... . .............. .......� ��setback,. .......... ..... ........... ... .. . .. ........ ....in is::............ ... .. - .. ....... ...... :� .::::: ....�M' *:��'' bffi .......... .... .1. ......... . : .... :�i� ..main: u ........ . b ild main building is .. 6'behind:::::::::: setback;6'behind -..i �fi" M:.'..'.'. (Max.) .................................... .G.......:: :;A"�&%`Wi�:�:���� . .set . ....... K """ ..... .. .... I ..... ................................................ ...... I .................X. ... ............................ ... ................. . .....� ................................ ".1'... . . iii::�ii�ii�i�:"", .................... I.....................f -.�.X.X.�.'.' :1...........................................' '' ....................................................................................... . ..................... ....... .. ...ff.............. ...... ................ ..... ... ,.:::::.:: : ..:. .. .....a......ft permitted fence . . permitted,fence :::Jjrll�=. .=. .: ...6.. . . . .. .. ..:.. .... ................................ ': : ................ . . :: , .. . . :::::, ::front se - ................................ . : .:: - :: " . .. I . :.. A.. .:. ft t 6 ......................... front setback. - 0. ..: ...................... .:...1. V............... ... ...........;:::: .. M. a ....................... .. - ........ .::............. ...... ' '�:;:::::::i:i.i,::::i:i:::::::.:.:.:.,.:.:.:.::.::.:.:.:.:.:.,.,.'.'.'.'.'.'.'- ............................................ I.. . .............................. ..........X I. ... I ... ........................................... I.. ................................'' ...... I . .......................................................-.-.-........................ .... ................................. .... - ---1. WU:-:X-X-: . ...........................................,.,.,..............,.,...,: �.High ..':."... .. X . .......i.&I. . ............ .. ...%........................-..-.-.-.::':':':'::::::::::::::: :.:...-a m -r......-i -.A::;9e.'..*'.-.'i .........................:....... ,. �h6igh ......X ..................::::::: Use . i .. . s:are.:.su..bJect.::::: heights max. 8.' . ,',',' *:,:.:.:.:.:.:.:.................................. ..... . er::subj':4::to.:USP�� Higher subj.to .... ..... ........... ...... .. .. .. ......... ............. ........ ............................ .. . ... _.'...'....."' .9*::..-.-.-.-.-..-.-.-.-.-.-.-...%-.-..-.-.-.. ......................................... : .:.:.:::::::...::.;.-..." '".'""""' '''"." ....................I. .... ..................... ........................................................................................ . & .... . .:........... .... . ::.:..: ...... l"........::.0 -...P---- I.......................... ' .. ......:"::.................... ............"'.- ..... ..::, ::........... ...... , :A .the.same.:hel V....... :...: :::::::::::::.,....... ....... :::.:: " :.,::,. . :' : .......... " _' " ............"..... : . , : ADMA. ..... ...........:'. X.:.:.:.: -nit approval. ::, :imm.. .... .......1. ..... . Tdrmit�approva� '' Pen ............... . .. ............ : ...:.i:�:�i�i..-`.-..-"-..". -.-.��i� ..................�.................. ...... .. .. .. . --:-:-:-:-:.:.:-:.:.:.':: ........... ......... ....... ......... .. .. .:.:.............:X.:: :::::::: -..".'��:;��:�:��" .. ................... .......... .::i:.............................�.... ....... ..... .......... ... .. . , ... . . . ........ . - . .... . ::::. :. ... ... ........................:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:�:....:�:... ,.:.: .�...................................................... .:.:.:.:................................................................................ ............ ................. ............... ........................... .. ............................................................................ ... . ...... ......................... :::: .�.................................................... . - - ". re th ... , .... . qu�rements:at:, .C .. .- ....... ........................... X ... ...............................................................",.............. '' ...... ....... ...X, .. :..*:,. ... ....... . ...........................,..................................," ....'............................................ X.: : ..... ....................... .: ....................................................................................... ..... ................ ..................................... ... .........."..."......."', 1, ......................................................................... ... .. ... ............ %..:: ;::::::::::::::::: I main ..... .I.... I....I.......I I ................................................................ ..... .. ..... .............. ....:::::::::.-...:::: .... ....... .. ........ ...::...:.................................. ....... , ............................................................................... ... ........"., ..... . .................:.................................................................. ma'm:'.building::::::::�:�:::i:�::::�:� :.................................................................... ......... . . ................................................................................. . ................ ......... ' ...... ....... .. .........................-..-..-..........-..-........................... I. ....I . ........................................................................................ . ................. " . ... ....................... . ,. .." ., ........................................................................................ ........................... ..........-........................... ,.,.*.---,......................................................................................... .......I.. . ........................................................................................ ....................... - .......................................... . , . . ........................................................... ...... -.-.-.-.-.-'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'....'.'.. ........... ....' . . ................................................................................. ...0.5 I.?)............................................ : ...:...-_.-.:::;::::::.. . ..............................."... . ........................................................................................ ............................ :::::::.. .-"............................................."....... ........ . ....... .... ......................................................... :.::::::, -d .'.'.:::::::................................. .................................. . .. .................................................................................................................. . .: ......%.. ............... . . ........ .............. ..:.:.:.:.:::: . .:.:.:.:.:.::: ...__ ...... .............. ... .... .. .....................................................................'....... ........................................... .... .. ............................................... ..................::::::....................::....::.:,:...:::::::.��::,::::::::::::::::::.::.:.:::::::::.:.:.:.:.:.. ...... .... ............................................. ....... ... ... ........... ........ ... ............................................. ...................: ................:::: ... ................ ........................................... ...... ... ..... ................. .........................................::.-- ...... .... ........................................................... .. ' ' .............::........ ...............................�. I ...... .. .. ....... ..:.:.:.: ...... ... . ... ... ......... . .. �:�".. ," " ................................... ..... .. .... .. ........... ..........:................ ... . :::::::::::... .. - ... .. ........... I.... .. ..... ........... ..........................................................::�.�.�.�.�i;:�......i;�:,- :�:�:�:�. .......................................................... - -- '.. ._._.......... ., ..., .... .................. .................................................... ......................................................... ... -- - .W. .............. ... . . ........ - - - ..... -1-1.1, ... ..". ........................... ................................ ...... .....' .'. .-'. iiiiiiiii.."...'."..--'...."...'..."!iii.......iii .........' .... .......................... . ............................................... ........ ...... . ..... ... . .���_-.-'.--.--'-'.-"--'- .'..'... .......X......__ ... .... .. ..................................... .................... ...... ........ ... . ...... . ... I'll.................... .................. I ... .... ..... ............................................ .I .......................... ..I.....t'�... .........t.................. ............. .................... ....... I .. . .. - :: :::.: ..,..................................................... :::::: . . - . ........................................... .........-�::::::::�: :::�::::: See :.,.. .. ..... .. ........ .: : :: . !W.:a.W.W. , ....................... ... :.S . ........ .. :��:..:�i...]�Ii�-.Va. '��.. .ee:a above�:::::::::: ....... ....... . ......................................... .427..Within front�':.:::...:.:,::. 6'within front :"42""""" :::::::::::: :S bb S above. . . I. . ......I . ::::::.:.:: . ... .: ................................ .. ............................................... ...... ...:.�....�..�....�......................I.... I ..... ..... ..... . ...................................... .. .. .............. :.. ....................................... ..... .. ..' .....I I .... ........................................................................................ .......... .... . ......................................... ........................................................................................ ..... .. ... . -.-.-.-..-.-.-.-..................................... .........................".'. ................ ....................................................................................... . .... . ....................................................."... ......................................................................................., . :setback.. .::::::..:.:::....:: setback. ::: al........,..".,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,....,..,.................................,.. ................................I . ...... '................ :. '.:W........................................ .......... .......... ....... .: . ............ .."........... .......................................................................... ................ ............ ...... — .--. ................................................................. '.. ...'...'............. -.........,............................................................................., ...... ......................... ........... a.......... ............ . . . . .................. ...... ...:..S............................. ...................... :�� ... ........ a ..... ----.X.X.:.:.:.: .... ' ................. .... ................................. : .. .... ................. . .. .. ... ............................... ............................. .. "W... �i�i;i�i;."."....,*.-.,..-."."..:i",:..:: :::. , ... :::::. :: ., -'.-.:ffi . . .. ..:i; ......ifii4"i�:�i�:ii�����....:::- . .. : .. .. *' - .. ... 6:'::: 'th' th .. ...... 6'within other ....6........M. ' .- ::... ... ... . . .. bo ........ See above. .... . .... ............. . .. .... -- - :i$ .... ....:.wI...M:o...PT..::.: .. :..::� *..--, :�i�'.....����1..COA. w ........ ............ :`%::::::::::: . . ... ...... . . ........................................... --. . .......................... ....... I ... .... .. ... . ................,.-..... ... . ........................................................... ....................... .:.:.:.:.:.::.....X.:.X.:.:.:.:.: � :::: -- .................. ... ......... .::......................................................... .................. ..................... ......... ...... .............. S::::::::::,�::::::: ::::::::: :::: se ................................... ....... .......... . .............................. setback setbacks. :::ft ::::: .................. ........................................ . , 0: :::::::::::%::::'" ................. � ... .. I.I.,," :::::::.::::-::-:-::::: :::: .%....................................................... ..... . ............................................ .. ....... ... . ... ............................................ ........... .. .. .................. ......................................... ...... . ....... . . .................................................................... - � I................. ..........I... .. .... . . . ......-......�................ .. . .... . . ... ..N................. -.4:.X.-. ............................... ...... : soy::::f:::-:-:-:-:+&. .'.iAi::I,'-.'%'-.,..,: ........ ...:5 -:-XAX-:- X-X-::: ................................"...... .. ., :: . I X. : .: F ::::::::::::-:-:-X:::.:.: :: :0 ::: . , I .:: . ....... 251 f re n a : . . ::: .... ... ...6 N .:.:.. .- - :.:.:.:.:.. ........................"..,......,..... .. iff: .. .W :::.... /a:: : side ii I�::::::::: 25%of residential :I .� . Open Space :None ........1-:1..... ........ I None. " ..: - - I�;..-0 ............................... . I :::: 0:.:m I ..... .�,:0:..."11 .....;.X:i� .................. ..............'.'............ ..:. ..:.................................. ......'' .......... ......:.....5. *.:::I' .............................. , ..........I..... X...""""..".." .'.'.'.'.'.'..'.'.'.....'-'-'-'-''-' ..... ..............................:.................:i::-:-:.:�:.:......... ,-.- ...... ................. ' ...................... .......... I .. .......................................... :.:fl::-:-:-: :-::- :-:-:-:-:-:-:-: ...........................................:::.:.:.:::::.:.:. . :: ................................................................,.............. -'::` ....... . ....................: oor a .... .or.. . ..... ........fti��� ................................. ....................................., :::::-X.::::-:: . . I....... . :: • ................ ..........I......... : ................. ..... ....... :::::::: , .. .... .................................................................................. ' fl rea:pefumt',��i��� floor area per unit; ...:::i:9 �9WTC.K W- --:-:-:-R:*:::::::: .. .......... :':,::::: -:.................................................... .. . . .................................. .....,..........................,............. ..:.:::.:.:.:.,::...,.,..,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,......,.,.,.,...........,.,.,............. ::::::: :::i::-:::::. : - ... ... ............. I ............................................ .."............................ : ' ... ... I ............................ " ................ ......I....... ..............................:.:.: :: ... , , . .. ........... . . .. . .... . ,. ' .'- fi`��W:i�� ....................... .................... : I"I......................................... .... . : - of :':':': iftffi .. . *f ....... .I............ -. ................................................ . '......................... ::: .....-.................'..............,....... :see:attAcfi6d:C' ..of: -.1 ........................ ............. ::. ........ .............. I ::Sw . I i......................................... .............. X -...-.'...-,'..-'.-'..'.'-'.-.. !q. : see attached City X We' .'�""""""' ................................................ .............................. . - .........................,.....,............................... ........ . . ... ...Y..- :. . ..... ...". .............................................................. ... .. .......................... .............. .I ......... .... ..... -- .... I. ... .. . . .. .......................................................... ................ ......................................::, ................ ...... I ........ . .. .. ..,.-,... .:.:.:.:.:.�.::-:-:-:i ::-:-:ig..I','.. ::... :: .'`................--......- ............... 'fi-`::::::: .. ...................,.,:.:: ,.. , ea . .:. .:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:::::.:.:.::::.:.:.:.:.....-..-.-... ... . ' ................................................. :: .H :':'H . ....... ................ .............. ::::K:::: - .............................................. I. .................. :I ........................................... ................ :::::...... ' untihgi6n:86kh:��� Huntington Beach :::!Un MOM: :................................. ................. .::: X..., I 6 . .. :. : :, ..... . ....... : ................... ........................ �.::::::::::::::::::::::::.:.:..:........:::::.... ............................................... . ............... ..... . ........... .. .. .............. ............................................... ..'.......... :;:...:.-..:........................................... :-:-7.MXX:::::::::- - ...............................................I ..'........ : ...�......................................................... . . ..:.... ............................ .I .......... : --'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-- '-'-'- -'-'-' ... - . _.............. . . :.:. . M .��:. ..............,.... . ..: �� d�Sub-.���.����: Zoning and Sub- :::- I ..................................::: i�:::::�: ..........] . ............................................................�i�i�.�i�i�i�i�i��11111 zonin� I . �� ................................ ..-.....-.-.-.............................................................. .... .... ..�:.::.i.:.:i:.�........................................................ .. .. ....'�.......................................................... ..... .... ........ ....g............................................... �:: ....... .:,. ...... "' I. .. ::: .................... :::ffi::-:+::X :X:....'.'..XX..... .. .. ............ ....... :�� ... .. -.-",-.-.-.-.-...........................���������������������:���:����]]� : I .................,........ .................... . . ....... ...................... I .I ..... ....I...................................................... , . ........................... . ... .. -.-�.-...-.-...............................������:���i�i�i�i���:���:�:�i]�� divi on Code" division Code ..........................................,. . . . ....... ::i: � .s! C d .: VEMOHV;�. .......... .........................,........1,I: I .. :: ]�:�:�: �]��;:� .... .. :� '.'.'.'..." '"""' . ..... .................................. : ... : .... ..��::. . ' " .............................. ............. . :-:-�l:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:- :::-:-:-: ............................................................... ... .. ......... ' . ........ .... . . - I ..............................:::::::: ::::.S. i.6. *--2:10" '. .......... .... ., ........... .I ....................................... `��� §ecii� . Section 210.06(0). :::: ............................... ........' I .................................. .. I '' ................ :: - .... '. I ......I..... ... I ... ............ . OW : : . . 1. I Attachment (kI241-20) • • RL,RM,RMH, RH, and RMP Districts: Additional Development Standards (eontwuw) . (0) Open Space Requirement. The minimum usable open space(private and common)for multi- family residential projects in RK R G-L and RH Districts shall be 25 percent of the residential floor area per unit. The minimum usable open space in the R1V1P district shall be 200 square feet per space, and shall be common. A portion or all of the usable open space shall be private; otherwise it shall be common. (1) Private Open Space. Private open space shall be in courts or balconies within which a horizontal rectangle has no dimension less than 10 feet for courts and 6 feet for balconies. A minimum patio area of 70 square feet shall be provided within the court. The following minimum area shall be provided: Minimum Area (Sq.Ft.) Units Above Unit Type Ground Floor Units Ground Floor Studio/1 bedroom 200 60 2 bedrooms 250 120 3 bedrooms 300 120 4 or more bedrooms 400 120 Private open space shall be contiguous to the unit and for the exclusive use of the occupants. Private open space shall not be accessible to any dwelling unit except the unit it serves and shall be physically separated from common areas by a wall or hedge at least 42 inches in height. (2) Common Onen Space. Common open space, provided by interior side yards, patios and terraces, shall be designed so that a horizontal rectangle has no dimension less than 10 feet, shall be open to the sky, and shall not include driveways or parking areas, or area required for front or street side yards. Projects with more than 20 units shall include at least one amenity, such as a clubhouse, swimming pool, tennis court, volleyball court, outdoor cooking facility, or other recreation facility. (3) A portion of the private open space requirement, not to exceed 50 percent, may be on open decks above the second story upon approval of a conditional use permit by the Zoning Administrator or Planning Commission, provided that no portion of such a deck shall exceed the height limit. (4) The Director or Zoning Administrator also may allow the open space requirement to be reduced to 10 percent of the livable area per unit for projects with less than 10 units that are within walking distance of 1,000 feet of a public park or the beach. Chapter 210 210-11 10/3/94 RL,RM, RMH, RH, and RMP Districts: Additional Development Standards (continued) (P) Balconies and Bay Windows. Balconies and bay windows may project into required yards and usable open space, subject to Section 230.68 and the following limitations: (1) Balconies shall have open railings, glass or architectural details with openings to reduce visible bulk. Balconies composed solely of solid enclosures are not allowed to project into required yards. (Q) Upper-story Setbacks. In the RM, RMH, and RH districts, the covered portion of all stories above the second shall be setback an average of an additional 10 feet from the second floor facade. average 10'setback 0 0 D0oo 000 00000 0 D � 210-UPSSPCX UPPER STORY SETBACK (R) Required Landscaping Adjoining, Streets. At least 40 percent of all visible portions of a required front or street side yard adjoining a street shall be a planting area. All subdivisions shall provide a minimum five foot (5')wide landscaped area along arterial street/highway property lines. The actual required width shall be determined during the planning process. Maintenance of said landscaped area shall be by a homeowners association, property owner or other method approved by the City of Huntington Beach. (S) Lighting. A lighting system shall be provided in all multifamily projects along all vehicular access ways and major walkways. Lighting shall be directed onto the driveways and walkways within the development and away from adjacent properties. A lighting plan shall be submitted for approval by the Director. Chapter 210 210-12 10/3/94 230.68 Building Projections Into Yards and Courts Projections into required yards and courts shall be permitted as follows: ALLOWABLE PROJECTIONS IN FEETa Front Side Street Side Rear Yard Yard Yard Yard Fireplace or chimney 2.5 2.5b 2.5 2.5 Cornice, eaves and 3 2.5b 3 3 ornamental features Mechanical equipment 2 2b 2b 2 Uncovered porches, 6 3 4 5 terraces, platforms, subterranean garages, decks, and patios not more than 3 feet in height serving only the first floor Stairs, canopies, 4 2b 4 4b awnings and uncovered porches more than 3 feet in height Bay windows 2.5 2.5b 2.5 2.5 Balconies 3 2b 3 3 Covered patios 0 0 5c 5 Notes: allo individual projection shall exceed 1/3 of the building length, and the total of all projections shall not exceed 2/3 of the building length on which they are located. bA 30-inch clearance from the property line shall be maintained. cNo projection shall extend more than 1/2 the width of the street side yard. Chapter 230 230-31 10/3/94 230.70 Measurement of Height This section establishes standards for determining compliance with the maximum building height limits prescribed for each zoning district or as modified by an overlay district. A. Datum(100) shall be set at the highest point of the curb along the front property line. If no curb exists, datum shall be set at the highest centerline of the street along the front property line. B. The differential between top of subfloor and datum shall be a maximum of two (2) feet as determined by Public Works. In the event that any subfloor, stemwall or footing is proposed greater than two (2) feet above datum, the height in excess shall be deducted from the maximum allowable ridgeline height. C. Lots with a grade differential of three(3) feet or greater between the high point and the low point, determined before rough grading, shall be subject to conditional use permit approval by the Zoning Administrator. Conditonal use permit approval shall be based upon a building and grading plan which terraces the building with the grade and which is compatible with adjacent development. 230.72 Exceptions to Height Limits Chimneys; vent pipes; cooling towers; flagpoles; towers; spires; domes; cupolas; parapet walls not more than 4 feet high;water tanks; fire towers;transmission antennae; radio and television antennas (except satellite dish antennae); and similar structures and necessary mechanical appurtenances (except wind-driven generators) may exceed the maximum permitted height in the district in which the site is located by no more than 10 feet. The Zoning Administrator may approve greater height with a conditional use permit. 230.74 Outdoor Facilities A. Permit Required. Outdoor storage and display of merchandise, materials, or equipment, including display of merchandise, materials, and equipment for customer pick-up, shall be subject to approval of a conditional use permit by the Zoning Administrator in the CG, IL, IG, CV and SP districts. Sidewalk cafes and outdoor food service accessory to an Eating and Drinking Establishment shall be permitted subject to approval of a conditional use permit by the Zoning Administrator in the CO, CG, CV, OS and SP districts, but no outdoor preparation of food or beverages shall be permitted. B. Permit Conditions: Grounds for Denial. The Zoning Administrator may require yards, screening, or planting areas necessary to prevent adverse impacts on surrounding properties. If such impacts cannot be prevented, the Zoning Administrator shall deny the conditional use permit application. Chapter 230 230-32 10/3/94 {?{{??{Kit+{ •i{tit•:'LSKtt'?SLSSK2K{.;t'iKK{S?S{i{iti tit itt{tti{w?{?'Si'St?{y:•r:{S?'trt?{{{Kti?L:it{:S{' ?4:{4:Svi:{'S{{{i•:{.{{{8:•:?{{?S???•:S{i{{.:itt•r:ttt{'?v:{•ri4:i{v ti ,r{E£f£2, ,r. 3 ,.kr,t{r?,: ,Y..:: :,sr. . rrfi##4 ':a�x#at:;:### ## k •.k:rkrrxr:�.>rkskrrrx:kkrrr:;:rkxk":#::. +:htA t;:i�F::i���kk?K#tttt{i{i2.it{i;'t:'•`.,�k??Sk{ikak}•:{{{{Sii{{S•:ti•:Sk4:tt� t?•:{?v:?{SS',•?�,•,•.• '•.k•+y`,'.•••:,�,'CyEk::�,',':...kii��:a{SS?ii4:v:x2iiZ#SS:` Sections: 231.02 Basic Requirements for Off-Street Parking and Loading 231.04 Off-Street Parking and Loading Spaces Required 231.06 Joint Use Parking 231.08 Reduced Parking for Certain Uses 231.10 Parking In-Lieu Payments Within Downtown Specific Plan Area 231.12 Parking Spaces for the Handicapped 231.14 Parking Space Dimensions 231.16 Application of Dimensional Requirements 231.18 Design Standards 231.20 Compact Parking 231.22 Driveways; Visibility 231.24 Landscape Improvements 231.26 Parking Area Plan Required 231.02 Basic Requirements for Off-Street Parking and Loading A. When Required. At the time of initial occupancy of a site, construction of a structure, or major alteration or enlargement of a site or structure, off-street parking facilities and off-street loading facilities shall be provided in accord _ with this chapter and parking area landscaping shall be provided in accord with Chapter 232. For the purposes of these requirements, "major alteration or enlargement" shall mean a change of use, an expansion of greater than 50 percent of the existing space in a non-residential building or an addition of bedrooms or units in a residential building. A change in occupancy that does not involve a change in the use classification is not considered a change in use for purposes of this requirement unless the change in occupancy involves an intensification of use or an increase in parking demand. B. Nonconforming_Parking or Loading. No existing use of land or structure shall be deemed to be nonconforming solely because of the lack of off-street parking or loading facilities required by this chapter, provided that facilities being used for off-street parking and loading as of the date of adoption of this chapter shall not be reduced in number to less than that required by this chapter. Expansion of a use with nonconforming parking shall be subject to the following requirements: 1. A multi-family residential use with nonconforming parking may be expanded by adding bedrooms or additional units provided that the expansion comply with current standards contained in this chapter; Chapter 231 231-1 10/3/94 2. A single-family residence with nonconforming parking may be expanded by adding bedrooms provided the dwelling complies with current standards contained in this chapter; and 3. A nonresidential use with nonconforming parking may be expanded less than 50 percent of the existing square footage or intensified if additional parking is provided for the expansion or intensification. Expansions of 50 percent or more of the existing square footage require the site to be in total compliance with the current parking standards contained in this chapter. C. Spaces Required for Alteration or Enlargement. The number of parking spaces or loading spaces required for an alteration or enlargement of an existing use or structure, or for a change of occupancy, shall be in addition to the number of spaces existing prior to the alteration, enlargement, or change of occupancy unless the preexisting number is greater than the number prescribed in this chapter. In this case, the number of spaces in excess of the prescribed minimum shall be counted in determining the required number of parking or loading spaces. D. Spaces Required for Multiple Uses. If more than one use is located on a site, the number of off-street parking spaces and loading spaces to be provided shall be equal to the sum of the requirements prescribed for each use. This requirement applies not only to multiple uses under separate ownership but also to multiple uses in the same ownership. If the gross floor area of individual uses on the same site is less than that for which a loading spaces would be required by Section 231.06A, but the aggregate gross floor area of all uses is greater than the minimum for which loading spaces would be required, the aggregate gross floor area shall be used in determining the required number of loading spaces. E. Location and Ownershiy. Parking facilities required by this chapter shall be on the same site as the use served, except that an adjacent lot may be used which is in the same person's possession as the structure or use. Such possession may be by deed or long-term lease, approved as to form by the City Attorney, and recorded in the office of the County Recorder. A copy of the recorded document stipulating the reservation of the property for parking purposes shall be filed with the City prior to issuance of a building permit and/or certificate of occupancy, whichever occurs first. No use shall be continued if the parking is removed from the adjacent lot unless substitute parking is provided. Parking facilities provided by a parking district or parking authority are not subject to these locational requirements. 1. Parking in Yards in R Districts. The parking of motor vehicles, trailers, campers and boats shall be prohibited on all landscaped areas within the front one-half of the lot except as provided below. (a) Oversized vehicles (see Definitions Chapter 203), campers, trailers and boats on trailers may be parked on the paved driveway area or on a paved area between the driveway and the nearest side property line provided that they do not Chapter 231 231-2 10/3/94 project over any property line and that the area is kept free of trash, debris and parts. (b) Commercial oversized vehicles(see Definitions Chapter 203) or special purpose machines shall be prohibited in any yard area. 2. Parking in Yards in C or I Districts. Required yards may be used for required parking, subject to the landscaping standards of Chapter 232. 3. Access. When a lot abuts an arterial highway and a local street, access to on-site parking shall be from the local street. When a lot abuts an alley, then access to parking shall be provided from the alley unless the Planning Commission approves a different access. When a lot abuts two arterial highways or two local streets, access shall be subject to the approval of the Director of Public Works. 4. Non-residential Parking in R Districts. Non-residential parking serving adjacent commercial or industrial uses shall not be located in any R zoned property. F. Computation of Spaces Required. If, in the application of the requirements of this chapter, a fractional number is obtained, one additional parking space or loading space shall be required. G. Other Requirements 1. Any off-street parking or loading facility which is permitted but not required shall comply with all provisions of this chapter governing location, design, improvement and operation. 2. Any motor vehicle incapable of movement by its own power and/or not licensed to operate on California streets shall be stored either in an enclosed building or entirely screened from view. 231.04 Off-Street Parking and Loading Spaces Required A. Nonresidential uses shall provide one loading space(minimum fourteen [141 feet in width, twenty [20] feet in length, and fourteen [14] feet in height) for each 20,000 square feet, or fraction thereof, of gross floor area; however, a maximum of three(3) such spaces are required for buildings exceeding 60,000 square feet. No loading space is required for non-residential uses with less than 20,000 square feet of gross floor area. B. Off-street parking spaces shall be provided in accord with the following schedule. References to spaces per square foot are to be computed on the basis of gross floor area, unless otherwise specified. Where the use is undetermined, the approving body shall determine the probable use and the number of parking and loading spaces required. In order to make this determination, the Director may require the submission of survey Chapter 231 231-3 10/3/94 data prepared by a state-registered traffic engineer for the applicant or collected at the applicant's expense. Parldng spaces over and above the minimum number specified in this section may be required by the body responsible for reviewing the use itself based on the intensity of the use. (rest of page not used) Chapter 231 231-4 10/3/94 OFF-STREET PARKING SPACES REQUIRED: SCHEDULE A Use Classification Spaces Residential Single-family Dwellings New construction 0-4 bedrooms 2 enclosed and 2 open 5 or more bedrooms 3 enclosed per unit and 3 open per unit Existing Dwellings 0-4 bedrooms 2 enclosed and 2 open' 5 or more bedrooms 2 enclosed per unit and 3 open per unit' In the RMH-A district 2 enclosed spaces per unit with up to three bedrooms, and 1 space for each additional bedroom; 1 additional space per dwelling where no on-street parking is allowed Multi-family Dwellings Studio/one bedroom 1 enclosed space per unit 2 bedrooms 2 spaces(1 enclosed) per unit 3 or more bedrooms 2.5 spaces (1 enclosed) per unit Guests 0.5 space per unit 'Open spaces may be behind any required spaces and/or on a street adjacent to the property. On-street parking may not be reserved for guests and/or guests but must be available to the - general public on a first-come, first-serve basis. Chapter 231 231-5 10/3/94 OFF-STREET PARKING SPACES REQUIRED: SCHEDULE A Ott Street Parking Use Classification Spaces Senior Studio/one bedroom 1 covered space per unit Two bedrooms 1.5 spaces per unit (1 covered) Manufactured Homes 2 spaces per unit; one covered, and one may be behind the first Guest 1 per 3 manufactured homes Rooming House 1 space per guest room plus 1 space per owner/manager plus 1 space per each 10 guest rooms Residential Care, Limited 1 per 3 beds Public and Semi-public Clubs and Lodges 1 per 35 sq. ft. used for assembly purposes of 1 per 3 fixed seats (18 inches= one seat), whichever is greater Cultural Facilities 1 per 300 sq. ft. gross floor area Day Care, General 1 per staff member plus one per classroom Government Offices 1 per 250 sq. ft. gross floor area Heliports As specified by use permit Hospitals 1 per 1.5 beds Maintenance and Service Facilities I per 500 sq. ft. Chapter 231 231-6 10/3/94 OFF-STREET PARKING SPACES REQUIRED: SCHEDULE A Off-Street Parking Use Classification Spaces Park.and Recreation Facilities As specified by conditional use permit for private facilities Public Safety Facilities As specified by the conditional use permit Religious Assembly 1 per 35 sq. ft. of public assembly area, or 1 per 3 fixed seats (18 inches= 1 seat), whichever is greater Residential Care, General 1 per 3 beds; plus additional spaces, as specified by conditional use permit Schools, Public or Private Preschools, nursery day care 1 per staff member, plus one per classroom Elementary,junior high 1.5 per classroom High school/college 7 per classroom Trade schools, music 1 per 35 square feet of conservatories instruction area Utilities, Major As specified by conditional use permit Commercial Adult Businesses As specified by conditional use permit based on actual type of use Ambulance Services 1 per 500 sq. ft.; plus 2 storage spaces Chapter 231 231-7 10/3/94 OFF-STREET PARING SPACES REQUIRED: SCHEDULE A Off-Street Parking Use Classification Spaces Animal Sales and Services Animal boarding 1 per 200 sq. ft. Animal grooming 1 per 200 sq. ft. Animal hospitals 1 per 200 sq. ft. Animal, retail sales 1 per 200 sq. ft. Artists' Studios 1 per 1,000 sq. ft. Banks and Savings &Loans 1 per 200 sq. ft. Drive-Up Service Queue space for 5 cars per teller Building Materials and Services 1 per 1,000 sq. ft. of lot area; minimum 10 plus 1/300 sq. ft. office area Catering Services 1 per 400 sq. ft. Commercial Recreation and Entertainment Bowling Alleys 3 per lane, plus 1 per 250 sq. ft. of public assembly and retail areas Electronic Game Centers 1 per 200 sq. ft. Health Clubs 1 per 200 sq. ft. Stables 1 per 3 corrals plus 1 horse trailer space for each 10 corrals plus 2 for caretaker's unit Tennis/Racquetball 3 per court Chapter 231 231-8 10/3/94 OFF-STREET PARKING SPACES REQUIRED: SCHEDULE A Off-Street Parking Use Classification Spaces Theaters 1 per 3 fixed seats, or 1 per 35 sq. ft. seating area if there are no fixed seats Other Commercial Recreation As specified by the Zoning and Entertainment Administrator or Planning Commission Communications Facilities 1 per 500 sq. ft. Eating and Drinking Establishments with less than 12 seats 1 per 200 sq. ft. with more than 12 seats 1 per 60 sq. ft. or 1 per 100 sq. ft. when on a site with 3 or more uses with dancing Plus 1 per 50 sq.ft. of dancing area with drive through service Plus queue space for 5 cars per service window Food and Beverage Sales 1 per 200 sq. ft. Furniture and Appliance Stores 1 per 500 sq. ft. excluding areas used for storage or loading, but not less than 5 Funeral and Interment Services 1 per 35 sq. ft. of seating space Hardware Stores 1 per 200 sq. ft. excluding areas used for storage or loading, but not less than 5 Horticulture, Limited 1 per 2 acres Laboratories 1 per 500 sq. ft. Chapter 231 231-9 10/3/94 OFF-STREET PARKING SPACES REQUIRED: SCHEDULE A Off-Street Parking Use Classification Spaces Maintenance and Repair Services 1 per 500 sq. ft. Marine Sales and Services 1 per 500 sq. ft. Nurseries 1 per 1,000 sq. ft. of indoor/outdoor sales and/or display lot area accessible for public viewing, but no less than 10; plus 1 per 300 sq. ft. office area Offices, Business and Professional 1 per 250 sq. ft. for less than 250,000 sq. ft.; 1 per 300 sq. ft. for 250,000 sq. ft. or more Offices, Medical and Dental 1 per 175 sq. ft. (includes out- patient medical/surgery centers) Pawn Shops 1 per 200 sq. ft. Personal Enrichment Services 1 per 35 sq. ft. of instruction area Personal Services 1 per 200 sq. ft. Research and Development Services 1 per 500 sq. ft. Retail Sales Not Listed Under 1 per 200 sq. ft. Another Use Classification Swap Meets, Indoor/Flea Markets 1/100 sq. ft. except as may be modified by the Planning Commission through the conditional use permit process, after submittal, review and approval of a _ traffic engineering study Chapter 231 231-10 10/3/94 OFF-STREET PARKING SPACES REQUIRED: SCHEDULE A Off-Street Parking Use Classification Spaces Vehicle/Equipment Sales and Services Automobile Rentals 1 per 1,000 sq. ft. of indoor/outdoor sales and/or display lot area accessible for public viewing,but no less than 10; plus 1/300 sq. ft. office area; 1/200 sq. ft. auto service area Automobile Washing(Car Wash) Full-service(attended) 10 With fuel sales 12 Self-service (unattended) 1.5 per wash stall Service Stations full-serve/repair garage 1 per 500 sq. ft. but no less than 5 self-serve 2 with convenience markets 1 per 200 sq. ft. of retail space but no less than 8 with self-serve car wash 4 with self-serve car wash 10 and convenience market -. Vehicle/Equipment Repair 1 per 200 sq. ft. but no less than 5 Vehicle/Equipment Sales and 1 per 1,000 square feet of Rentals indoor/outdoor sales and/or display lot area accessible for public viewing, but no less than 10; plus 1 per 300 sq. ft. office area; 1 per 200 sq. ft. auto service area Chapter 231 231-11 10/3/94 OFF-STREET PARKING SPACES REQUIRED: SCHEDULE A Off-Street Parking Use Classification Spaces Vehicle Storage 1 per 5,000 sq. ft. lot area; no less than 5 Visitor Accommodations: Bed and Breakfast 1 per guest room plus 1 guest and 1 manager/owner space Hotels, Motels 1.1 per guest room; plus 1 per passenger transport vehicle (minimum of 2 stalls) and 2 spaces for any manager's unit and parking for other uses as required by this schedule. Single Room Occupancy, Residential 0.5 per unit if project is Hotels within 2,000 feet of public bus stop; 1.0 per unit if project is not with 2,000 feet of public bus stop; plus 1.0 per each resident staff member and 0.5 per all remaining personnel Warehouse and Sales Outlets 1 per 200 square feet Industrial Speculative buildings 1 per 500 square feet (maximum 10% office area) Manufacturing, research 1 per 500 square feet assembly, packaging Wholesaling, warehousing and 1 per 1,000 square feet distributing space Offices 1 per 250 square feet if office area exceeds 10 percent of gross floor area Chapter 231 231-12 _ 10/3/94 OFT-STREET PARKING SPACES REQUIRED: SCHEDULE A Off-Street Parking Use Classification Spaces Outside uses: Storage, wrecking/ 1 per 5,000 square feet of salvage and lumber yards lot area, but no less than 5 Mini-storage facilities Single-story 1 per 5,000 square feet Each additional story 1 per 2,000 square feet plus 2 spaces for any caretaker's unit (rest of page not used) Chapter 231 231-13 10/3/94 I 231.06 Joint Use Parking In the event that two (2) or more uses occupy the same building, lot or parcel of land, the total requirement for off street parking shall be the sum of each individual use computed separately except as provided in this section. The Planning Commission or Zoning Administrator may grant a reduction in the total number of required spaces as part of the entitlement for the use or uses, or by conditional use permit when no other entitlement is required, when the applicant can demonstrate that the various uses have divergent needs in terms of daytime versus nighttime hours or weekday versus weekend hours. Such joint use approvals shall be subject to the following: 1. The maximum distance between the building or use and the nearest point of the parking spaces or parking facility shall be 250 feet; and 2. There shall be no conflict in the operating hours based on parking space requirements for the different uses on the parcel; and 3. Evidence of an agreement for such joint use shall be provided by proper legal instrument, approved as to form by the City Attorney. The instrument shall be recorded in the office of the County Recorder and shall be filed with the City prior to issuance of building permit and/or certificate of occupancy, whichever occurs first. 231.08 Reduced Parking for Certain Uses A. The Planning Commission may approve a conditional use permit reducing the number of spaces to less than the number specified in the schedule in Section 231.04, provided that the following findings are made: 1. The parking demand will be less than the requirement in Schedule A; and 2. The probable long-term occupancy of the building or structure, based on its design,will not generate additional parking demand; and 3. A Transportation Demand Management plan which exceeds the minimum required by Section 230.36 has been approved by the Director. B. In reaching a decision, the Planning Commission shall consider survey data prepared by a state-registered traffic engineer that is submitted by an applicant or collected at the applicant's request and expense. 231.10 Parking In-Lieu Payments Within Downtown Specific Plan Area Parking requirements for private property uses within the Downtown Specific Plan Area may be met by payment of an "in-lieu" fee for providing parking in a parking facility subject to conditional use permit approval by the Planning Commission. Said fee may be paid in multiple installments. The first installment in an amount established by City Council Resolution for each parking space shall be paid prior to the issuance of building permits or Chapter 231 231-14 10/3/94 of a certificate of occupancy, whichever comes first. Any successive installments shall be paid and secured by a mechanism established in the conditions of approval. 231.12 Parking Spaces for the Handicapped New and existing parldng facilities shall comply with the State Handicapped Regulations as mandated in State law. 231.14 Parking Space Dimensions Required parking spaces shall have the following minimum dimensions in feet. Striping requirements are depicted in Diagram A. Directional signs and/or pavement markings shall be provided in any facility in which one-way traffic is established. Angle Stall Stall. Aisle Width' of Parkins Width Depth 1-way 2-way 00 9 19 (with 8 ft. striped 12 20 (Parallel) maneuvering area between every 2 spaces) 300 9 19 14 20 450 9 19 15 20 600 9 19 20 20 900 9 19 26 26 Residential 9 19 25 25 Compact 8 17 subject to Section 231.20 'Minimum 24 feet when determined by Fire Department to be a fire lane. (rest of page not used) Chapter 231 231-15 10/3/94 300 ,450 & 600 Parking F i & 90° Parking 24 In. Exterior i Dimension T 19 Ft. j 18 In. Interior Dimension I Parallel Parking 9 ft. I8 ft. 19 ft. 19 ft. g ftI O:=V9DRAW=i STRP.BM STRIPING REQUIREMENTS DIAGRAM A Chapter 231 231-16 10/3/94 231.16 Application of Dimensional Requirements A. Relation to Walls and Posts/Columns. A parking space on a site with more than five(5)parking spaces and which is adjacent to a wall over twelve(12) inches in height shall be increased in width by three(3)feet. Post/columns may be permitted along the side of each space only within three(3) feet of the head and foot of each stall. B. Vertical Clearance. Vertical clearance for parking spaces shall be 7 feet, except that an entrance may be 6.67 feet. When handicapped parking is provided, vertical clearance shall comply with California Code of Regulations (Title 24, Part 2, Chapter 2-71). For residential uses, non-structural improvements including wall-mounted shelves, storage surface racks, or cabinets may encroach into the vertical clearance, provided a minimum 4.5 feet vertical clearance is maintained above the finished floor of the garage within the front 5 feet of a parking space. C. Wheel Stops. All spaces shall have wheel stops 2.5 feet from a fence, wall, building or walkway. D. Parking Space Dimension Reduction. When a parking space abuts a landscape planter, the front 2 feet of the required 19 foot length for a parking space may overhang the planter as provided in Chapter 232. 231.18 Design Standards A. Public works requirements. Drive entrances on arterial highways shall be located in a manner to coordinate with future median openings and in accord with Department of Public Works standards. The paved surface of driveways and drive entrances shall comply with Department of Public Works specifications. Parking facilities shall be prepared, graded, and paved to ensure that all surface waters will drain into a public street, alley, storm drain, or other drainage system approved by the Department of Public Works. Aisle ways without adjacent parking shall be a minimum 24 feet in width. B. Circulation design. All off-street parking spaces shall have access to a public street or alley, and shall have internal circulation, safe entrances and exits, drives, and aisles in conformance with City standards. Every required parking space shall have unobstructed access from an aisle without moving another vehicle. All parking spaces, except residential garages and carports for single- family dwellings and duplexes, shall have forward travel to and from parking facilities when access is to a dedicated street. Traffic circulation shall be designed so that no vehicle need enter a public street in order to progress from one aisle to any other aisle within the same development. Chapter 231 231-17 10/3/94 • i Commercial centers which have 200 parking spaces or more shall have at least one main entrance designed as depicted in Diagram B. low 4ft. i R 24ft _4ft. 4ft. COMMERCIAL CENTER MAIN ENTRANCE FOR PARKING LOTS WITH OVER 200 SPACES DIAGRAM B (rest of page not used) Chapter 231 231-18 10/3/94 A minimum 3-foot-by-3-foot-wide maneuvering area shall be provided at the end of dead-end parking aisles less than 150 feet in length. A vehicle turnaround space shall be provided at the end of all dead-end parking aisles which exceed 150 feet in length(measured from the closest intersecting aisle with complete circulation). The maneuvering area and turnaround space shall be designed as depicted in Diagram C. Other turnaround arrangements providing the same maneuverability are subject to approval by the Director. 2 1 IL Wheel—� I Maneuvering 19& I► stop I area I 9 ff. 26 ft. I 3 3 ft \' 12"Stop off=a '/ cr.OMMUVA23I ANDMV TURN-AROUND SPACE AND MANUEVERING AREA DIAGRAM C C. Illumination. All parking area lighting shall be energy-efficient and designed so as not to produce glare on adjacent residential properties. Security lighting shall be provided in areas accessible to the public during nighttime hours, and such lighting shall be on a time-clock or photo-sensor system. D. Residential parking_ 1. Garages and Carports. All required garages and carports, permitted as accessory structures, shall be constructed at the same time as the main building and shall be used only by persons residing on the premises for storage of personal vehicles and other personal property. 2. Assignment of Spaces. Each studio and one bedroom dwelling unit shall have a minimum of one assigned parking space and each two or more bedroom units shall have a minimum of two assigned parking spaces. Each dwelling unit shall have an enclosed, assigned space which shall be within 200 feet walking distance of that unit and designated as such. The assigned spaces shall be provided with the rental of a dwelling unit without any additional cost. All unassigned spaces provided on site shall be open and only used for the parking of vehicles by persons residing on the property or their guests. Chapter 231 231-19 10/3/94 3. Turnina Radius. The minimum turning radius for any garage, carport or open parking space, entered directly from an alley or driveway, shall be 25 feet. (See Diagram D) STREET GARAGE ---—-—- -—-—-—-AtLEY-. DRIV WAY STREET STREET G ADW9DRAW12S7-TUR N.BW TURNING RADIUS DIAGRAM D 4. Driveway Width. Length of Drive Minimum Driveway Width 150 feet or less 10 ft. for single family dwellings 20 ft. for multi-family dwellings Greater than 150 feet 20 feet clear width Exception: when designated as fire lane, all Fire Department requirements shall apply. 5. Guest Parking. All guest parking shall be fully accessible. F .- 6. Coastal Zone. Each dwelling unit located in the Coastal Zone shall have a minimum of 2 on-site parking spaces. If the total coastal parking requirements exceed the total minimum parking as required by this chapter, the additional required parking spaces may be in tandem with Chapter 231 231-20 10/3/94 enclosed spaces, provided the tandem space is assigned to an enclosed space and complies with the required turning radius. 7. Planned Residential Developments. In a planned residential development where a garage is constructed a minimum of 20 feet from the curb, the driveway in front of the garage may be used to provide one of the required uncovered spaces. 8. Driveway Air Space. The air space above all driveways which exceed 150 feet in length shall remain open to the sky, except that eaves or roof overhangs with a maximum 4-foot projection may be permitted above a height of 14 feet. 9. Storage Space. 100 cubic feet of enclosed storage space for each unit shall be provided in a secured parking area where there is no private garage. E. Nonresidential Parking and Loading. 1. Designated Parking. Parking spaces within an integrated, non-residential complex shall not be designated for exclusive use of any individual tenant except as authorized by a parking management plan approved by the Director. 2. Parking Controls. Parking controls, such as valet service, gates or booths, and/or collection of fees may be permitted when authorized by conditional use permit approval by the Planning Commission. 3. Minimum Driveway Width. 25 feet when providing access to the rear of a structure. 4. Reciprocal Access. Reciprocal ingress/egress access with adjacent properties shall be provided for all commercial properties. 5. Loading Location. On a site adjoining an alley, a required loading space shall be accessible from the alley unless alternative access is approved by the Director. An occupied loading space shall not prevent access to a required parking space. Truck or rail loading, dock facilities, and doors for such facilities shall not face or be located within 45 feet of property zoned or general planned residential. 6. Loading Design. Any loading facility shall be designed and located so that vehicles need not extend onto the public sidewalks, streets or alleys - during loading activities. 7. Landscape Buffer. Where the side or rear yard of a parcel is used for loading activities and abuts an R District, a landscaped buffer along the property line shall be provided. Chapter 231 231-21 10/3/94 F. Seasonal and Temnorary Parking Lots. Seasonal and temporary parking lots may be allowed upon approval of a conditional use permit by the Zoning Administrator. Seasonal lots may operate only from Memorial Day through the third weekend in September and shall be located within 1,000 yards of the mean high tide line of the Pacific Ocean. Temporary and seasonal commercial parking lots may be permitted for a maximum of five years. The design and layout of seasonal and temporary parking lots shall comply with this chapter, Fire Department requirements, and the following standards: 1. Paving shall be 2 inches of asphalt over compacted native soil, or as approved by the Department; except seasonal parking lots shall be surfaced to meet minimum specifications for support of vehicles and to provide dust control as required by the Zoning Administrator. 2. Boundaries of such lots shall be marked off and secured by chain or cable, with posts a minimum of 3 feet in height, solidly built. At a minimum, posts shall consist of 4" x 4" wood or equivalent metal posts a minimum of 1-1/2 inches in diameter securely set in the ground and placed 8 feet on center. The posts shall be connected with at least 1 strand of 1/2-inch cable or chain securely fastened to each post. An opening shall be provided to accommodate vehicle access during business hours. Seasonal lots shall be secured to prevent overnight parking between the closing hour on one business day and the opening hour the following business day. 3. Temporary parking lots shall have landscaped planters with an inside dimension of 3 feet along street-side property lines excluding driveways. Landscaping shall be protected from vehicle and pedestrian damage by w&el'liumpers(asphalt, concrete, or wood), or asphalt or concrete curbs, or any other design that will provide adequate protection. 4. Seasonal parking lots are exempt from landscaping requirements of Chapter 232. 5. Directional and informational signs shall be displayed on-site to identify the entrance(s), fees, and hours of operation. Such signs shall be-located at the entrance of the parking lot and shall not exceed 12 square feet and shall be 6 feet high. Signs for seasonal parking lots shall be removed from the site each season no later than the third weekend in September. Automatic entry devices or fee collection points shall be set back a minimum of 20 feet from the public right-of-way, or at a distance recommended by the Department of Public Works and approved by the Director. 7• An attendant shall be on duty at all times during business hours of seasonal'parkirig lots. 8. An approved fire extinguisher shall be provided on the premises during - business hours. Chapter 231 231-22 10/3/94 9. The site shall be maintained in a clean condition, free from trash and debris. Trash containers shall be placed on the site to accommodate and store all trash that accumulates on the lot. For seasonal parking lots, a certificate of insurance for combined single limit bodily injury and/or property damage including products liability in the amount of$1,000,000 per occurrence shall be filed with the Department of Administrative Services. A hold harmless agreement holding the City harmless shall also be filed with the Department of Administrative Services. Subsequent to approval of an application for any seasonal or temporary parking lot, the applicant shall meet all standards and requirements and install all improvements. The parking lot shall then be inspected and approved by the Director prior to issuance of a Certificate to Operate. G. Parking Structures. Parking structures above or below grade shall be subject to conditional use permit approval by the Planning Commission when no other entitlement is required. All parking structures shall comply with the following requirements: 1. Transition ramps which are also used as back-up space for parking stalls shall have a maximum slope of 5 percent. The maximum slope for transition ramps with no adjacent parking spaces shall be 10 percent. A ramp used for ingress and egress to a public street shall have a transition section at least 16 feet long and a maximum slope of 5 percent. 2. Parking structures with over 300 spaces shall provide secondary circulation ramps and additional ingress and egress if deemed necessary by a traffic study prepared by a state-registered traffic engineer. 3. Parking structures shall be provided with a minimum 10-foot-wide perimeter landscape planter at ground level. Parked cars shall be screened on each level through landscape planters or trellises and/or decorative screening wall or railings. The Design Review Board shall approve the landscaping plan. 4. All parking structures shall be architecturally compatible with existing or proposed structures and shall be subject to review and approval by the Design Review Board prior to hearing. The Design Review Board shall consider the following factors in reviewing a proposal: bulk, scale, proportion, building materials, colors, signage, architectural features, and landscaping. 5. All parking structures proposed for conversion to a fee parking arrangement shall be subject to conditional use permit approval by the Planning Commission. Chapter 231 231-23 10/3/94 231.20 Compact Parking The Planning Commission, City Council, or Zoning Administrator,whichever is the review body, may allow use of compact parking to satisfy a portion of the required parking upon finding that compact parking will result in a more effective and efficient circulation pattern and parking layout and enhance the general appearance of the development and its surroundings. Compact spaces shall be distributed throughout the parking area and have the same aisle width as full-size spaces. Compact spaces shall be marked "COMPACT" on the foot of the stall. The number permitted shall be subject to the following standards: A. Non-residential developments with a minimum of 20 spaces shall be permitted to have 20 percent of the total spaces as compact parking. B. Residential developments with a minimum of 50 units may have 20 percent of the non-guest parking spaces as compact provided that an equitable system of assignment and distribution has been established. 231.22 Driveways; Visibility Visibility of a driveway crossing a street or alley property line or of intersecting driveways shall be consistent with the requirements of Section 230.88. 231.24 Landscape Improvements Landscape, planting and irrigation plans shall be prepared consistent with the requirements of Chapter 232. 231.26 Parking Area Plan Required _. Prior to the construction, reconstruction, or restriping of an off-street parking area, a parking area plan shall be submitted to the Director for the purpose of indicating compliance with the provisions of this section. This plan shall include: A. Location and description of fencing and architectural screen walls. B. Location and placement of parking stalls, including bumpers, striping and circulation, all dimensioned to permit comparison with approved parking standards. C. Location and placement of lights provided to illuminate the parking area. D. A drainage plan showing drainage to a public way in accordance with accepted standards or practices. E. A landscape, planting and irrigation plan prepared consistent with the requirements of Chapter 232. Single-family dwellings on pre-existing lots are exempt from this requirement. Chapter 231 231-24 10/3/94 City of Huntington Beach .s g 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 . OFFICE OF THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR November 14, 1994 Mike Ruane, Director Environmental Management Agency 300 N. Flower Street 3rd Floor Santa Ana, CA 92702-4048 Dear Mr. Ruane: The City of Huntington Beach is extremely interested in participating with the County of Orange as an equal partner in the negotiations for the development for the Bolsa Chica. As the City most affected by development in the Bolsa Chica, we are very concerned with the impacts of the project on City services. The City's geography invites the residents of future development to utilize and rely upon City facilities and services. Our fiscal analysis of the proposed development plans (Option A, Option B or the applicant's plan) indicates that the proposals will have a negative fiscal impact to the City. We believe that a cooperative effort between the City and County in negotiating a development agreement with the Koll company will ultimately result in the most beneficial agreement for all parties. The City appreciates your consideration of these matters and looks forward to working with the County. Sincerely, Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrator MTU:HZ:kjl (k1248) Telephone (714) 536-5202 ' � REC ANE A PART OF THE RECORD AT - THE COUNCIL MEETING OF��' OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK NE%v URBAN WEST, INC CONNIE BROOKWAY,CITY CLERK Sio Broadway,Suite ioo LIRBJ Santa Monica,CA 9040I rr FAX 310.394.6872 i n qD G F i_, Telephone 310.394.3379 I j . S E A C L I F F PARTNERS , `n'I } 7 1994 October 26, 1994 k;r Mayor Linda Moulton-Patterson CITY cic:,:: CITY HALL RECEIVED FROM-, 2000 Main Street AND MADE A PART OF TF" IL MEETING Huntington Beach, CA 92648 THE OFFICE OF THE C[ _. CONNIE BROOKWA`!, _: �iK Dear Mayor: We received a copy of the enclosed flyer printed by the "Seacliff Coalition" and believe we should bring some points to your attention. The subject flyer is about our building projects as well as the Bolsa Chica project. We will speak only to the Seacliff Partner's projects. The flyer states that the Coalition is focused on "preventing" Seacliff Partners from proceeding with "new construction and streets." As you know, all of the new construction and streets have been approved by the City and are consistent with the plans, ordinances and policies including applicable Specific Plans and a Development Agreement. We believe this needs to be emphasized by the City when it communicates with concerned residents. Additionally, regarding the flyer's discussion of the future extension of Seapoint Street: *As far as we know, the extension of Seapoint Street is final based on public hearings and approved tentative maps and conditions. Please refer to our letter of August 4, 1994 regarding our willingness to cooperate with the Council regarding the community interest, provided that we are not adversely affected by changes after the approval of the tentative maps. *The Council and staff should also be aware that the flyer contains incorrect information regarding the road. The flyer states that"30,000 automobiles per day will- travel this route". A traffic study prepared for the City in 1990 calculated a 20,500 ADT (average daily trip) for Seapoint Street. Additionally, the most recent City study (August, 1994) lowered that projection to 14,000 cars per day. We believe that the public is entitled to the latest and most accurate information available. r M • October 26, 1994 Mayor Moulton-Patterson Page Two It is our desire to always be supportive of community interests whenever we are able. However;when those interests are apparently directed to preventing the implementation of approved City plans, conditions and agreements and convey inaccurate information, we believe it is necessary to bring it to the City's attention. Sincerely, SEACLIFF PARTNERS By: New Urban West, Inc. 1 Tom Zanic Vice President Enclosure cc: Michael Uberuaga, City Administrator Ray Silver, Assistant City Administrator Dr. Richard Marrs Al deLorm The SeaCliff Coalition SeaCliff on the Greens - Club Series The SeaCliff Estates Huntington SeaCliff Homeowners The SeaCliff Coalition is a union of volunteer Huntington Beach Homeowners with a common set of goals: • Preserve and enhance the quality of living for all SeaCliff Residents • Protect and the flora and fauna of the Bolsa Chica Wetlands We have been accomplishing these objectives by making multiple presentations to the Huntington Beach City Council and Planning Commission as well as participating in meetings with city administrators and engineers. We are focused on preventing local developers (SeaCliff Partners and Koll Company) from impinging on our freedoms and quality of living with new construction and streets which will bring increased traffic, intolerable noise and air pollution, and will introduce new levels of crime and safety problems into our neighborhoods. In a short seven months, the SeaCliff Coalition has become a strong player in city politics. We have a reciprocal supporting relationship with the Sierra Club Bolsa Chica Task Force, the Bolsa Chica Land Trust, Huntington Beach Tomorrow, and the Surfriders Foundation. We communicate regularly with Mayor.Moulton-Patterson and Council Members Bauer, Sullivan, Winchell, and Leipzig. To date, we have persuaded the City Council and Orange County Planners to change the basic style of the Bolsa Chica Linear Park (Phase 1) from an active park with turf-grass and a forty car parking lot,to a passive park with natural and native plants and no parking lot. Currently, we are participating in an appeal to the California Coastal Commission on a more detailed construction of the Linear Park. Indeed, we have won on most items regarding the Linear Park and will continue to follow through on its development. Our current project is to stop Seapoint Avenue from connecting to Pacific Coast Highway for all traffic except emergency vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists. City Planners project that 30,000 automobiles per day will travel this route if Seapoint is open to all traffic. Clearly, this will erode the quality of living for all SeaCliff Residents. With our attorney Barbara Lichman, we have persuaded the City Council to invest in a $30,000 focused study regarding the connection of Seapoint Avenue to Pacific Coast Highway for all vehicles. The results of this study will be presented to a City Council Study Group on August S, 1994. Key Coalition members and our attorney will be present to receive the information and to identify the impact to otir community. Results from this study group should be a major factor as to how the City Council will vote on the Seapoint extension to Pacific Coast Highway. a. I y • To date, we have incurred and have paid legal fees of 52826.42 to our'attorney. We solicited funds from a limited number of SeaCliff residents and have collected $3050.00. This leaves the Coalition with a balance of $223.58. Currently we need additional funds to continue our fight through September 1994 to stop Seapoint from becoming a major highway. The only use of coalition funds is for legal fees and postage. The steering committee of the Coalition has donated hundreds of hours planning and attending meetings and will continue these struggles as long as they have support. The SeaCliff Coalition bank account is a joint checking account in the names of the SeaCliff Coalition - Richard Marrs and Al deLorm. All monies have and will be accounted for, and all unused funds will be returned to financial supporters on a proportional basis when the Coalition concludes its projects. For our own protection, we are perusing incorporation if costs are not prohibitive. In conclusion, we are hereby soliciting funds from you to help us in maintaining and expanding upon the quality of lining that we enjoy here in the SeaCliff area. Previous donations have ranged from $100.00 to $500.00 per residence. We would welcome, however, any amount you wish to contribute. Please make your checks payable to the SeaCliff Coalition and mail them in the supplied addressed envelope. If you have any questions or concerns regarding these endeavors, please give us a call. Our thanks to you for your support! Sincerely, Dr. Richard (Buck) Marr 969-4472 cl� Al deLorm 969-4134 G�oti Bar ara Marrs t 969-4472 STATE OF CALIFORNIA—RESOURCES AGENCY PETE WILSON,Oovornor DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION P.O.BOX 9428% _ SACRAMENTO 9429"001 �_� LZ (916) 653-8380 FEB 199� FEB 2 2 1994 REC � � �� ED } � OR81VUL LLi JN T Y RIA FEB 2 2S94 ENVIRONMENTAL PLANP I;4G.:: Mr. Paul R. Lamming DIVI";0V;4 EMA Elootr ironmental Planning Division County of Orange Post Office BOIL 4048 RECEIVED FROM to U Santa Ana, California 92702-4048 AND MADEAPA OFTHE-RECORD AT THE COUNCIL MEETING OF !/-7 2y OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK Dear Mr. Tanning: CONNIE BROOKWAY,CITY CLERK Comments on Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Proposed Bolsa Chica Proiect The of Parks and Recreation has reviewed the subject environmental documents for the proposed Bolsa Chica project. We welcome restoration and enhancement of wetlands within California, especially adjacent to or near units of the State Park System. While we encourage such activity in the Bolsa Chica area, the Department is not able to endorse any alternative in the DEIR which includes a cha=mel cut through Bolsa Chica State Beach. It is our,belief that such a development would have significant, enduring, and unacceptable impacts to the beach, State Beacom operations and public safety. Offered below are further major concerns: T3MAL CHANNEL 1. A tidal channel would create a permanent loss of 4201 of popular public beach. Other than having the project purchase private breach property adjacent to the existing public beach, there is no full C(` mitigation for beach loss. 2. Department liability and visitor safety are adversely impacted with the creation of an inlet and jetties. Unsafe conditions will exist, y� including; standing rip currents, dangerous tidal currents, cl impediments to swimm g and surfing, and an attractive nuisance for visitors on the beach. Shoaling and bottom configuration changes will increase the frequency of neck/back injuries. 3. Operational problems are created when access and visibility for emergency and routine responses by employees are limited by a divided beach. The bike path access is only partial mitigation for loss of natural aooess. It will cost our Department a significant amount of money to provide services to the changed beach configuration. A similar channel entrance, the Talbert Channel entrance at Axmtingt= State Beach, has created a significant workload increase for lifeguards and peace offioers. During 1992, over 1,200 safety contacts were mace in the channel, and at least one rescue was made under the Pacific Coast Highway bridge on an incoming tide. v i �/ i Mr. Paul R. Ianninq Page Two 4. Sand transport will be impacted by jetty installation, and necessitate dredging and relocation of sand. These activities adversely impact beach user safety and quality of experience. It -will degrade both sand and water quality. There is no standard or mi ni z yn criteria for scheduling beach nourishment. Dredging operations are triggered by inlet or flood bar impacts only. There is no mention of what penalties will be assessed for being late. S. Sand loss due to the inlet and jetties will cause less sand to be deposited up and down coast. . The public beach is rather narrow and will be eroded even further after the project. Depending upon the availability and timing of beach replenishment, this may be a chronic impact, and exposes State Beach facilities to damage by storms and high surf events by having less beach to act as a buffer. 6. A beach revetment of 15001 on State Beach property will be required to protect State Beach facilities and Pacific Coast Highway adjacent to the inlet. Construction of this dangerous revetment would not be necessary if the inlet plan is rejected. Further, concerns over dosed rock, holes between rocks, and the danger to beach goers, surfers, swiamers and bike riders will be remedied. The proposed one to two foot of sand cover to this structure will be gone with the first storm and should not be considered as mitigation or a permanent solution. 7. Water quality will be degraded with multiple source impacts emptying into a recreational use zone. Increased siltation, turbidity, urban rur-off, erosion, organics, bacteria and flood control outfall will all contribute to negatively impact this near shore body of water, and increase the potential for closures. With up to 1,198 newly graded acres, increased turbidity and buried oil production oontam;*+a+*+ts will create significant adverse impacts. The BGGW channel will deposit a sediment pollution and debris load, as well as increased levels of nutrients and oontaminants, especially trace metals, oil and grease. There are no provisions for booming or filtering debris material as are presently used for the EOGW cannel as it enters the outer Bolsa Bay. AESTEMIC IMPACTS 1. Loss of upland and lowland open space due to the buildout of open space areas will negatively igxwt the viewshed from the beach. Avoiding development in the lowlands and placing conditions on building (design standards and clustering) will moderate these iq=tS• • TIERRA ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES October 28, 1994 Dr. Jan Vandersloot Bolsa Chica Land Trust 207 21st Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 SUBJECT: MUTED TIDAL RESTORATION OF BOLSA CHICA WETLAND Dear Dr. Vandersloot: As requested by the Bolsa Chica Land Trust, I have prepared a preliminary proposal for the restoration of Bolsa Chica Wetlands using a muted tidal regime. This proposal incorporates the . adaptive management strategy developed by Dr. Joy Zedler and colleagues at the Pacific Estuarine Research Laboratory (PERL) at San Diego State University. It is my opinion that the muted tidal alternative will significantly improve the quality of the non-tidal lowlands while minimizing cost and environmental impacts. The restoration of Bolsa Chica Wetland is a major undertaldng that has been in the planning process for more than 10 years. The 1986 Coastal Commission Conditionally Certified LUP required restoration of 915 acres of high quality, fully functioning wetlands. The 1989 Bolsa Chica Planning Coalition Concept Plan provided for a minimum of 1,000 acres of restored wetlands at Bolsa Chica. On the other hand, the muted tidal restoration plan would restore approximately 1,200 acres. While many alternatives and revisions have been examined, the project remains ambitious and controversial. The muted tidal restoration, or Alternative 1 as developed by the State Coastal Conservancy and Romberg Tiburon-Center in May 1990, represents a non-destructive and inexpensive restoration alternative. The restoration proposed by the Koll Company includes substantial grading, breaching of the State beach to provide a tidal inlet, and other habitat modifications. The installation of a tide gate or other mechanism for providing muted tidal flushing to degraded areas is straight-forward and affordable. More importantly, the muted tidal alternative is conducive to the adaptive management approach. The adaptive management process involves the long-term functional assessment of the restoration project. Phases of the restoration are implemented and monitored, problems identified, and remedial measures incorporated into the plan. 9903-E Businesspark Ave., San Diego, CA 92131-1120 Phone: (619)578-9064 • Fax: (619) 578-3646 •It I Dr. Jan Vandersloot Bolsa Chica Land Trust October 28, 1994 Page 2 In the case of the Bolsa Chica muted tidal alternative, the existing water control structure where the North Main/Freeman Creek Channel enters the California Department of Fish and Game Ecological Reserve would be repaired or replaced with a tide gate or equivalent mechanism. Once the blockage is circumvented, tidal water will flow through the existing channels into the lowland wetlands. The primary goal of this action would be to increase tidal circulation to the lowland areas presently cut-off from tidal influence. Additional goals would include increased vascular plant productivity and increased food chain support, leading to increased use by wildlife. The success of this action would be monitored over a predetermined period of time. The effectiveness of the water control structure in providing muted tidal circulation could be assessed over a single tidal cycle, over a series of tidal cycles, or on a seasonal or annual basis. Seasonal assessment over at least one full year is recommended. It is anticipated that the muted tidal alternative will provide sufficient water to the current non- tidal areas due to the subsidence of those areas. Just as muted tidal flows enter the Ecological Reserve via Huntington Harbor, so should those same flows enter the now impounded areas. In fact, during initial monitoring, the potential for flooding would require careful attention. The quality of the water delivered via the muted tidal alternative should be monitored on the same relative time scale as is the tidal prism; seasonally for at least one year. Dissolved oxygen, temperature, and salinity should be monitored at a minimum. Monitoring could be conducted by a citizen group such as the Bolsa Chica Conservancy. Monitoring of the attainment of the additional goals of increased vascular plant.productivity, food chain support, .and wildlife usage is also recommended. Monitoring protocols should follow those developed by the Pacific Estuarine Research Laboratory in A Manual for Assessing Coastal Wetlands in Southern California (1990). A number of other issues remain to be finalized in the proposed restoration of this system. For example, the design of the coastal transition Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHAs) remains unresolved. The adaptive management strategy allows for this and other restoration components to proceed through the planning stages independently of the muted tidal circulation component. While muted tidal circulation is being monitored, other phases can be independently finalized, implemented and monitored for success. A tidal inlet breaching Bolsa Chica State Beach could be compatible with this muted tidal restoration plan if the inlet is placed in a location approximating the original inlet entering Outer Bolsa Bay. Such an inlet would be studied and phased into the restoration after success of the muted tidal restoration plan is monitored over time. Dr. Jan Vandersloot Bolsa Chica Land Trust October 28, 1994 Page 3 In conclusion, it is my opinion that the muted tidal restoration alternative should receive the highest consideration of the proposed restoration alternatives. It is easily implemented with minimal impact to existing habitats, has a high probability of successfully increasing tidal circulation to impounded areas, and can be modified to include alternative methods of increasing tidal circulation in the event that it fails in that regard. Sincerely, a,-, /\\� k Chris xordby Principal Biologist • � J'It` " rr//,�,•/� •S.•�li. ,'F r�{t s.�' �''t.- : •. ttr/(,11 !!11 t:- f•7.� . .1 ,1Z•. t.� ,v Z'..,,'��I• •r� ,..,;,. :it.aiti!�f�'I�,t� sti � �(�,(.�y���j}y'p�, -„ • • '1' '► , ..y�^'a;•. 7 'i• ��•�;,�iK'1`••`+ful' •{>/4;;;�fi�i �1' �);:;•'� �` <1�S�� i1' ••'`P",t ! '/.�' rn • ••• I'` rr J;�Jj ' ...;•'� j��C/J, �:� �1 it�l. .r 7�•Y ..�y,`�'�••���?L`,,.. i � a�� ''� !J ';:'.a�Y.,�+�'�'•';• •.��:�Ph:+ .t;. +fZ{{CCL��•~}�*�'/ /' ' •�, i. j+. y u r •�•�(� +, �, J` ..•41,/. �t'ySJ}. �n '.Y��S�f :�y � r 1; U15 • I �.[: - '�,, •nlhi4 :- :Y41. r•• apt ••'tip. +�:�'� S`�/.: '� ?'\' :1 • 1� .' 'f' ,�`� •�f'f,C,�e'�,(�Vk '`�` �!'���+ray- ����' •i�''••'ti' �'' '�: rt If :'ii•I;;'i''%%��'{ fly �•\• �1 ) `•• �': f..�'���i�-, �, fj��l�..• :., 'h '���.'_:'�••''r.�`' N' irl• { � 1;4- � Y,i �•.�j:• � .•r ��`\• ,�'•y ,?51��1 r��; ..e•, 7 k y�,.k� .' `:1"j{ •/..�}�=, %(tR'F •••i ir5 f �r"'�' ,•, i' {. 4„/• � , JAR-. • •�. �� /lY� !�•-« �•�♦ I.'ri t i .�j✓ +J' ha. �,:• "j •��i 'i .�.. y PAl�� � i � it 19201% W. TQMZ • " 1 Ci i is 0. : — l `%. .1 ' T' '• f r 1 /� T ,"'i��.'� 1i t''1�`.3i' ^`'t��:.`\>• .iti•s:11��,+j� ,,t '' 1.�� • f. 1. �_ .? �' 1. '+ / `✓J< tea`, ' `.' `�,}} "f ' : f. ! I :� 1,{�. LI'� f. �� .,' �� lltyt cR � .t �''� �\��, .,'��• ,t'1'�.:�: . iv ro /rr� (' • �r ,, �� ,�. t I1 11111 �• / r-- • , :,t'.. :\" .'i\� ��f, [Lb; �; •��I r J%:�� . l �t *,• If I • ..:..........:...� l••).,.� ;f. i^ !,��itf�;���;i/ � 1� ��� ` 'M ...'`�.71 \\.. ��tt� \! �!``. yf��t�t� ��� S+ ,`k;>• RECEIVED G!T1' CLERK CITY OF HUNTI►JGTON BEACH,CALIF. Noy 7 3 49 Pill I Rernarks bu rne►nbers of the Balsa Chica Land Trust Board of Dire tor" To the Hunt ngton Beach City Council on October 3/ 1 1994 SubJeo.t Potential Citu input to Orange County Planning Cor7 mossion (arid) Orange County Board of Supervisors concer nwng Local Coastal Program for Balsa Chica as submitted by Koll Real Estate Group Alternatives, per agenda 1 ) No Development 2) Principles, if development occurs Sc rIT CUM?k_ oct31 SETTING THE STAGE - VIEWING THE GREATER VISION I would like to address alternative #1 to the LCP - the "No Development" alternative . During the Koll application and EIR/EIS process these past few years, the emphasis has been on the details of the developer' s application such as how many dwelling units should be allowed, what the environmental impacts of development would be , and which restoration plan is best; etc . The "No Development" option is the first opportunity we have had to turn the focus away from these details and toward the vas potential of this area and the national treasure that it could become once saved and properly cleaned up and maintained. The review process has caused us to disect the Bolsa Chica and to look at it piece by piece . Tonight we would like to step back and view the greater vision . I think we can all agree that the WETLANDS is a valuable resource which should be preserved and restored in some fashion. The wetlands provides unique habitat for water plants and for water fowl , some of which are endangered species. The wetlands provides necessary spawning grounds for fish. It cleanses city run-off before it merges into the sea. It is an outdoor classroom where people of all ages can learn first hand about nature . The wetlands provides a place closeby where we can get away, if only for a short while, to help us better cope with urban stresses. It enhances our quality of life in these and many other ways. But the wetlands by itself is not nearly as special as when you add the surrounding lowlands and mesas to it and look at the entire Bolsa Chica as one . The surrounding area makes a fairly ordinary wetlands EXPLODE into a dynamic multi-faceted jewel . This is one premier example of the whole being so much more than the sum of its parts. The value of the wetlands is c�ompounde_d—exponentially by the attributes of the surrounding mesas and lowlands with their rich natural , cultural and historical resources_. For one thing, the mesas and lowlands make the diversity of life in the wetlands possible by acting as a necessary buffer between the delicate life forms of the wetlands and the chaos and dangers of civilization nearby, dangers and chaos that would be brought too close if the mesas and lowlands were developed. The lowlands and mesas also enhance the habitat for wetlands animals and increase the diversity of the kinds of animals and plants that live there. The mesas add raptor birds such as hawks, falcons, kites and others to the mix. They also provide critical habitat for herons and egrets which need places away from the water as well as in it and near it. This is just one aspect of the way that the mesas and lowlands dompound, the value of the wetlands. Succeeding speakers will expand this vision * As you will hear from another speaker this evening, there is a viable wetlands restoration alternative known as "Adaptive Hanagement" which is such less invasive and such less expensive than those proposed previously so development permits are not reauirad to provide a funding mechanism for wetlands restoration. Tne entire Bolan Chica can be saved. c Fto&sIr k626AAl Good evening City Council members, I am Flossie Horgan and I am here to speak about the Bolsa Chica. As Mr. Runge has stated the Bolsa Chica is indeed a place worthy of our sterwardship. Luckily, for all of us the wondrous Bolsa Chica Ecosystem, this seamless web of life remains largely intact. The surrounding Mesas offer _a refuge to plants and animals. Great Blue Herons and red shouldered hawks nest and raise their babies in the eucalytus grove on the Bolsa Chica Mesa. Osprey, white tailed kites, coopers hawks, kestrels, loggerhead shrikes, also play and forage up on the Mesas. E.O. Wilson a world reknowned biologist from Harvard University has written widely about the threat to biodiversity. In his book Biodiversity of Life he states From EO Wilson, Biodiversity of Life Emphasis must be placed on preservation of entire habitats and not only on charismatic species within them. " and so to threatened and endangered species must be added a growing list of entire ecosystems" One of the 21 global hot spots identified by EO WIlson is the California Floristic Province. C410r»ia floristic province. This familiar Mediterranean-climate domain, stretching from southern Oregon to Baja California and recognized by botanists as a separate evolutionary center, contains one fourth of all the plant species found in the United States and Canada combined. Half, or 2,140 species, are found nowhere else in the world. Their environment is being rapidly constricted by urban and agricultural development,especially along the central and south. _ ern coasts of California_ Th 1 S •i S `-t-he- �o 15 k eh. A- The biological diverstiy of the Bolsa Chica is worth preserving. r ' r y jam' , r x r ,� . l.. �i•.r• r�� +s ALL +q3 r • ti. `+ yC �j e•L�<r 4 tr ti)i{�` a1 }`j°. ny�•'�h 0� .its; Ai ior4rt�S{4�'}•r I�;, • • d�� yyr iptG�t�r i�j;��d#� Y �ij� > rr thl,� ,,,1 . • � 1��k��t it�` n!�t N"�'�i'{�1.7�'�F�4�i itFi r Y '�. F.!yTitl�:'fir r A.. a ��( � � Ryu•t;�r,`1e�,:3r 7'�xRwF1 �}�'�}y.�ti� 1•�" .,?-i�r � i•2 ti� d ��I ��& d. r owlridr �" sY1x raw. i it �V' •. ,t4 4, 1 , r� gaster#tiimal�yas �� rt ♦t{br'' California ` r F Y�ti +�i 'd ryd• rr `��S 't } Floristic j*r •c fr *� fy{ 4x" r�r �F`fr 1q r. ` M rj ti r t �t( Vy'�fy trtk r.f' Province I _ r��•r ti ' 1 t '+, Philippines Western , ,f,.,,•` :) Hawaii Ghats ' / mrWi't 2 4d;t k ,t Colombian ¢r�G a Apr°:, ,K ,. Sri Lanka r i Choco Ivory Peninsular Coast Malaysia Western :anzatua�, Ecuador Northern Borneo e ' �' • Ne` [,......... rir�t Caln� Atlantic k= k:`,<; 4t Madagascar Coast ' ( Brazil Southwestern N Central Cape Province Australia Chile Forests and Heathiand: Hot-Spot Areas Hot spots are habitats with many species found nowhere else and in greatest forest types not shown are endangered,as well as a large number of lakes, river danger of extinction from human activity.The 18 hot spots identified here are systems, and coral reefs. The broader areas depicted, such as the coastal forests forests and Mediterranean scrubland well enough known to be included with of Brazil and the Philippines, actually consist of many smaller hot spots scattered certainty. But the map, based on preliminary study, is far from complete. Other across local mountain ridges,valleys, and islands. f E✓ 0.VU 11 Sc-n — i �� 1—�� L 1 T P Adding to this rich biological treasure is the icredible archeology of the Bolsa CHica. THe LUP lists 14 archeological sites on the Bolsa CHica Mesa and the Huntington Mesa. Of the 7 on the Bolsa Chica Mesa 5 are rated as significant and need further investigation. ORA 83 - the Coggstone site has brought forth 19 human burials, over 3, 000 tivela beads dating back 8,000 years, hundreds of Cogstones( more than any other site in California) charmstones and was continually inhabitated by the 1st peoples of this region from 8,000 years agoe until 2,900 years ago. On the Huntintong Mesa, of the 7 archeological sites fully 6 are significant and need further study. On ORA82 12 human burial ites have been recovered. ORA365 has yieled 62 projectile points, 170 crude knives, over 240 shell beads, seven shell whistles, 2 cogstones, and stone pendents The EIR states" ORA365 appears to have functioned as a major vullage site" dating back 7,000 years. Clearly , the archeology and the biological diversity of the Bolsa Chica is rich and worthy of our stewardship and preservation. Surely, we can do no less for our children and future generations. 1 Bob WIWAMS • Good evening, council members. My name is Bob Williams. I'm a resident of Huntington Beach and I share the vision that the Bolsa Chica Land Trust has for the entire Bolsa Chica. I'll continue ' presentation by mentioning some of the rich and varied more recent history of Bolsa Chica. Then I will suggest how we envision the Bolsa Chica's cultural and biological resources being preserved and restored for the benefit of aj of the area's residents aoLd out-of-area visitors. From the late 1700's to mid 1800's, Spanish land grants influenced the ownership of Bolsa Chica. It successively was included in Rancho la Zanja, Rancho las Bolsas, and Rancho la Bolsa Chica. Subsequently, ownership fell into anglo hands, and the land was farmed. From 1899 through the 1930's, the Bolsa Chica Gun Club modified the Bolsa Chica area and used it for game bird hunting, fishing, and boating. In the 1930's oil ,and gas wells appeared on the Huntington Beach Mesa, and in,the 1940's wells were drilled throughout the lowlands. With the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 , the United States government acquired the Bolsa Chica Mesa and some of the wetlands, and began to build fortifications. The Bolsa Chica Military Reservation included three gun installations for coastal defense of the Los Angeles Harbor area against Japanese attack. These consisted of 1) twin 155 milimeter guns on Panama Mounts, the remains of which are still visible on the Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve, 2) a concrete twin 6" gun bunker located in the middle of the mesa, which has recently been destroyed, and 3) a massive above-ground concrete bunker for twin 16" guns, which were never installed, still located on the bluff overlooking the wetlands. A separate underground concrete control center, called a Plotting and Spotting Room, also still exists under the mesa. Bolsa Chica Military Reservation was the southernmost coastal defense installation in the Harbor Defenses of Los Angeles network, and as such was a critical link in those defenses. In addition to the guns, it contained an ammunition storage bunker, a communication tower and buildings, searchlights, military barracks and a mess hall, service buildings, a water system, underground tunnels, sentry posts, and a r • perimeter fence. The keeper of the National Register of Historic Places has recently determined the 16" gun bunker and the Plotting and Spotting Room to be eligible to the National Register! In support of this finding, the reviewer wrote, and I quote: 'The...fortification at Bolsa Chica Mesa...is...a significant local example of World War II-era military construction. The construction...represented a critical component of the overall defensive system envisioned for the strategic Los Angeles Harbor area. The resources at Bolsa Chica retain sufficient integrity for listing in the National Register and are still capable of conveying their historic significance..." (unquote). Our vision includes the fervent hope that these historically significant monuments to the defense of our country, which are the heritage of us all, will be acquired and restored so that this element of the history of Bolsa Chica, and also the Los Angeles area, can be appreciated and experienced by the area's residents. We see these buildings serving as an interpretive center, for not just the World War II history, but the entire history and prehistory of Bolsa Chica, as well as even the past and current biology of its ecosystem. We want to preserve all of Bolsa Chica's wonderful resources for all of our citizens and we ask you reflect this forward-looking vision in your elan! We envision a collaborative planning effort between al of the affected government agencies, interested organizations, and the public, to put the previously mentioned benefits together and determine the future character and features of a restored Bolsa Chica open space. We abhor the piecemeal planning activity and the sequential planning process that are currently occurring with Bolsa Chica, which preclude an organized reflection of what the majority of the area's citizens want for this land. This is a situation and a public desire of which you are eU aware. )LQu can help us achieve our mutual vision for Bolsa Chica by advocating a cooperative planning process which would give voice to, and reflect, the goals and objectives of all interested parties when Bolsa Chica is acquired. Thank you, and may your work be inspired! Tree whole idea of a collaborative 5pproac1h for the planriina of the i700 acre Solsa Chica open space is extremely exciting. It opens up exponentially the possiblities for the Bolsa Chica . This will be a boone to the city as a.=. the County. For example, in the realm of education, when yoU take the whole 1700 acres of ecosystem together, (this, of course, includes the mesas) you have an absolutely marvelous multi-faceted, multi-dimensional gem. we all know from our own experience, there is nothing to equal being on site for education. Imagine a trip to the WWII Bunker on Bolsa Chica Mesa. Think of all the facets and dimen,ions for education that one structure alone evokes. imagine a trzk along the natural bluff tops. We can take ourselves back in time 8000 nears when the indigenous peoples lived here. They left us a legacy of artifacts which connect us through time. As modern day people ,^,e are fascinated with exploring this linkage with the past. What an are dZI1,1u opportunity eI.1.41sts in this cultural/historical realm for multi-dirriensionai education for people of all ages. This land is highly unique I can't think of any other place that has so many attributes ail in one connected compact space. And this fact brings us to another major, largely unrecognized, benefit of preserving the total Bolsa Chica as open space: Already the Bolsa Chica wetlands are known and advertised as an excellent place for locals and tourists to visit, walk, view and photograph the bird populations--both permanent and migratory. However, how much more attractive wili the Boisa Chica be as it become ; are expanded nature preserve, including the upland mesa., with ali their I loria, fauna, historq and culture It v%iill be a mecca for the tourism industry, of Orange County. Right now the wetland, preserve r part of the NATIONAL WATCHABLE WILDLIFE PROGRAM, is signed with the program's "Binocular Sign" on Pacific Coast High-vy-ay and, as such, attracts tourists. The tourist industry is known as a clean and growing addition to Orange Country's economic base. This base will benefit significantly from the enhanced Bolya Chica. „r; e in.r,arrred tr,d ;paraded Bolsa Chia preserve Hill also b:�lance the hurrari- rra,ahie attraction:. we novv offer at Disneyland, Knotty Ferry Farm, etc.) In preserving the Boise Chico as a nature and history park, ,'re will be strengthening an important part of our economic base--the tourism industry. Consequently the taxpayers of Huntington Beach will NOT have to subsidize the proposed Boise Chico residential development. Instead, Boise Chico will. become a NET PRODUCER of REVENUE for the city. A decision like this one at Bolsa Chica is extremely rare. A jewel of this quality can not be allowed to become simply one more of the thousand; of housing developments that now blanket this once-beautiful basin. It requires vision to see the possibilities of this undeveloped land. It requires courage and hard work. to change development trends of longstanding. But the rewards are proportionate. We are called to put forth the effort. Generations to come will thank us all for waking up in time and saving The Boise Chico. CUA1197 8 AUMAIJ Dear Count members: My name is Connie Boardman, I am President of the Bolsa Chica land Trust and an Assistant Professor of Biology at Cerritos College. I am spealdng tonight to alternative one-no development. I realize some may have concerns about this in that may be funds are not available for restoration. Option B relies on the developer to pay for restoration. BUT believes this is unwise because representatives of the developer has repeatedly stated they will do no restoration unless allowed to build 900 homes on existing wetlands. They need to obtain permits from Federal Government to accomplish this. Granting these permits is out of. the control of the state or the county. Also as stated in EIR developer can access public agency funds for restoration-same funds would be available to other parties wishing to restore this area. NMFS identified 7 million dollars available for restoration. The developer and their allies continue to cry that the wetlands are degrading. Yes activities such as pumping water off the wetlands and oil drilling do degrade wetlands. However, so does cutting wetlands off from their associated upland habitats, which is what this development project will do. The Department of Fish and Game has this to say about the wetlands at Solsa Chic&: existing wetlands at Bolsa Chica were not so severely degraded nor were their natural processes so substantially Impaired that they were not capable of recovering and maintaining a high level of biological productivity without major restoration efforts. On the contrary the Department determined that the wetlands at BC were and still are demonstrably valuable to fish and wildlife resources most especially to migratory and resident shorebirds, water fowl and endangered birds. Because the existing habitat at SC supports a wide variety of wildlife currently the BCLT believes the best restoration for the area would involve the least amount of alteration to the existing topography. USFWS said of restoration plan that included tidal inlet: "This may damage the wild life resources it purports to benefit. We can not agree the endangered birds , waterfowl or shorebirds at the site would benefit." This may be because according to EIR 1,792,000 cubic yards of wetland will be either be filled or cut with tidal inlet. Option B will cut or fill 771,000 cubic yards Option A 739,000 cubic yards. The biggest bottom loading earth mover holds 17.3 cubic yards with tidal inlet this means 103,584 truck loads. The habitat destruction which would occur is unacceptable to the Land Trust. Much has been made of the county leaving out the tidal inlet in the revised draft EIR. According to County staff They did so for ecological, financial reasons and opposition from public agencies. The tidal inlet has recently been added again as option C. However, you may not realize that the County staff stated at the Planning Commission meeting on October 25 that one reason they dropped it was opposition from the City of Huntington Beach, because the city of Huntington Beach must give a financial commitment for this 20 million dollar project to be viable. Is the City ready to do this ? 4 ORGA�[1 . ff N November 1, 1994 . Mayor and Council Nembersl My name is Paul Horgan, and I pport of Alternative A - the no development for the Boltsa Chic . I an going to focus on the con rns of the Staff, as set forth in recommendation number 1 of a Staffs report which discusses possible development. The Staff recommends in their first recommendation that any development not be a burden on the- local economy. Initially, the only study which" has _suggested that the Koll project would create jobs and Tiould thereby be good for the economy is the Xenneth Leventhal study. As Mr. Leventhal is apparently the Roll Company CPA and was paid by Koll for the study, one would hardly expect .anythinq but a positive report to come from that source. Secondly, recent events in the '' ity suggest that the Koll project would in fact be detri ' ntal to the City. We in Huntington Beach have been inv ved in rapid residential development over the last deaad , and this year we had a $700,000.00 shortfall. The lose n is that residential development generally does not 'pay for itself and results in a financial negative for the a iinity. Finally, even if the Koll proj ' were to create jobs, that wouldnft necessarlily mean that the project would be good for Huntington Beach. For example, utomobile accidents create jobs - jobs for garage repairmen, in urance adjusters, doctors and lawyers. However, we certainly wouldn't suggest that we have :more automobile accidents. The Roll building project would not be good for the economic situation: in Huntington Beach r otherwise, and it we should adopt the no development alte ' 11tive. Thank you. PAUL HO�&AN 207 21st street Huntington Beach, CA 92649 (714) 536-7262 HECE►VEG MY CLERK NUNTI► C T�IT1'I H i .. Ii. Ali: Noy 7 30 Pit 99q ADD177 //4&ve MCA • Sierra Club Preserve Balsa Chica Task Force 1077 Pacific Coast Hwy Seal Beach,CA 90740 wo�Hnco 10h 3b) 430TAf PUBLIC COMMENTS ON LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM(LPQ RESPONSE October 31, 1994 I am Bruce Monroe, Spokesperson for the Sierra Club's Preserve Bolsa Chica Task Force and the 1400 member voters from Huntington Beach. NVe are on record as favoring Alternative B, the Biodiversity Park, the environmentally superior alternative, and your Alternative #1. We have as blue ribbon panel of scientists who advise us. We volunteer to work with you in your planning efforts. We want to suggest two new perspectives from which you can view ;a wide range of options for the_1700 acres. From a personal perspective I am here tonight. because my parents had a son. From a scientific evolutionary perspective we are all here tonight because of natural processes which began 10 billion years ago for the Universe Earth was was born 5 billion years ago. It's first life form was the specie blue green algae. Four billion years.later there had evolved about 10 thousand species including ours, Homo sapiens.- We have been on this planet over 500, 000 years. Eighteen thousand years ago the.first native people came to southern California and 8 thousand years ago they settled in the Bolsa Chica and ranged out as hunter gatherers.• Anglo Saxons appeared here in the 1800's. In 1960 there was an Apollo space program and the moon walkers sent back images of our blue planet, the water planet. In 1070 the first Earth Day was celebrated.and television created a global village from which we were.able to travel vicariously to any location on Earth and many in space. As a. result "nature tourism", ecology tourism", what is called "green tourism"in Britain developed.. Today "eco-tourism", is the most rapidly growing aspect of"travel and tourism" which is the largest industry on the planet, the largest in the United States and the largest in Orange County. Eco-tourism is a long term growth industry. Housing is NOT. Concern for the environment - recycling, energy cogservation, global warming, 'etc, has spilled over into how we. use our leisure.time. In 1991 the Department of-Interior found that 76 million people are engaged in non-consumptive wildlife tourism such as' hiking, birding, whale-watching; more than consumptive tourism, for example, hunting and fishing. The Federal Government- has announced its 500th WildLife Refuge. The number of eco tourists is increasing in this country and worldwide over 200 billion future travelers want to visit southern California and could be enticed to the Bolsa Chica Wildlife Refuge if it.is restored or being restored. - Now from an economic perspective --- the costs of maintaining a housing development, (roads, sewers, police, fire, water, schools, libraries, etc).often exceed the short term economic benefits realized by the housing developer and- local merchants while the costs of creating eco-tourism destinations are paid annually and. become eternally profitable with permanent jobs and support businesses. • I We suggest a working name for the concept of an ecotourist destination, "The Bolsa Chica Waterway Complex" with the 1700 acres as the central interpretation center, but featuring the entire San Gabriel Mountains watershed from the Mt Baldy ski lift on the north, the LA River on the west, Upper Newport Bay on the east and the Pacific Ocean with whale and dolphin watch trips offshore. There would be about 25 additional destinations interpreted, eg, Irvine Gardens Environmental Learning Center. The 1700 acres of the Bolsa Chica would remain a wildlife sanctuary with watchable wildlife blinds on the perimeter. Scientific studies and restoration management would be permitted but with all possible safeguards in place. There would be no recreational use because of the emphasis on educating visitors and school groups about such topics as waterways, preservation, restoration, biology, watershed management, wetland expansion through buffer zone enlargement, and comminity action to preserve open space and habitat. Docents would lead tours of exhibits. The Complex center would include computer stations on an information highway such as Internet so as to access scientific and environmental data bases about the interpretive topics. With the Bolsa Chica Complex as a destination, the typical visitor, family, group or class would either spend several half days over a year long period or experience everything in a two or three day intensive visit to Huntington Beach. Either way income would be generated, not only for the Complex, but also for hotels, car rental agencies, restaurants, local tourist attractions, charter boats and all the myriad of businesses and activities that support a tourist industry. The initial investment to create the exhibits could come from foundation support while the profits would be invested in restoration materials. The Complex would =1 need an edifice unless local pride and the Convention Bureau wanted to "float" revenue bonds as is being done for the Long Beach Queensway Aquarium. The goal of the Complex would be eventual acceptance as a National Wildlife Refuge when the oil production is gone and the Complex is restored and enlarged. Although this could take as long as 40 years,projects such as cleanups and planting of native flora can occur as early as 1995. Thank you. comments by Marcia Hanscom - City Council Bolsa Chica Sub- Committee meeting 10/31/94 - 19276 TorreyPines Circle a Huntington Beach, CA 92648 (714) 374-4825. Honorable City Councilmembers, My name is Marcia Hanscom and I am a resident of Huntington Beach. I am here before you to urge you to consider only Alternative #1 in the City's response to the County's proposed LCP (Local Coastal Program) for Bolsa Chica. Alternative #2, while admirable in suggesting we need a "more traditional response," will just not work for us. Already more than 14,000 new homes are being constructed around the Bolsa Chica area, and those of us who are neighbors of the Bolsa Chica are beginning to feel very closed in. We need to focus on Alternative #1 - a Biodiversity & Wildlife Sanctuary. The words 'biodiversity" and "ecosystem" have been used quite often, when people are talking about the Bolsa Chica, but not many people have a good understanding of what these terms really mean. Scientists are still learning quite a bit about biodiversity and ecosystems and why they are.so important to the human species. So I'd like to read to you a little - and educate us all - from a brand new book - Saving Nature's Legacy -Protecting,& Restoring Biodiversity. 'The medicinal value of certain plants and invertebrates provides a powerful argument for conservation, as does the value of wild gene pools for agriculture and wild populations for food. What if the.Pacific Yew, until recently considered a 'trash tree' and destroyed during clearcutting in the Pacific Northwest, were extinguished before we discovered that it contained taxol, a valuable new drug for treating several forms of cancer?..." "Natural ecosystems and biodiversity also provide benefits to humans that are indirect, yet essential... Erlich & Erlich (1981) describe ecosystem services upon which human civilization is entirely dependent, including: (1) maintaining atmospheric quality by regulating gas ratios and filtering dust and pollutants; (2) controlling and ameliorating r climate through the carbon cycle and effects of vegetation in stimulating local and regional rainfall; (3) regulating freshwater supplies and controlling flooding (wetlands, for example, can act as giant sponges to soak up moisture during rainy periods and release water slowly during dry periods); (4) generating and maintaining soils through the decomposition organic matter and the relationship between plant roots and mycorrhizal fungi; (5) disposing of wastes, including domestic sewage and wastes produced by industry and agriculture, and cycling of nutrients; (6) controlling pests and disease, for example through predation and parasitism on herbivorous insects; and (7) pollinating crops and useful wild plant species by insects, bats hummingbirds, and, other pollinators." We are a part of this system - and we, as well as the very sensitive wetlands, need as much of the surrounding land and ecosystem as possible to be preserved. We have already destroyed more than 8,000 acres of wetlands in the Bolsa Chica area - we want to save 1,700 acres of wetlands. lowlands and mesas. The life that is a handful of soil. including millions of microbes, worms and other life forces, are all needed to make this system work. One last thing I want to mention. On the way in to the Council Chambers tonight I picked up a flyer that was outside. It tells of a land exchange that was recently completed in Lake Tahoe by the American Land Conservancy and the U.S. Forest Service. You have all seen.a letter from Fish & Wildlife Service indicating that they are also.working with the American Land Conservancy to facilitate a land exchange for Bolsa Chica. At Lake Tahoe they swapped more than 3,900 acres - more than twice the size of Bolsa Chica. So - we can do it here, as well. This IS a possibility - so I urge you to only put forth what we really want at Bolsa Chica - and that is Alternative #1 - a Biodiversity & Wildlife Sanctuary, Thank you. • MY NAME IS DELORES HABER, I 'VE BEEN A TAXPAYER IN HUNTINGTON BEACH FOR OVER 20 YEARS. I WOULD LIKE TO ENCOURAGE SUPPORT FOR ALTERNATIVE # I FROM THE DRAFT LCP FOR THE BOLSA CHICA PROPERTY. TAX DOLLARS AND CASH REGISTER RECEIPTS ARE IMPORTANT BUT WE HAVE BEEN GETTING ALONG WITHOUT THEM. CONSIDERING WHAT THIS DEVELOPMENT WILL DO TO OUR ENVIRONMENT AND THE ENVIRONMENT FOR CENTURIES TO COME, I THINK WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO DO WITHOUT THAT INCOME. THERE IS A POSSIBILITY THAT THIS DEVLOPMENT MIGHT COST MORE THAN IT WILL BRING IN - IN TAXES. LET'S NOT BE SHORTSIGHTED. AS PREVIOUS SPEAKERS HAVE SAID THIS AREA IS UNIQUE HISTORICALLY AND SHOULD NOT BE DESTROYED. I RETIRED THIS LAST YEAR FROM PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHING. ONE OF MOST MY DIFFICULT TEACHING TASKS WAS TO FIND INTERESTING AND EDUCATIONAL FIELD TRIPS FOR MY STUDENTS. THE BOLSA CHICA MAKES AVAILABLE EXCELLE14T FIRST HAND n i STOR"i :hAT ;S AVAILABLE ANYWHERE ELSE IN ORANGE COUNTY. I BELIEVE A LAND SWAP CAN BE ARRANGED AND THAT WE SHOULD DO WHAT WE CAN TO ENCOURAGE THE COUNTY TO HOLD OFF LETTING THE DEVELOPER DESTROY ANY MORE OF THIS AREA. • AA6JGY Atfl*VoU City's Response to LCP, 10/31/94 Development on the Bolsa Chica The number of dwelling units which, have been suggested by the owner and the County run from 2500 to 4286. If we assume that the City would be annexing the area after the development is finished then the fiscal impact, according to the City's reports of 2/14 and 9/30/94, would be in the range of $18 to $25 million. These are not nice figures to contemplate--especially since the City is having to dig for every dollar at this point. DWELLING UNITS I10 NOT- FAY THEIR WAY FOR CITY SERVICES. CITY TAXPAYERS WOULD HAVE TO SUBSIDIZE ANY BOLSA CHICA DEVELOPMENT! According to a quote from the Huntington Beach Independent last March our City Manager has indicated that there will definitely be a fiscal impact to the City. The County is pushing a plan where the housing runs from an average of_ 9 to 11 units per acre and the Koll program is 11 units per acre. The homes in the vicinity are in the range of 5 units per acre and some are fewer. This is not a compatible development plan. The addition of more traffic to our streets will not only impact the infrastructure but will add to the stress of commuters. People are already remarking about the new traffic light on Warner Avenue in front of the new Ralph's shopping center. While ATIP sounds like the answer to a commuter's prayer, the amount of traffic will be increasing. Some of our intersections are already overflowing with traffic such as PCH and Warner Avenue. However, many of them will be impacted by this project and would not need amelioration except for this project. The promise to pay for the "developer's share" is a spurious one. In these areas the City quite possibly would not need to do any amelioration if not for this development. In the LCProgram (LUP section) development is said to sit above the Wetlands Ecosystem. This shows the narrow view being taken by the County in its approach to this very important area. One of the foremost ESHA experts has indicated that .the ecosystem of the 4 wetlands will not survive with its endangered species without the support of the surrounding mesas. And in addition, development runoff will contribute to the survival problem. The KREG contention that homes are needed in Huntington Beach because of all the employment opportunity is a strange one to say the least. The largest employer in the City, McDonnell Douglas, has been laying people off for several years now with no need to hire in sight. While we have heard some young folks assert that they would like to have the opportunity to buy a home in Huntington Beach, a home on the Bolsa Chica would most likely be beyond the ability of many to afford--and as so many young people have had to do--they might possibly have to go inland where the affordability is greater. Many young people Have found this to be their solution. At any rate, when other possibilities are available it would seem to be a silly thing to do to load up an environmentally sensitive area with housing. This is one of the last large tracts of open space left near the coast. r I SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES AND ADJOURNED MEETING MINUTES MINUTES CITY COUNCIUREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Council Chamber, Civic Center Huntington Beach, California Monday, October 24, 1994 In the absence of the Mayor and Mayor Pro Tempore, Councilmember Leipzig called the special meetings of the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach to order at 4:00 p.m. in Room B-8. The Special Meeting commenced at 4:00 p.m. and adjourned at 5:00 p.m., at which time the adjourned regular meeting commenced. CITY COUNCIUREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ROLL CALL PRESENT: Bauer, Winchell, Leipzig, Sullivan ABSENT: Silva, Robitaille, Moulton-Patterson The Secretary was directed to read the Call for Special Meeting. CALL FOR SPECIAL MEETING OF CITY COUNCIUREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Linda Molten-Patterson, Chairman Jim Silva, Director Ralph Bauer, Director Earle Robitaille, Director Grace Winchell, Director Victor Leipzig, Director Dave Sullivan, Director Gentlemen: You are hereby notified of a Special Meeting of the Huntington Beach City Council on Monday, October 24, 1994 at 4:00 p.m. in Room B-8 for the purpose of considering a city response to the County of Orange Local Coastal Program for the Bolsa Chica and for Council to take the following recommended action: Direct staff to place on the November 7, 1994 City Council meeting agenda consideration of an official response from the City of Huntington Beach on the County Coastal Program for the Bolsa Chica (see attached agenda), also to receive public comment on the aforementioned agenda item. Page 2 - Council/Agency Minutes - 10/24/94 Dated: October 20, 1994 /s/ Linda Moulton-Patterson Mayor ATTEST: /s/Connie Brockway Secretary I hereby certify that I received the above notice, "Call For Special Meeting of the City Council," prior to 4:00 p.m., on Sunday, October 23, 1994. /s/ Linda Moulton-Patterson Mayor (City Council) DRAFT BOLSA CHICA LOCAL COASTAL PLAN - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS - COUNTY OF ORANGE - LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM FOR THE BOLSA CHICA (420.85) The City Clerk presented a communication from the Director of Community Development dated October 24, 1994 titled "Response to Comments - County of Orange Local Coastal Program for the Bolsa Chica", transmitting a set of planning principles drafted by the staff to be used to help guide a city response to the County of Orange Local Coastal Program for the Bolsa Chica. Said communication informed Council of the staff's intent to use these principles as the basis for framing a response to the County Local Coastal Program. The Bolsa Chica Sub-Committee suggested that the City Council hold a hearing to receive comments on the City's draft planning principles, after they are presented to Council on October 24, 1994. In order to do this and still allow the City Council adequate time to take action on the City's comment letter on the LCP, the Council will need to hold such a hearing on either October 31, 1994 or November 7, 1994. Chuck Nelson, Amigos de Bolsa Chica President, spoke regarding an Orange County Planning Commission meeting he attended today. He spoke regarding the possibility of building permits being issued on the Bolsa Chica, the proposed land swap, and protecting the city's interests. The City Administrator requested that an agenda item be taken out of order regarding the printing of the new Zoning and Subdivision Code. (City Council) PRINTING OF THE NEW ZONING AND SUBDIVISION CODE -APPROVED (320.45) The City Clerk presented a communication regarding the need to print and distribute the new Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Code which will be effective November 2, 1994. The City Clerk reported that the fee is higher than originally expected due to the zoning maps being printed. • J Page 3 -Council/Agency Minutes - 10/24/94 Councilmember Winchell suggested that the amount appropriated be raised to $4,000 to allow for cost overruns. A motion was made by Winchell, seconded by Sullivan, to appropriate up to $4,000 from the Unappropriated General Fund Reserve into account E-A-CK-140-4-07-00 for a one-time expenditure to print the new Zoning and Subdivision Code. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Bauer, Winchell, Sullivan, Leipzig NOES: None ABSENT: Silva, Robitaille, Moulton-Patterson (City Council) (CONTINUATION OF DISCUSSION) CONTINUED - DRAFT BOLSA CHICA LOCAL COASTAL PLAN - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS -COUNTY OF ORANGE - LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM FOR THE BOLSA CHICA (420.85) The City Administrator presented a staff report using slides regarding the Bolsa Chica Draft Local Coastal Plan Schedule. The Planning Director presented a staff report regarding the Council's response to the Orange County Local Coastal Program and a slide presentation entitled Principals for the Bolsa Chica. Council addressed concerns regarding staff recommended Principles for the Bolsa Chica. Councilmember Winchell suggested a principle be added regarding the preservation of historic sites and archeological resources. The Community Development Director stated that the Principles for the Bolsa Chica will be rewritten with a stronger introduction and the follow through with more specific principles. The Planning Director presented a staff report using slides entitled Future Issues. THE ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING COMMENCED AT 5:00 P.M. The City Administrator stated that when the City Council considers taking a position on the cross- gap connector, staff would like to give a presentation as it relates to the transportation system and the public safety issues. Fire Chief Dolder stated that in the absence of the cross-gap connector, two fire stations would be needed. Councilmember Leipzig spoke in support of a buffer around the bluff top be preserved to separate any bluff top development from the bluff itself and the lowlands. He stated that Principle Number Eight could be expanded to read "existing mature trees should be preserved within a bluff face set back area designed to provide a buffer between development and habitat." Page 4- Council/Agency Minutes - 10/24/94 Councilmember Bauer stated that a nine million gallon water reservoir was required for the Holly- Seacliff Project and that another nine million gallon water reservoir would be required for the Bolsa Chica Project. The Planning Director reported that the principles would be used to craft a response to the Local Coast Program. Discussion was held by Council and the City Administrator regarding a meeting of the Bolsa Chica Council Committee on October 31, 1994 at 6:30 p.m. to receive public comments regarding the Local Coastal Program for the Bolsa Chica. Position Paper to be Prepared on Development Agreement for the Bolsa Chica Council directed the City Administrator to place on the November 7, 1994 Council meeting agenda an item relating to the preparation of a position paper on the Development Agreement for the Bolsa Chica. RECESS - RECONVENE The Mayor called a recess of the City Council and Redevelopment Agency at 5:55 p.m. The Mayor reconvened the meeting at 6:00 p.m. and announced that Councilmember Bauer had left and that the three remaining Councilmembers would have a Council Committee meeting with the Finance Board. ADJOURNMENT - CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Councilmember Leipzig, adjourned the adjourned meetings of the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach to Monday, November 7, 1994 at 5:00 p.m., in the Council Chamber, Civic Center, Huntington Beach, California. Clerk of the Redevelopment Agency and City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California ATTEST: City Clerk/Clerk Mayor/Chairman 0 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH TO: Distribution FROM: Julie Osugi Associate Pl er SUBJECT: ERRATA FOR"BOLSA CHICA ISSUES AND GENERAL INFORMATION"DOCUMENT. DATE: October 25, 1994 Upon review of the Bolsa Chica Issues and General Information reference document which was distributed to you earlier this week (dated October 24, 1994), a few errors and omissions have been discovered. Enclosed are the corrected pages (dated October 25, 1994). Corrections consist of identification of sources for exhibits contained in the document and identification of Cumulative(Deficits) on Tables FI-7.1 through FI-7.3, on pages 52 and 53. Please substitute these pages for the ones in the October 24 document. If any additional corrections are necessary, please let me know. You can reach me at x5274. cc: City Council Planning Commission Department Heads City Clerk Interested Parties g:\osugi\blsachca\handbook\memol.doc i Bolsa Chica Reference Handbook October 25, 1994 Exhibits Note: Sources for the below exhibits have been identified in footnotes. Exhibit Title P Table LU-2.0 Land Use Summary by Gross Acres0) 5 Figure LU-2.1 Koll Land Use Plan Map(z) 7 Table LU-2.1 Koll Planned Community Statistical Table(2) 8 Figure LU-2.2 Option A Development Plan(3) 10 Table LU-2.2 Option A Planned Community Statistical Table(3) 11 Figure LU-2.3 Option B Development Plan(3) 13 Table LU-2.3 Option B Planned Community Statistical Table(3) 14 Figure LU-2.4 Map of Existing Useso) 16 Figure WR-3.1 Koll Master Phasing Plan(?) 18 Table WR-3.1 Koll Summary of Proposed Habitat Acreage(z) 19 Figure WR-3.2 Option A Master Phasing Plan(4) 24 Table WR-3.2 Summary of Option A Restoration Plan Commitments(4) 25 Figure WR-3.3 Option B Master Phasing Plan(4) 30 Table WR-3.3 Summary of Option B Restoration Plan CommitmentSM 31 Table WR-3.4 Wetlands Restoration Phasing and Security Program(4) 32 Table n-4.0 Engineers'Design Objectives and Solutions(s) 36 Bolsa Chica Handbook 10/25/94 Exhibit Title page# Figure TI-4.1 Tidal Inlet Plan(s) 37 Figure TI-4.2 Tidal Inlet Cross Sectionsm 38 Figure TI-4.3 Tidal Inlet Cross Sectionsm 39 Figure TI-4.4 Beach and Jetty Profile(5) 40 Figure TI-4.5 Shoreline Change(s) 41 Figure TI-4.6 Revetment Location Plan(s) 42 Figure TI-4.6 Typical Revetment Section(s) 43 Figure OP-6.0 Existing Oil Production FacilitieSM 46 Figure OP-6.1 Bolsa Chica Oil Leasesw 47 Figure OP-6.2 Oil Well Locations Relative to Option A Phasing Areas(4) 49 Figure OP-6.3 Oil Well Locations Relative to Option B Phasing Areasw 50 Table FI-7.1 Comparison of Plans Annexed Prior to Development(G) 52 Table FI-7.2 Comparison of Plans Annexed During or After Development(G) 52 Table FI-7.3 Comparison of Plans Annexed Not Annexed (s) 53 Table PR-8.0 Public Parks and Recreation Facilities(7) 57 Figure SC-90 School Sites in the City(s) 59 Table SC-9.1 Estimated Student Generation(9) 61 Table SC-9.2 Existing Schools in Bolsa Chica Area-- Enrollment and Capacity(9) 62 Table CR-10.0 Significance of Archaeological Sites(4) 64 (1) Source: Draft EIR No. 551 and Revised Draft EIR No. 551,prepared by the County of Orange,dated December 20, 1993 and August 22, 1994,respectively. (2) Source: Draft EIR No. 551,prepared by the County of Orange,dated December 20, 1993. (1)Source: Revised Draft EIR No. 551,prepared by the County of Orange,dated August 22, 1994. Bolsa Chica Handbook 10/25/94 (4) Source: Bolsa Chica Draft LCP,prepared by the County of Orange,dated September 1994. (5) Source: Draft EIR/EIS,prepared by the City of Huntington Beach,dated August 1992. (6) Source: Draft EHUEIS for the Proposed Bolsa Chica Project prepared by the City of Huntington Beach, dated August 1992; and the Fiscal Impact Analyses prepared by the Public Economics,Inc. dated 2/14/94 and 9/30/94. (7)Source:Bolsa Chica Draft LCP,prepared by the County of Orange,dated September 1994 and Draft EIR/EIS,prepared by the City of Huntington Beach,dated August 1992.. (9) Source: Draft General Plan Update Technical Background Report,prepared for the City of Huntington Beach,dated July 2,1992. (9) Source:Ocean View School District comment letter on the Bolsa Chica RDEIR,dated September 28, 1994;Huntington Beach City School District comment letter on the Bolsa Chica RDEIR,dated September 28, 1994; and the School Impacts sections of DEIR No. 551 and RDEIR No. 551 on the Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Program,prepared by the County of Orange, dated December 20, 1993 and August 22, 1994,respectively. Bolsa Chica Handbook 10/25/94 Table FI-7.1 COMPARISON OF NET RECURRING FISCAL IMPACTS ANNEXED TO CITY PRIOR TO DEVELOPMENT Revenue/Cost in millions Koll Plan Option A Option B No Project Annual Recurring (2.8) (1.4) (1.6) Surplus/(Deficit) at Buildout Annual Recurring 7.3 4.3 5.8 Costs at Buildout Annual Recurring 4.5 2.9 4.2 Revenues at Buildout Revenue/Cost 61% 68% 72% Ratio at Buildout Cumulative (19.2) (9.9) (9:9) Surplus/(Deficit) through Buildout Source: Draft EIRIEIS for the Proposed Bolsa Chica Project prepared by the City of Huntington Beach, dated August 1992; and the Fiscal Impact Analyses prepared by the Public Economics,Inc. dated 2114194 and 9130194. Table FI-7.2 COMPARISON OF NET RECURRING FISCAL IMPACTS ANNEXED TO CITY DURING OR AFTER DEVELOPMENT Revenue/Cost in millions Koll Plan Option A Option B No Project Annual Recurring (2.8) (1.4) (1.6) Surplus/(Deficit) at Buildout Annual Recurring 7.3 4.3 5.8 Costs at Buildout Annual Recurring 4.5 2.9 4.2 Revenues at Buildout Revenue/Cost 63% 68% 72% Ratio at Buildout Cumulative (25.2)°' (18.5)t" (18.4)°' Surplus/(Deficit) through Buildout (1)Increase primarily due to one-time impacts resulting from impact fees and mitigation fees paid to the County prior to annexation into the City. Source: Draft EIRIEIS for the Proposed Bolsa Chica Project prepared by the City of Huntington Beach, dated August 1992; and the Fiscal Impact Analyses prepared by the Public Economics,Inc. dated 2114194 and 9130194. Bolsa Chica Handbook 52 10/25/94 Table F1-7.3 COMPARISON OF PLANS NET RECURRING FISCAL IMPACTS PROJECT NOT ANNEXED INTO THE CITY Revenue/Cost Koll Plan"' Option All' Option B"' No Project in millions Annual Recurring (1.15) (.64) (.67) Surplus/(Deficit) at Buildout Annual Recurring 1.95 1.13 1.35 Costs at Buildout Annual Recurring .80 .49 .68 Revenues at Buildout Revenue/Cost 40% 43% 50% Ratio at Buildout Cumulative (22.5) (16.7) (17.2) Surplus/(Deficit) through Buildout (1) Figures do not include Fire Department Operations. If included,the annual recurring deficit at buildout increases to 5.3 million,based upon annual revenues of 8 million and annual costs of 6.1 million,resulting in a revenue to cost ration of 13%. Cumulative deficit then increases to 58.6 million. (2) Figures do not include Fire Department Operations. If included,the annual recurring deficit at buildout increases to 5.4 million,based upon annual revenues of 4.9 million and annual costs of 5.9 million,resulting in a revenue to cost ration of 8%. Cumulative deficit then increases to 60.1 million. (3) Figures do not include Fire Department Operations. If included,the annual recurring deficit at buildout increases to 5.4 million,based upon annual revenues of 6.8 million and annual costs of 6.1 million,resulting in a revenue to cost ration of 11%. Cumulative deficit then increases to 62.1 million. Source: Draft EIRIEISfor the Proposed Bolsa Chica Project prepared by the City of Huntington Beach, dated August 1992; and the Fiscal Impact Analyses prepared by the Public Economics,Inc. dated 2114194 and 9130194. Bolsa Chica Handbook 53 10/25/94 joys ;{.}t`+;`:it:'I��;:�';�iE'it; .__ ... ,. :`i'�iL`�.•�'���t.- ^ �e�.ti..!'{�I��1.. . ,.. ,• . 6222E-12/91 ISO RCCRETION • 100 1983 - 1988 after S gears ------ 1983 - 1993 offer 10 years HUNTINGTON PIER PROPOSED " 50 CHANNEL w SANTA RNA RIVER JETTY SITE CD Z t = 0 Z j -50 EAST JETTY ANAHEIM BAY w O U' -I OG EROS I ON -!50 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 13S 150 165. 180 195 210 225 240 25S 270 ALONGSHORE COORDINATE (ceLL spacing - 200 FL ) Figure TI-4.5 SHORELINE CHANGE RELATIVE TO SIMULATED EXISTING CONDITIONS 7 FT. DEEP BY 250 FT. WIDE INLET Source: M&N, 1991a ar r�■r r� rr r� rr r� r �r a� �r r� r = OWN; s ., 6222E-4/92 IWO— t.0 ,�� .;=:, °., ............. At i Irk ,,., ar R! JIA 1. is. A, ZL -------------- O ---- �i REVETMENT REVETMENT ,i, o.• �• qJ •A° .JJ n.J ,A, n _ -- —500, FEET •~1000. -!1 ' 0 200 400 Figure TI-4.6 Source: Williameon and Schmid.January 15, 1992 PI,A)q OF REVETMENT LOPATT(11�T I f 222E-8/92 -- OCEAN LANDSIDE 12' DATUM IS MSL EL. +10-13 _ • 4-5 TON Stone Filter 2 ROCK 1 � 8 800-1000 LBS 8' 5' ROCK -- e' Quarry Run EL. 0Stone Filter Fabric • NOTE: ENTIRE REVETMENT INITIALLY WILL BE COVERED WITH ONE FOOT OF BEACH SAND. 1 I Figure TI--4.7 NOT TO SCALE TYPICAL REVETMENT SECTION k Source: Mot'fat& Nichol, Engineers � 5 .Bolsa Chica Street � Extension 1 ' Issues General Information i 1 1 1 1 1 r • • Page g 4+ 1 Bolsa Chica Street Extension (BCSE) 1 This section provides a brief overview of the issues associated with the Bolsa Chica Street Extension(BCSE), also referred to as the Cross-Gap Connector. Note: Appendix D r includes a copy of the Cross-Gap Connector report prepared for Koll's Plan when it was being processed through the City of Huntington Beach. ■ BCSE Issues : ❖ The BCSE will result in beneficial impacts to are wide traffic, but is not required to support development generated traffic (under any of the four plans). r ❖ The cross-gap connector traffic study first analyzed improvements that would be necessary to provide acceptable levels of service with no development. This analysis ' assumed post 2010 conditions, and planned buildout on all arterials and identified the following areas with potentially deficient levels of service at buildout with no development of the Bolsa Chica. Without the project, there may be potential level of ' service deficiencies at: • Springdale/Edinger • Springdale/Warner • Goldenwest/Edinger • PCH/Warner • Goldenwest/Heil ❖ Koll's Plan -Koll's Plan proposes a limited BCSE with emergency access to Garfield Avenue, which will serve the project only. ❖ Option A and Option B - Options A and B do not propose a BSCE. 1 ❖ The BCSE is not considered a water dependent use. The Coastal Commission and Army Corps will look for other alternatives such as widening PCH and doing other intersection improvements to achieve the same purpose (transportation). ❖ The BCSE is necessary to meet the City's emergency response time standards for existing residences adjacent to the Northeast Lowland area. r Bolsa Chica Handbook 10/24/94 1 6.Oil Production Issues General Information • • Page 4S, Rd-ill Production This section provides a brief overview of the Oil Production related issues associated with ' development of the Bolsa Chica area; the section also includes general information about the existing oil production facilities. ' Oil Production Issues : ❖ Phasing out of oil production uses and facilities for wetlands restoration and/or development. ❖ Remediation of oil production sites (hazards from exposure to hazardous materials and wastes). ❖ Risk or hazards from on-going oil operations in proximity to wetlands restoration area and/or urban development. Oil Production General Information ❖ As of June 1992, there were 431 production wells within the overall field, of which 217 were located within Bolsa Chica. Of these 217 wells, 185 were actively- producing oil wells and 32 were water-injection wells. ❖ Oil production facilities at Bolsa Chica include pipelines, storage tanks, oil-water-gas separators, pumps, a drill-mud and tank-waste drying area, a gas-processing plant, and other support facilities, including a heliport (see Figure OP-6.0). Truck and rig access to the drill sites and production facilities is provided by an extensive system of roads which are elevated roughly 2-4 feet above the natural ground. ••• Oil operators have begun the process of removing, demolishing, and cleaning up the • storage tanks, separators, drill-mud and tank-waste drying area, gas processing plant, and other support facilities. ❖ Oil production at Bolsa Chica is divided into two major surface lease areas (see Figure ' OP-6.1). Shell Onshore Ventures, Inc. (SOVI) operates the larger lease that covers most of the Lowland, while the Huntington Beach Company(HBCO) operates the smaller lease that is sometimes referred to as the Chevron Bolsa or"Edwards Thumb" Lease. Each is described below: Bolsa Chica Handbook 10/24/94 LEGEND HUNTINGTON e • O ACTIVELY PRODUCING ` BEACH CO. LEASE ti CJ�O 8 WELLS PRESENTLY ABANDONED ' OOO O WELLS PRESENTLY IDLE ' SHELL ONSHORE ® ® ® WATER INJECTION WELLS VENTURES. INC. (SOVI) LEASE East Garden Grove FRESH WATER PRODUCING WELLS _ Wintersburg Flood ------- PIPELINES jai= Contra Channel Waste Handling Site ACCESS ROADS \j�� �� _lCi• 'tom - - _►ter .\ C,•' _ �• _ a1. �~{fit. .. . �••�= -1_ _ �� _' tm _ - 1- _ _ - - 11 . i- -r. - ` — ,` �. �.. _ - •?•-�i �' •'`' Gas Want Ho.t � `-•-� �!� .. � ' _ �;�. .fit� :^ 1�__ '=y: •'�:; - _ 1 ,^" _ vr ��/` _ � � � :' /. ' ` ; �,',� _ •-. -.�`. �_ • -`._--�.. - ,. - '� �_ - . �_ :� •\ -may-- � `,i 4� IG✓ 1f j' F1 ''�r i.. `�it -- ._ - _ f� ' \ - r --�: '/` ,. S:.\, 'tom''{: 1Jo //, - _fir " *t � '_ -•{9'�7 i is 4:. Heil ad •.CULVERT / `t. P OUTER BOLSA BAY Wfrrpsioek Oil Welly' - _ - _—o Ot� _O_ _�Je_ � - T -��:'__-�1�•••�'!:K-_-rr ..1 _ - _ - PHc _— _ - :..��: .. _-'., ` _.�-~.• 1. ---------------------------- • BOLSA.CHICA ECOLOGICAL RESERVE Fisure OP-6-0 BOLSA CtI'ICA EXISTING OIL PRODUCTION FACILITIES LAND USE PLAN ®0 X* wo izao LEGEND / 0 COUNTY LCP AREA BOUNDARY GOODELL / rGGw Flood -t-°4'4► PROPERTY // Control Channel 1 SOVI • CIO RTH BOLSA :LEASE BOLgA~ 1 a s. , ! r O gT RIP SO VI 50U�'H BOLSA LEASE I STATE OF CALIFORNIA A 11 PACIrIC COAST WWWAY I 1 •' �� BOLSA CHICA STATE BEACH ----- ------------------------------------------------------------ -- - PACIFIC OCEAN WHIPSTOCK AREA Figure OP--6.1 BOLSA CHICA BOLSA CHICA OIL LEASES LAND USE PLAN 0 400 eo0 1600 .�` • • Page S a. The SOVI Bolsa Lease is divided into three major areas- 1) The North Bolsa Lease produces approximately 1,400 BOPD, of which over 1,000 BOPD is from the Ashton Reservoir. In addition secondary waterflood, recovery initiated in 1991, is expected to yield at least ten(10)million barrels of oil over the estimated twenty-five(25)year project life. 2) The South Bolsa Lease currently produces only about 650 barrels of oil per day(BOPD), and is approaching the economic limit of production. Unless oil production increases abnormally, the commencement of wetlands restoration within this lease area will not significantly 1 affect the amount of oil recovered from Bolsa Chica. 3)the Whipstock Area provides onshore well sites for the proposed waterflood of the Upper Main offshore reservoir. This waterflood is expected to produce an additional twenty- eight (28) million barrels of secondary oil for SOVI and the State of California(the offshore mineral interest owner) over an estimated twenty-five (25)year project life. Because well sites within the"Whipstock Area" are already clustered on the cement pads or mats individual well abandonment's do not release the surface area for new land uses. Therefore, this area will not be available for wetlands restoration until all of the State of California's offshore oil has been produced, or the State Lands Commission terminates production. ' b. HBCO's Lease allows them to use the total surface essentially without restriction by the surface landowner so long as any oil is produced in paying quantities. In contrast, SOVI's Bolsa Lease is subject to the Bolsa Surface Use Agreement ' (BSUA) which entitles the surface landowner to require the subsurface owner (oil operator)to abandon or relocate wells, pipelines, and other facilities when desired. The close of such relocation or abandonment, if required prior to surrender by the operator for lack of use, is borne by the surface landowner and is equal to the fair market value(FMV) of the remaining oil production, plus the cost of well abandonment, demolition, and/or relocation (replacement), plus the FMV of the lost production during relocation. ❖ The Huntington Beach Oil Field is the 15th largest producing field in California and the second largest producing field in the Los Angeles Basin. It ranks 1 lth out of the top 50 California oil fields in estimated remaining reserves. However, 82 percent of its 56 million barrels of remaining reserves are located offshore. ' ••• It is estimated that the remaining life of the field is 15.25 ears. • g Y ' Bolsa Chica Handbook 10/24/94 LEGEND %\ � e / �+ ABQU)ONED OII. WF.[IS E ` s�' `g P .j. o[] IDLE OII. WFIIS OIL WEU S NOT DRUM ® REUDENTW. ►4Pf� IIYC' AREA / / \ / s \ ° o WMLkNMPHAMM ARFA / EGGW Flood \fir / IN, t o 0 / Control Channel IS, / \ Ib o ° 0 0 0 cwNTY LCP AREA BOuNDAKY 0 0 • .^ 4s'q / 9•y9 - - /}i \ {Poncho ® �\ ♦i \ 1 + • + + • Non-Tidal . .+ + \\a di \ / ` ♦ + �T�d + + • jB o Seasons •• N ! + \ �� \ ^ / ,dog/ ♦ + 0 • Seasonal% fonds fo 3E Muted + • + + • Ponds + Seasonal • t •ponds Tidal + + Muted a:alNOw O � ++� 0 * I 0� + GOB + qC = + + 3D • • Seasonal o�� + Mute Tidal 3A7 •o�� • Ponds + + Full Tidal• ��n ° Seaso�al + 1E ' + + • 0 • Ponds Seasonal ,/2 +, + Full Tidal+ Muted Tidal Ponds r • • •+ i e h � Non �• DFG Cetl / Non Tod aI • ° (Rabbit .Island) • • • 6A ZA J liner Bolsa Bay Muted Non Tidal / 1 Muted Tidal >A Full Tidal - PACIFIC COAST oa MGHWAY r Non Tidal soociz4. • 4 BOLSA CHICA ----- STATE BEACH ____--____- !. ---------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------;------" --- PACIFIC OCEAN Figure OP-6.2 OPTION A BOLSA CHICA OIL WELL LOCATIONS RELATED TO PHASING AREAS LAND USE PLAN - ® r—_.._.00 12 Im� 0 xo eao o pAve \c LEGENDAL-IvE on was ��F 0+ o ,,� o�. WFlIS . . \\ ` ♦ sr E o� IDLE OIL WOLS /\ q. \�gE ? pV o o � �a OEL WE= NOT MIFD RIMUNXTIAL IX?VFI VIAD T M&SING AREA // // \�\ // s.� \\\ ° W6IIAND5 RP3IORAMM FHASM AREA / EGG W Flood Oar / \\ o 0 / Control Chonnel \ / \ b o ° ° o �► E_3 COUNTY LLB AREA BOUNDARY // \/ \\ d ° • oPonds o \ q / 9�• + + + • o o 3C CO 0 • \+ di ♦ • OR IC + + + • Sg o Seasonal s• ♦ \ lit 06' I'A jp + O • Seasonal fonds o 3B ♦ \ "' ITS �+ + • Ponds + Seasonal Muted + + • + Ponds �• +Tidal •1 Muted cTidal • • • • • t • / \ ® +G� • • • • • ♦ + +� • + GO 4C = + 3D • • Seasonal + • o Muted + MutedQ Tidal 30 5D Ig Ponds %% ( \� � + + Tidal Full Tidal• •o Tidal ° Seaao�al + ]$ + q 1C Tidal o •+ Ponds Seasonal / + Full Tidal+ Muted T Ido Ponds o « • e �5 Non Tidal to DFG Cog + �t►r • ffi • ° / Non Tidal • , (Rabbit Island) • • • tiA ?A � I' Inner f3ola Bay Muted Non Tidal Tidal lA Muted ' dal FLA Tidal 6B Non Tidal f PACIFIC COAST MGHWAY ®� •oo BOLSA CHICA STATE BEACH ------------------------ --------- ------------------------------------- ----------------- ----------------------------- -- """"__ PACIFIC OCEAN Figure OP-63 OPTION B BOLSA CHICA OIL WELL LOCATIONS RELATED TO PHASING AREAS r r LAND USE PLAN ® -- _� o 300 soo faoo 1 � 7.Fiscal Issues General Information ' • • Page �I FISCAL This section provides an overview of the fiscal issues associated with development of the Bolsa Chica area. Fiscal impact analyses for the three plans (Koll Plan, Option A and Option B)were prepared by the City's consultant in preparation of the City's comments on the draft EIRs. A summary of the fiscal impacts of the plans based upon three potential scenarios--Annexation Prior to Development of the Bolsa Chica; Annexation During/After Development of the Bolsa Chica; and Bolsa Chica Development Remains in the County-- have been provided in Tables FI-7.1, FI-7.2, and FI-7.3, respectively. No fiscal impact analysis of the No Project alternative has been prepared to date. Therefore cost and revenue information has been indicated with an asterisks. Fiscal--General Issues ♦ Development of the proposed plans have the potential to adversely impact the City of Huntington Beach. The degree of those impacts vary with the types and distribution of land uses as well as with whether the property is annexed by the City(and the timing of annexation). ♦ Heavy cost burdens on the City resulting from development of the Bolsa Chica can have an adverse impact on service levels of the City of Huntington Beach. �i Fiscal--General Information ♦ The fiscal impact analysis is based upon the following recurring and one-time cost and revenue information: ♦ Recurring Costs Recurring Revenues General govt. and Property tax Police Property transfer tax Fire Oil extraction tax Com. Development Sales and use tax Community Services Franchise fees Library General fund per capita Public Works admin. revenues Street maintenance Park maintenance Street Landscape maintenance Street lights Drainage maintenance ♦ One Time Costs One Time Revenues City capital facilities and infrastructure Development Service Fees '. Bolsa Chica Handbook 10/24/94 • • Page Table FI-7.1 COMPARISON OF NET RECURRING FISCAL IMPACTS ANNEXED TO CITY PRIOR TO DEVELOPMENT Revenue/Cost in millions Koll Plan Option A Option B No Project Annual Recurring (2.8) (1.4) (1.6) Surplus/(Deficit) at Buildout Annual Recurring 7.3 4.3 5.8 Costs at Buildout Annual Recurring 4.5 2.9 4.2 Revenues at Buildout Revenue/Cost 61% 68% 72% Ratio at Buildout Cumulative 19.2 9.9 9.9 Surplus/(Deficit) throu Buildout Table FI-7.2 COMPARISON OF NET RECURRING FISCAL IMPACTS ANNEXED TO CITY DURING OR AFTER DEVELOPMENT Revenue/Cost in millions Koll Plan Option A Option B No Project Annual Recurring (2.8) (1.4) (1.6) Surplus/(Deficit) at Buildout Annual Recurring 7.3 4.3 5.8 Costs at Buildout Annual Recurring 4.5 2.9 4.2 Revenues at Buildout Revenue/Cost 63% 68% 72% Ratio at Buildout Cumulative 25.2(1) 18.5(1) 18.4(1) Surplus/(Deficit) through Buildout (1)Increase primarily due to one-time impacts resulting from impact fees and mitigation fees paid to the County prior to annexation into the City. r IBolsa Chica Handbook 10/24/94 • • Page Table F1-7.3 COMPARISON OF PLANS NET RECURRING FISCAL IMPACTS PROJECT NOT ANNEXED INTO THE CITY Revenue/Cost Koll Plan(i) Option A(2) Option B(3) No Project in millions Annual Recurring (1.15) (.64) (.67) Surplust(Deficit) at Buildout Annual Recurring 1.95 1.13 1.35 Costs at Buildout Annual Recurring .80 .49 .68 Revenues at Buildout Revenue/Cost 40% 43% 50% Ratio at Buildout Cumulative 22.5 16.7 17.2 Surplus/(Deficit) through Buildout (1) Figures do not include Fire Department Operations. If included,the annual recurring deficit at buildout increases to 5.3 million,based upon annual revenues of 8 million and annual costs of 6.1 million,resulting in a revenue to cost ration of 13%. Cumulative deficit then increases to 58.6 million. L (2) Figures do not include Fire Department Operations. If included,the annual recurring deficit at buildout increases to 5.4 mullion,based upon annual revenues of 4.9 million and annual costs of 5.9 million,resulting in a revenue to cost ration of 8%. Cumulative deficit then increases to 60.1 million. (3) Figures do not include Fire Department Operations. If included,the annual recurring deficit at buildout increases to 5.4 million,based upon annual revenues of 6.8 million and annual costs of 6.1 million,resulting in a revenue to cost ration of 11%. Cumulative deficit then increases to 62.1 million. Bolsa Chica Handbook 10/24/94 l 1 1 � 8 .Parks and Recreational Issues General Information 1 • • Page — PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES • This section provides a brief overview of the park and recreation issues associated with development of the Bolsa Chica. The park related issues and City and County park standards have been presented below along with a brief description of the park and recreation facilities proposed under each plan. Park Issues : ❖ The City currently has approximately 600 park acres for a population of approximate 181,519. At the City's required standard of 5.0 acres per 1,000 population, the City needs a total of 908 acres of parks. It should be noted that the County of Orange has a less stringent standard for the provision of parks. Therefore, should the Bolsa Chica be planned under the less stringent standard, it will make the City more deficient in its park standards, if the area is annexed into the City in the future. Park Standards City of Huntington Beach : The City of Huntington Beach Park Standard requires the provision of a minimum 5 acres of park land per 1,000 residents. County of Orange : The County of Orange Park Standard requires the provision of 2.5 acres per 1,000 residents. Proposed Park and Recreation Facilities The following is a brief discussion of the park and recreational facilities proposed by each land use plan. Table PR-8.0 provides a summary of the recreational acreage proposed and the ratio of park land per 1,000 residents (projected)under each plan. I (Note: Table PR-8.0 does not count the Bolsa Chica Regional Park, Trail, or Beach Access acreages in the acreage per 1,000 population calculations, since theses areas either do not constitute `park uses"or are regional facilities distinct from the proposed project.) Bolsa Chica Handbook 10/24/94 • • Page 5� Koll Plan Mesa.Community Park : Option A includes a 19 acre community park on the Bolsa Chica Mesa; this park, referred to as the Mesa Community Park, extends north-south across the Mesa and is separated into two areas by the Mesa Connector Road. The northern area of the park is approximately 12 acres and will include active recreational facilities such as court game facilities(possibly basketball and/or tennis, etc.), restrooms and picnic structures. The remaining7 acre southern onion of the ark with include unstructured recreation P P and informal play and picnic areas. The area will also include a topographic"bowl' feature that overlooks the wetlands restoration area and is intended to serve as a gathering spot for individuals and groups. Lowland Parks: The Koll Plan also includes approximately 4 acres of neighborhood park facilities in the Central Lowland area. This park is intended to consist of active recreational uses such as ball fields and picnic structures. This plan also includes 2.0 acres of Passive Park/Trail Staging area which is to be located at the intersection of the Bolsa Chica Street Extension and the EGGW Flood Control Channel. Option A Mesa Community Park Option A also includes a Mesa Community Park but of a smaller size than that of the Koll Plan. Option A proposes a 17 acre community park on the Bolsa Chica Mesa; this park, also referred to as the Mesa Community Park, extends north-south across the Mesa and is separated into two areas by the Mesa Connector Road. The northern area of the park is Iapproximately 11 acres and will include active recreational facilities such as court game facilities (possibly basketball and/or tennis, etc.), restrooms and picnic structures. The remaining 6 acre southern portion of the park with include unstructured recreation and informal play and picnic areas. The area will also include a topographic"bowl' feature that overlooks the wetlands restoration area and is intended to serve as a gathering spot for individuals and groups. . Bolsa Chica Handbook 10/24/94 • • Page Option B Mesa Community Park Option B also includes a Mesa Community Park, identical to the one proposed in Option A. Please refer to the description provided under Option A, above. Lowland CommuWV Park Option B also includes an approximately 15 acre community park in the Central Lowland ` area. This ark also referred to as the Lowland Community Park, is intended to provide a P ty mix of active and passive recreational uses similar to those described under the Mesa Community Park. The park also includes a wetlands observation area which is to be located adjacent to a trail that will run along the buffer area adjacent to the park. No Project: The No Project alternative assumes that the Bolsa Chica will primarily remain in its current state. The site presently does not have any park or recreational facilities other than the very passive Ecological Preserve site (which provides interpretive trails and vista overlooks). Bolsa Chica Handbook 10/24/94 ' • • Page _e�— Table PR-8.0 PUBLIC PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES Bolsa Chica Land Use Plans PUBLIC PARK/RECREATION KOLL OPTION OPTION NO PROJECT FACILITY PLAN A B BOLSA CHICA REGIONAL PARK 58 acres' 58 acres' 58 acres' 58 acres' BOLSA CHICA MESA PARK 19 acres 17 acres 17 acres LOWLAND COMMUNITY PARK 6 acres - 15 acres LOWLAND TRAIL CORRIDOR �• (Boardwalk through Seasonal Ponds to - - 1 acre Bolsa Chica Regional Park) BOLSA CHICA BEACH ENTRY 4 acres 4 acres 4 acres (City-Owned Parcel at Warner Avenue) TOTAL 87 acres 79 acres 95 acres PROJECT POPULATION 11,4442 6,5003 8,3204 - PARK ACREAGE PER 1000 POPULATION 2.25 2.65 3.85 - ' Bolsa Chica Regional Park will contain a total of 106 acres,48 acres of which are in the City of Huntington Beach,outside the Bols Chica LCP Area. 2 _ Projected population is based upon the maximum units allowed(4,286)multiplied by a factor of 2.6 residents per unit which is the average occupancy of units in the City of Huntington Beach. 3 Projected population is based upon the maximum units allowed(2,500)multiplied by a factor of 2.6 residents per unit which is the average occupancy of units in the City of Huntington Beach. 4 Projected population is based upon the maximum units allowed(3,200)multiplied by a factor of 2.6 residents per unit which is the average occupancy of units in the City of Huntington Beach. 5 Ratio does not count the Bolsa Chica Regional Park,Trail,or Beach Access areages in the acreage per 1,000 population calculations,since theses areas either do not constitute"park uses"or are regional facilities distinct from the proposed project.) * Park Acreage Unknown Bolsa Chica Handbook 10/24/94 1 9.Schools Issues General Information t 1 1 • • Page _ SCHOOLS This section provides a summary of school issues associated with development of the Bolsa Chica area. Also included is general information on school facilities in the immediate area. A map of the existing school sites in the City has been provided as Figure SC-9.0. Schools--Issues ♦ Development of residential units in the Bolsa Chica area will require school facilities to serve the needs of future residents. ♦ The Bolsa Chica area includes 15 acres on the Bolsa Chica Mesa that are owned by the Ocean View School District, but have not been designated for use as a school on any of the proposed plans. ♦ Existing schools in the project vicinity are currently operating at or near capacity with little or no room for expansion to accommodate additional students. ♦ The nearest school sites(closed or operating are located a minimum of 2-3 miles from the Bolsa Chica and are beyond walking distance. If no school site is provided in the Bolsa Chica, the school district has indicated that costly busing activities would be required to transport students to schools that can accommodate the additional capacity. The districts have also indicated that additional significant costs would result for re-opening of a closed school site. Schools--General Information ❖ The Bolsa Chica area is served by the Huntington Beach City School District, the Ocean View School District, and the Huntington Beach Union High School District. The boundaries of the school districts is depicted on Figure SC-9.0. •'• The student generation factors are different for each school district. Table SC-9.1 • presents the student generation factor for each district as well as the estimated number of students generated under each proposed land plan. l Bolsa Chica Handbook 10/24/94 v o - 3 m c; SEAL WESTMINSTER BEACH BOLSA Xq o : W//01 e z .. o . O :.;�s�iv<a;•:r' ;Y:ii ; ,•:. .:•:..:::�, ':'•: —•{Fi},DDEN Cq < ,<:?r.;:%::�';:i?.v{;n!cY;:a';::t'k:<? :� F>:;+.;Y>:,•.3:3`:;k�:3<::iy}:. Z ' ''�+ir: }}}:4:4:?•}r.}v:v.w:::::x......v:v•: .n::•i}:•}: )) v:x::•r.?ryv fi}':':..: 22..v v.r •Y.j.';.w >,>?y:;;' :t�4;:rY::;•,v,?:•.;.<-v::.}. ::{?•:{%{{;FJ.�:•r C4i?' Y:•'J.{•: '}i'J.!.?Yn•}}}::•: :}}i n•: i,F.r:}: .4}.v:.'•}} .?:kiky:! }( 'v:<$.v::!f.'i•.`x r^;.jk:•{.}•.:ii'r' :i}}:;::::.,..:i:':" ���[y{}j:::j:k:�ti;:i:�<' :R`:?i:'•z::kj:.::i?::::{:::.}:.};:.!::.}i:.:..•}..}, ?.yx.:.:;.t'5::::i::::'?�:��:�'%:�:Y%:�::':2'?r:::.. •.•:!J}i`J^:SYkki9 '4:S:v': {{+�h+i:•:Y`/r�Si'iY"•Y�:'i }fi.} k4?n}::t:.,. '+'�'),.�:ryx.y:i{�•}kkY ^i\!:?::{{:.iii r::J r:tY! •'•:�i}%:?f:•}}:+.::i:': ;:'•i}^::-{:•.,r.;;+::. !::c},%kt::}}•:r.J. ::.}St4.}:,:.:a':r.:.};}{{.::.,• ::}j{J::'u,.;... k.:v:....k ~�?;x,..•�j:s::� ::rK;4.„3�:M:•:::�.}„:;..:.:{.w:::;;r;. : •.g<>:,s•<>cx?::.,^^• HEiL �Yi}•' :r.�Y:..J: fi:L:::L. •:,'}?}:Y:•i::r.:.:3.? { ::{:M:i'{x;j:{r. rn l?:�n :+i1.•..r.. r.�::t•�C•.'i::},C,:.?'4•,:+ 't''3';H:}.v:rh.n..r3:i'4 . t�: i•:,';i,{i%i iiiT: ':::+:v vr:{::+i:•:4i} :i:•.y`•:;:r // ;•:{' ,;•}::n:A::•:•:�'::k!v';X:?x:!:r,•%h+'i:v:k i}i�•%'� ti+/.'{':,•i''''' }:>4 iYL'Kv:. ,''iF'- :i:t••.}}{ }}; v><+{r ...}.v::::::::::::^:�rfi,.':. •+.{ry�y:Y•;..yr.%'v��..}.:.''"Y{v�M�/}. r. :r.•..s,.•.:;:.yY+�s.:�x•::.:::'•::tiyt.,j2: ,^.'r: ..:<:::kk•...:.:!): ..:/•:•::.£.;{ .:•.^..L:.• mini: 4:ij?�':?iiifiiit:�>i:•. w:Y::i:i:n�%:.::rv...« i�:<•$i ?:��:ii}:jjY�i+•.'•i� r.t.v yr� h{???!::i:} ..�?•:{{rr.J v:Y.Y^}}:f.v::v:::+ p' ...{.....n... •:{QiY'�;fin;:?i't•:'y{:}:}}}:{:4k:{•{.yv:.. �:i`n ? >�sifr::::.:: ...�:r: :::.4ti:: .:.4... ..4:i.'•}:f}:.{:o:Y:}r..'•};<:.:.,....:. ",':3•{,v. M1.•M1?J::•:v: i?: l?+ -}:}:{.v:„r.?:.vr.:+:r}:}}:."Ln:..�.n• WARN SR .0,:::::: ?fJJr:-:}:• ::.:;;:. .s..,:...:::...f•fj,..•�;::�;.?::�,:;....v.;,Vw.:t{'r.::•:{:.r.}::j::.};:4<:j:4}}:atri.:}»...: •:;jgio9tiw•- R -�:%:: .:}. vnl.:.R::...:•'::..:i".3i':s{':i:.:?•}'f.. 'v: •:fi:+.•:}i3?: M'J,n:•:{•}{{}:4ii ':}ti? k:•'J,.Y i:•{:{Y} �'r:,,Jr:-r?.. %•rl:r•}::;,;...:.q;{r,:}i};}:x•�t}x•}}i:t•: .•;:?�k•.'+?;:::..::t.}..{:{::Jn:}:x >J::w,•.;•r, ?e•:fi: FOUNTAIN _ ..3::� .:.4.:•! Y33� .:.{•::3r..:,.::.':£•..d:,t��..:. VALLEY Ai?,}rr :k•'•.'4S-::iiirik4;f•r'l};;:v.::'::.::.....:.............t i'�:::::4}•.nv4i+^{?::j??::Y33 (:?,v,:v,:j..... R+{4CSt TALBERT {� y wrJ.f.Y�..?.{{.{'3'.-:{::t•:SY.'r��J;r.. x;f,.:.. J _ - ..�::i inkfi:>?nY.Y•:f:::YS}:3:k:;:j::.','i.'•:tiik}''.kk}'•+ifik}k: +•'•Q''�}:i:yi ji:ii::}ii?' �'�i. %}4.!:•}:{•:J r�s}}STY ikit7'lij:: O .....:.::: rif Sy ELLIS Z = c -- c o 3 5 - .:.: ::.::: - - • _ - - OWN YORKT DAM. i INDIAN:,i-OLIS /C • : ATLANTA �� pp CF9/l� �•• HAMILTON nrND r.. y?' BANNING City Boundary ,.:' , COSTA // Westminster MESA School District %N Ocean View School District _ Fountain Valley ;r School District Note: Letters designate Huntinaton Beach City school si,es currently closed School. District HUNTINGTON BEACH ELEMENTARY Figure SC-9.0 AND JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS AND DISTRICTS c c.� c s � pity of Ht;ntineton Bea.-h General Plar. �: _ • �bc-� loD TABLE Elementary and Junior High Schools 1. Circle View 2: College View - 3. IWME6 li m 4. Golden View 5. Harbour View 6. 7. Hope View 8. Lake View 9. Marine View 10. Mesa View 11. Oak View 12. Spring View 13. Sun View 14. Village View 15. Ada E.Clegg 16. James W. Franklin 17. C. Fred Schroeder 18. Helen F. Stacey 19. Newland Elementary 20. Oke Elementary 21. Talbert Middle School 22. Dwyer Middle School 23. Sowers Middle School 24. Smith School 25. Perry School 26. Eader School 27. Kettler School 28. Hawes School 29. Moffett School A. B. Nueva View School C. D. E. F. n,_L v .... Ss_.." G. H. 4;11 W@ ffi ..fiW - - J. K. 18�� L. M. i.Geireei� N. 1�inrG�iwoi 0. ee��e�ieei P. Clapp School Q. • • Page g (n� •'• The Huntington Beach City School District has two schools which, due to their • proximity to the Bolsa Chica, would be most likely to receive students from development of the area. These schools, Smith School and Dwyer School, are currently operating above capacity and do not have any space for expansion. These schools are also located approximately 3-5 miles from the Bolsa Chica. Table SC-9.2 provides the current enrollments and capacities of schools in the Bolsa Chica area. ❖ The Ocean View School District has three schools which, due to their proximity to the Bolsa Chica, would be most likely to receive students from development of the area. These schools, Hope View Elementary,Harbour View Elementary, and Marine View School, are currently operating at or near capacity and have little or no space for expansion. These schools are also located approximately 2-3 miles from the Bolsa Chica. Table SC-9.2 provides the current enrollments and capacities of schools in the Bolsa Chica area. Table SC-9.1 jESTIMATED STUDENT GENERATION Bolsa Chica Area SCHOOL DISTRICT KOLL OPTION OPTION NO Student Generation Rates PLAN A B PROJECT Ocean View School District 1,086 540 634 --' .2695 students/unit Huntington Beach City School Dist. 507 295 503 --' ' .5943 students/unitZ Huntington Beach Union High School 630 322 412 District .1289 students/unit TOTALS 2,223 1,157 1,459 --' ' Student generation information for the"No Project"alternative is not available. The alternative assumes that the Bolsa Chica will remain in its present undeveloped condition. Z Student generation factor taken from Huntington Beach City School District comment letter on the Bolsa Chica RDEIR,dated September 28, 1994. Note: Above data taken from the School Impacts sections of DEIR No. 551 and RDEIR No. 551 on the Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Program,prepared by the County of Orange. Except where noted. Bolsa Chica Handbook 10/24/94 ' • • Page Table SC-9.2 EXISTING SCHOOLS WITH CURRENT ENROLLMENT AND CAPACITY 1993/94 SCHOOL Enrollment Ca aci Hope View Element -5 OVSD' 594 600 Harbour View Element -5 OVSD' 793 780 Agnes L. Smith School -5 HBCSDZ 731 690 Marine View School 6-8 OVSD' 738 760 Ethel Dwyer Middle School 6-8 HBCSDZ 835 780 Huntington Beach High School 9-12 3 2,197 2,651 Marina High School 9-12 3 2,155 ,373 1 OVSD = Oceanview School District HBCSD =Huntington Beach City School District ' Enrollment and Capacity information taken from the Ocean View School District comment letter on the Bolsa Chica RDEIR,dated September 28, 1994. 2 Enrollment and Capacity information taken from Huntington Beach City School District comment letter on the Bolsa Chica RDEIR,dated September 28, 1994. 3 Enrollment and Capacity information taken from the School Impacts sections of DEIR No. 551 and RDEIR No. 551 on the Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Program,prepared by the County of Orange. �1 i Bolsa Chica Handbook 10/24/94 1 10 .Cultural Resources ' Issues General Information 1 1 t 1 • • Page �O?J CULTURAL RESOURCES 1 This section provides and overview of the Cultural Resources including archaeological sites, paleontological resources and potentially historically significant structures in the Bolsa Chica area. The following is a summary of Cultural Resource issues followed by general information on the types of resources present at the Bolsa Chica. Cultural Resources--Issues: ♦ Restoration and/or development of the Bolsa Chica without significantly impacting the cultural resources of the area. ' Cultural Resources--General Information: Archeological Resources: The Bolsa Chica area has a total of 14 archaeological sites. A summary of the archeological sites, general location, and significance of the sites has been provided in matrix form as Table CR-10.0. Paleontological Resources: Analysis conducted in preparation of the draft Environmental Impact Reports for the various plans have indicated that the Bolsa Chica area does not contain any recognized or previously-recorded paleontological sites. Surface analysis of the Bolsa Chica also revealed that there are not paleontologically significant resources on the site. Historical Resources: The Bolsa Chica does contain a World War II aboveground concrete bunker (which has been partially demolished pursuant to permits issued by the County and Coastal Commission), and a subsurface plotting survey room. These structures have recently been determined to be eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. This determination does not preclude use of the property; however, the determination of permitted impacts and the mitigation of those impacts falls under the discretion of the federal agency(US Corps of Engineers) having responsibility over the property. Bolsa Chica Handbook 10/24/94 LAND USE PLAN 3.4 CULTURAL RESOURCES COMPONENT Table CR-10.0 SIGNIFICANCE OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES Bolsa Chica Land Use Plan Site number Physical Location Sisaifuaat SignificanceNotHot Sgnifewt Determined ORA 78 BC Mesa + ORA-78H BC Mesa + ORA-83 BC Mesa + ORA-93H BC Mesa + ORA-144 BC Mesa + ORA 144H BC Mesa + ORA-84 BC Mesa + ORA-289 BC Mesa + ORA-85 BC Mesa + ORA-85H BC Mesa + ORA-288 BC Mesa + ORA-82 H Mesa + ORA-89 H Mesa +' ORA48H H Mesa += ORA 290 H Mesa + ORA 291 H Mesa += ORA-292 H Mesa += ORA-213/294 H Mesa +: ORA 365 H Mesa +t +t: ORA-365H H Mesa += is ICev OIL4-Orange Couaty5ite Tumber H Denotes IIictoru Component,listed separately in table '< ::P1�yaeal<I:ocaaon :BC:-:Bolsa Chita./;$-'Huutiubton Beach::: ., Portion is the LCP Area not yet tested. f nth the exception of the hooted testing reported.none of the archaeological sites on Huntiugtoa Mesa have been tested to t determiae tfieaiguificanee or:importance of each site as a whole. . Remaiatng tact portion is eatirely.outside.LCY Area.: Sotaee..Bolsa Chica Deaft EM 5511county of Osage.August 1994). LUPLSEC3.004,September 23, 1994 3-61 r � Appendix A 1 � Environmental Impacts 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 r ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS This section provides a summary of the environmental impacts associated with each plan, as identified in the draft environmental impact reports prepared for each plan. The environmental impacts have been provided in the following tables. Plan Subsection Source rKoll Plan A_1 Table 1.3 of the Executive Summary from DEIR No. 551 (prepared by the County of Orange Dec. 1993) Option A and B A_2 Table 1.5 of the Executive Summary from Revised DEIR No. 551 (prepared by the County of Orange Aug. 1994) 1 r i r r r Bolsa Chica Handbook 10/24/94 Sub-Section A-1 1 Bolsa Chica 1 Environmental Impacts 1 Koll Plan 1 Source: Table 1.5from the Executive Summary from Revised DEN No. 551 (prepared by the County of Orange Aug. 1994) 1 1 1 1 M man rr �r rr rr rr �r r r �r �r �■r rr rr Table 1.5-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS - APPLICANT'S PROPOSED PROJECT 4.1 LAND USE Effects Found To Be Insignificant Proposed GPA and Zone Change/Compatibility. The Proposed Project has considered the goals and policies of the Orange County General Plan relative to preservation of the Bolas.Chica's unique open space,natural, and energy resources. Nearly 75 percent of the County LCP Area will be dedicated to open space, parka,protected wetlands, and ESHAs. PDFs*will provide buffer zones and fencing to protect from intrusion into restored wetlands by people and undesirable animals, will provide measures to screen continuing oil operations from new development,and will provide other measures to mitigate natural hazards.With only • limited exceptions,public views in and around the area will be preserved. I Adjacent Residential Use/Compatibility. Potential land use conflicts that could occur include incompatibility between proposed uses and existing uses(such as high density residential adjacent to single family, large building masses,and excessive height differences). PDFs*have been developed which provide for physical separation of the existing and proposed development at Los Patos consisting of the 40-foot roadway plus a 34-foot landscaped parkway and community theme wall. Proposed development will be set back a minimum of 15 feet from the wall and will be restricted to a 35-foot-height within 150 feet of the theme wall. Proposed lowlands residential development will be single-family detached units to be compatible With existing adjacent homes.Analysis of the proposed LUP has determined that it will not create internal conflicts among proposed uses or land use densities. Consistency with County of Orange General Plan. Components of the Proposed Project are generally consistent with the goals and policies of the Orange County General Plan, although it will be necessary to amend the LUE and Transportation Element,and MPAH to accommodate the project. Detailed analysis has shown that no physical significant impacts occur from amending the LUE.The main inconsistency of the project relative to the MPAH is that Bolaa Chica Street is not connected to Garfield Avenue as a secondary arterial. (Analysis shows that no significant adverse impacts result from this modification as proposed.) Consistency with County LCP. The Proposed Project eliminates the navigable ocean entrance and marina elements and results in a net increase in wetlands.These changes will not result in a significant adverse impact. Bolaa Chica Planning Coalition (BCPC) Concept Plan. The Proposed Project is generally consistent with the BCPC Concept Plan although the project has incorporated several modifications and refinements from possible interpretations of the plan.The main differences are exclusion of the Cross Gap Connector;relocation • of the tidal inlet; aspects related to housing, traffic circulation,buffers and restoration;and use of average development density as the development criteria.These modifications do not result in significant adverse impact. Zoning-County of Orange. No significant inconsistencies between existing and proposed zoning have been identified. Consistency with California Coastal Act. Many features have been incorporated into project design to respond to Coastal Act policy.The detailed explanation of these features is contained in Chapter 4.1.3.L Detailed consistency analysis will be necessary during the processing of the specific LCP;however,the project has been found to positively address the key policy provisions of the Coastal Act, subject to further analysi9 and plan refinement as the LUP and LCP proceed through CCC review and federal permitting. •PDP Project Design Feature Table 1.5-1 (Continued) SUMMARY OF IMPACTS- APPLICANT'S PROPOSED PROJECT 4.1 LAND USE Effects Found To Be Sinn& nt Significant Adverse Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Impacts after Mitigation Impact 4.1-1. Oilfield facilities(e.g., wells, tank farms, gas Mitigation Measure 4.1-1s: The Oil Spill Prevention Control Insignificant plants,pipelines)which remain in the proposed wetlands Counter Measure Plan and Oil Spill Contingency Plan enacted restoration/protection area until phased out are potentially between the oil field operators and appropriate state agencies will incompatible with proposed residential and wetlands areas. remain in effect for the duration of the oil activities on Bolsa Chica. These plans will be amended as required for each Residential Planning Area and require the approval of the state contracting agencies at that time. Mitigation Measure 4.1-1b: All potential buyers of onsite residences shall be notified of the potential hazardous conditions associated with onsite oil production activities. Such information shall be disclosed in the Department of Real Estate reports prior to unit sales. 4.2 GEOLOGY AND SEISMICITY lffects Found Xg Be Insignificanj Construction/Bolsa Chica and Huntington Mesas.Construction activity on the Mesas is not expected to encounter near-surface groundwater or result in hazards associated with such occurrence.Oilfield activities on the Mesas will be abandoned in compliance with CDDG standards prior to grading;consequently,no adverse • impacts from such former activities will occur. Also, grading operations are not expected to encounter BTEX,VOC, or flammable soils. Horizontal ground accelerations may cause damage ranging from slight nonstructural cracking and facing failures to major structural damage of inadequately designed buildings. Application of building code requirements will reduce impacts to insignificant. Construction/MWD Area and Lowlands Residential. Seismic hazards and associated activity during construction cannot be avoided;however,reasonable care associated with established site safety will ensure that such impacts are not significant. The surficial layer will be removed and stockpiled onsite to increase the efficiency of DDC work and for engineered fills. The stockpile will be subject to erosion control as specified in Chapter 4.3. Construction/Wetlands Restoration. Minor impacts from water and wind erosion may occur in specific wetlands areas and are not considered significant during construction(prior to establishment of final grades and improvements).Operation of heavy mechanical equipment in wetland areas could result in accidental spills of fuels;however,the WRP specifies that refueling take place in areas removed from occupied habitats or other sensitive areas. •PDP a Project Design Feature sr r ,■� r �r r� r +� r r +r .� r r r r r r r Table 1.5-1 (Continued) SUMMARY OF IMPACTS - APPLICANT'S PROPOSED PROJECT 4.2 GEOLOGY AND SEISMICITY Project Impacts on Mesas.Several possible but very remote(and therefore insignificant)environmental impacts may occur with project development in these areas including hazards from tsunami, potential for improperly abandoned oil facilities, potential for artificial fill failures, and potential for encountering hazardous materials. Project Impacts on MWD and Lowlands Residential. Several possible but very remote(and therefore insignificant)environmental impacts may occur with project development in these areas including potential for fault surface rupture, hazards from tsunami(isolated by wetlands area),and potential for artificial fill failures. Project Impacts Wetlands Restoration. Several possible but insignificant impacts related to seismic hazards in the wetlands restoration area include potential shaking • to affect berms and dikes, potential for tsunami to affect inlet jetties, and potential for differential settlement of flow control structures.These factors have been considered in engineering design and have low potential for occurrence. Effects Found To Be Significant Significant Adverse Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Impact After Mitigation Impact 4.2-1: As the result of groundwater fluctuations from Mitigation Measure 4.2-1a: Prior to the issuance of a grading Insignificant construction watering or irrigation, some bluffs or natural slopes permit, the Applicant shall submit a geotechnical report to the C perceived as stable may become unstable from increased Manager,Development Services, for approval and include hydrostatic pressure. information required by the Orange County Grading Manual and Excavation and Grading Code. Mitigation Measure 4.2-1b: The Applicant's grading plan shall provide stabilization of manufactured slopes to the satisfaction of the Manager,Development Services,including, fill buttressing, rock bolting, grouting, slope gradient laybacks,retaining walls and drainage control. • Impact 4.2-2: Soillbedrock support at the toe of marginally Same mitigation as Impact 4.2-1. Insignificant stable natural slopes may be removed during excavation necessary for the development of the proposed building areas, roads and utilities. This could cause instability to occur along existing joints, bedding, faults, ancient landslide slip surfaces,or other zones of weakness. Impact 4.2-3: Artificial fill or export stockpile over marginally Same mitigation as Impact 4.2-1. Insignificant stable rock or soil at the top of slopes or bluffs may result in instability of underlying natural materials. •PDF w Project Design Feature i i i i •i •i �•i �•i• •i .i •i �..i •i i �i ,i i i i Table 1.5-1 (Continued) SUMMARY OF IMPACTS - APPLICANT'S PROPOSED PROJECT 4.2 GEOLOGY AND SEISMICITY Significant Adverse Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Impact After Mitigation Impact 4.24: Grading(i.e., buttressing,slope stabilization, or Same mitigation as Impact 4.2-1. Insignificant excavations for retaining walls)to correct slopes identified as unstable or marginally unstable could cause slope failures during • construction. Impact 4.2 S: Pile driving, some soil compaction processes,or Same mitigation as Impact 4.2-1. Insignificant heavy equipment vibration may cause slopes perceived as stable to fail. Impact 4.2-6: Infrastructure improvements,utilities, and Mitigation Measure 4.2-6: Measures to mitigate compressible/ Insignificant structures built on or adjacent to undetected collapsible soils collapsible soil conditions include(1)removal and recompaction could experience distress if the soils are subjected to increased of identified compressible/collapsible zones,(2) fifi surcharging loading and/or moisture content. and settlement monitoring, and(3)compaction grouting or foundation design which utilizes deep piles. Specific measures shall be based upon geotechnical consultant recommendations and shall be incorporated on Tentative Tract Maps. Impact 4.2-7: Trenching for utilities and foundations may Mitigation Measure 4.2-7a (PDF'): Specific measures to be insignificant slough-ip or fill with water, creating a construction nuisance. implemented shall.alleviate the effects which groundwater may have on existing or future bluffs, slopes, and structures. These measures shall include techniques to remedy the effects of such incidents so that there is no risk of loss of integrity of bluffs, • slopes,or structures as recommended by the certified engineering geologist prior to issuance of grading permits. Mitigation Measure 4.2-7b: All project construction elements shall maintain the standards set forth by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration Section 1926.652. Impact 4.2-8: DDC in the lowland may affect adjacent Mitigation Measure 4.2-8a (PDF*): DDC for ground Insignificant neighbors due to noise and vibration which may cause damage to improvement shall be designed by a registered civil engineer and structures. geotechnical consultant so that vibration levels do not damage adjacent structure or provide unacceptable nuisance levels. •PDF a Project Design Feature Table 1.5-1 (Continued) SUMMARY OF IMPACTS - APPLICANT'S PROPOSED PROJECT 4.2 GEOLOGY AND SEISMICITY Significant Adverse impacts Mitigation Measures Residual impact After Mitigation Impact 4.2-8 (Continued) Mitigation Measure 4.2-8b: As an alternative to the DDC method of compaction,and provided that vibration meets the same standards as applied in the Mitigation Measure 4.2-8a, the Applicant's consultant shall evaluate using a rolling surcharge • method and dewatering of near-surface soils with well points. impact 4.2-9: Quantities of contaminated material may need to Mitigation Measure 4.2-9: All onsite-generated waste that Insignificant be removed from the site for disposal at appropriate licensed meets hazardous materials criteria shall be stored, manifested, landfills or treatment facilities. transported and disposed of in accordance with the California Code of Regulations Tide 22 and in a manner satisfactory to the Manager,HCA/Hazardous Materials Program. impact 4.2-10: Unknown well heads,sumps, and piping may be Mitigation Measure 4.2-10a: Prior to the recordation of a final Insignificant damaged during earthwork operation potentially resulting in (i) parcel/tract map or the issuance of any grading or building tj release of liquid or gaseous(i.e., methane)hydrocarbons,and(2) permits, the Applicant shall provide,in accordance with criteria spread of contamination and creating a hazard to worker and supplied by OCEMA,a "Hazardous Materials Assessment"and a public safety. "Disclosure.Statement" covering the property. Mitigation Measure 4.2-10b: Mitigation Measure 4.2-9 is applicable. Impact 4.2-11: Changes in moisture content of expansive soil Mitigation Measure 4.2-11a (PDF*): Measures to mitigate insignificant may distress foundations of structures and pavement not designed expansive soils conditions shall be implemented including • accordingly. specialized foundation design, removal and replacement of expansive soils,preaaturation of footing soils, or other appropriate methods. Mitigation Measure 4.2-Ilb (PDF*): The Applicant shall incorporate measures to mitigate expansive and corrosive soil potential as outlined in Mitigation Measures 4.2-13a and 4.2-13b during Tentative Tract Map Review. •PDF Project Design Feature ar as as r as ray ..aa �a. .aa .aa •a �a aa a •aa� �a as �a a� Table 1.5-1 (Continued) SUMMARY OF IMPACTS- APPLICANT'S PROPOSED PROJECT 4.2 GEOLOGY AND SEISMICITY Significant Adverse Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Impact After Mitigation Impact 4.2-12: Corrosive soils can progressively degrade Mitigation Measure 4.2-12a (PDF*): Measures to mitigate Insignificant utilities, foundations, and pavement through chemical reactions corrosive soil conditions shall be implemented including specially with these materials. formulated cement for concrete placed in contact with corrosive • soils,and cathodic protection or specialized coatings to prevent corrosion of metals in contact with corrosive soils. Mitigation Measure 4.2-12b(PDF*): The Applicant shall incorporate measures to mitigate expansive and corrosive soil potential in a report prepared by a registered civil engineer and approved by the County. Impact 4.2-13: Potentially active fault splays associated with the Mitigation Measure 4.12-13: Prior to issuance of a grading Insignificant North Branch fault may exist and cause surface rupture in the permit for construction of the 9-million-gallon tank by the City of proposed location of the 9-million-gallon water reservoir.Such Huntington Beach,a geologic investigation shall be performed to rupture may result in the loss of water for domestic and fire- determine the suitability of the site. fighting use. Impact 4.2-14: Underground utilities constructed within the Mitigation Measure 4.2-14s: To prevent discharge of sewage Significant. The impact to Alquist-Priolo Act exclusionary zone, especially those traversing should the sewage force main crossing the fault be sheared,the utilities which cross the- it, may be damaged from fault movement or rupture. following design measures are recommended: (1)a backflow North Branch Pault cannot be preventer could be installed immediately east of the potential area prevented should fault of breakage,(2) the lift station(wet well)could be oversized to rupture and/or displacement • accommodate extra capacity until the broken main ca be repaired, occur. and(3)an automatic breaker installed in the pump circuit to shut off the aystem in the even to severe seismic movement. Mitigation Measure 4.2-14b: Other utilities that are expected to cross the fault should be routed to prevent traversing the fault. Otherwise, measures such as automatic or manual shutoff valves, junctions boxes on opposing sides of the fault(for phone and cable)shall be provided. •PDF= Project Design Feature Table 1.5-1 (Continued) SUMMARY OF IMPACTS - APPLICANT'S PROPOSED PROJECT 4.3 SURFACE AND GROUNDWATER HYDROLOGY Effects Found To Be Insleniffcant Grading/Mesa, MWD and Lowland Residential. Heavy rains may cause erosion and runoff of sediment from the lots and roads at any time during the grading process.Such erosion could cause substantial impact from sediment deposition or fouling of existing drainage structures,including pump stations,and/or receiving waters such as Outer Bolea Bay. The Proposed Project will conform to the County of Orange Grading and Excavation Code requiring temporary and permanent erosion control devices during the rainy season.The impact is considered insignificant. Grading/Huntington Mesa and Bolea Chica Regional Park. Extensive grading for the GCSE between the Lowland and Huntington Mesa would create the potential for erosion and sedimentation impact to the Seasonal and Perennial Pond areas.The Proposed Project will conform to the County of Orange Grading and Excavation Code requiring temporary and permanent erosion control devices during the rainy season and requiring drainage be diverted away from the bluff face.Therefore,the impact is considered insignificant. Grading/Wetlands Restoration. impacts to the Bolea Aquifer beneath any areas undergoing wetlands restoration are remote due to the existing aquiclude. Potential debris fouling impacts on the EGGW Channel will be managed as required by OCFCD Design Manual. Incidental flooding and ponding may occur within the restoration area during phased construction.The WRP Grading Plan indicates several features to alleviate these effects including temporary berming and fills. Such �. effects are not considered significant. Pursuant to state and federal law,hazardous materials will be remediated by the Oil Leaseholder prior to construction.Therefore, hazardous materials are not anticipated during construction. Runoff From Developed Areas. There will be an increase in runoff from developed areas of the project site, contributing to the EGGW watershed.The proposed Backbone Drainage Plan for the project will direct drainage these minor,insignificant runoff volumes to appropriate discharge points. (Water quality effects are described in Chapter 4.4.) Operational failure of stormwater pump stations in the lowlands could cause flooding of residential structures. However,PDPs*include design of these pump stations with an alternative power supply making the potential for malfunction remote and insignificant. Operations in Wetlands Restoration Area. Excess sedimentation in full tidal areas may result in incidental flooding. PDFs*include regular removal of sediment from the full tidal area by minor dredging,with dredge spoils to be placed for beach replenishment. Effects Found To Be Significant • li Significant Adverse Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Impact After Mitigation Impact 4.3-1: Rerouting of the Bolea Chica Pump Station Mitigation Measure 4.3-1 (PDF*): The Applicant's civil Insignificant discharge during construction may not result in a continuous engineer shall provide a design and construction schedule to conduit or path for successful water discharge. This may cause reroute the Bole&Chica pump station discharge water without the existing neighborhood in the vicinity of the pump station to disruption. The County shall review and approve this design become flooded under certain storm conditions. prior to issuance of grading permits for Planning Area IS. •PDF Project Design Feature Table 1.5-1 (Continued) SUMMARY OF IMPACTS - APPLICANT'S PROPOSED PROJECT 4.3 SURFACE AND GROUNDWATER HYDROLOGY Significant Adverse Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Impact After Mitigation Impact 4.3-2: During RPA IA, the tidal inlet is phased to be Mitigation Measure 4.3 2(PDF«): A construction phasing plan Insignificant constructed after removing the existing EGGW Channel levees: for RPA IA will be prepared to show the EGGW Channel levees If a significant storm occurs,the wetlands could potentially till to be removed after April 15 and the tidal inlet to be opened • up with channel discharge and flood various portions of the prior to the following October 15. 'Ilia phasing plan will be wetland habitat, overflow across Pacific Coast Highway,overtop reviewed and approved by the County prior to issuance of mass and potentially damage berms,and flood the Lowland Residential grading permits for RPA IA. Development. Impact 4.3 3: Tidal inundation of the RPA III muted tidal area Mitigation Measure 4.33: To prevent degradation of Insignificant may potentially degrade groundwater quality of the exposed groundwater due to tidal inundation,the Applicant's geotechnical portion of the upper Pleistocene Alpha and Beta Aquifers consultant shall provide a detailed study that evaluates the impact underlying the Bolea Chica Mesa east of the Newport-Inglewood of saltwater intrusion into the upper Pleistocene Alpha and Beta Fault. Aquifers,and provide recommendations to prevent this if either a '-• full tidal or muted tidal area is constructed in the Bolsa Pocket. "' The report shall examine impermeable soil caps and subsurface barriers. The report and design recommendations shall be reviewed by the County and this mitigation shall be implemented through the WRP. Impact 4.34: Inundation of muted tidal areas may result in Mitigation Measure 4.34: Prior to issuance of a grading permit Insignificant increased salinity of the semiperched zone and an increase in for RPAa 3A, 4A, 5A, and 5C,the Applicant's geotechnical groundwater levels in the adjacent residential neighborhood to the consultant shall develop detailed studies to evaluate the potential • east. occurrence of natural near-surface groundwater and artificially induced groundwater to determine the potential of shallow groundwater recharge to the adjacent area caused by the wetlands restoration. Studies shall examine subdrains,impermeable soil caps on finish grade,subsurface barriers such as cutoff'walls or interceptor drains, or French drains with dewatering wells. The preferred mitigation shall be approved by the County and implemented by the Applicant. 4 PDF- Project Design Feature r� rr rr r � r r r r r� r r i� r� r lr ■� rr r� Table 1.5-1 (Continued) SUMMARY OF IMPACTS - APPLICANT'S PROPOSED PROJECT 4.3 SURFACE AND GROUNDWATER HYDROLOGY Significant Adverse Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Impact After Mitigation Impact 4.3-5: Well and stormwater discharge to provide Mitigation Measure 4.3 5: To prevent adverse hydrological Insignificant seasonal pond water for the Edwards Thumb parcel potentially impacts in the Edwards Thumb area,the Applicant's geotechnical may(1)increase the existing rate of ground settlement and cause consultant,prior to wetlands restoration,shall evaluate damage to the existing neighborhood and infrastructure,and transmisoivity and other hydrogeologio characteristics in the • (2) increase the existing rate of incidents of hooding in the Edwards Thumb area and the lowlands near the existing neighborhood. However,the groundwater extraction from the residential neighborhood in order to evaluate the impacts of well is expected to last only a few weeks each year. irrigation and impounded water on groundwater levels in the existing residential neighborhood. Such an investigation would, at a minimum, be expected to require the installation of monitoring welts and the performance of pump test for data collection. This detailed study shall include but not be limited to the following mitigation measures: subsurface cutoff wall, subsurface drains, and French Drains. Through this process,it is important that a definitive geotechnical design be approved by the County which would assure that no significant adverse impacts would result from changes in groundwater level. The specific mitigation will be approved by the County and implemented by the Applicant. Impact 4.3-6: Additional runoff from the Regional Park may Mitigation Measure 4.3-6: Prior to the issuance of a grading Insignificant increase bluff'erosion and sedimentation impacting the perennial permit for the Regional Park, the Park developer shall and seasonal ponds at the toe of the slope and also decreasing incorporate design measures,approved by the County that slope stability. prevent additional runoff'caused by new Park development. • •PDF Project Design Feature Table 1.5-1 (Continued) SUMMARY OF IMPACTS -APPLICANT'S PROPOSED PROJECT 4.3 SURFACE AND GROUNDWATER HYDROLOGY Significant Adverse Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Impact After Mitigation Impact 4.3-7: Irrigation of landscaping on the MWD parcel Mitigation Measure 4.3-7: The project shall incorporate specific Insignificant may potentially increase near surface groundwater levels beneath design measures such as'subdrains,impermeable soil caps on the site and the adjacent neighborhood. This may increase the finished grade,subsurface barriers such as cutoff walls or • potential for seepage into subterranean structures and increase the interceptor drains, and French Drains to prevent any substantial potential for liquefaction during seismic ground shaking. seepage of surface groundwater into subterranean structures. Before grading permits are issued for the MWD parcel, the project geotechnical consultant shall provide to the County a report recommending specific design features which will identify the specific measures to be employed. The recommendations of the geotechnical consultant are subject to review and approval by the County. �. Impact 4.3-8: Periodic inundation of the Edwards Thumb Mitigation Measure 4.3-8: Same as Mitigation Measure 4.3-5. Insignificant seasonal pond area without mitigation of shallow groundwater recharge may increase the groundwater level under the existing residential neighborhood to the north causing inundation of subterranean structure, or springs. Impact 4.3-9: The proposed residential development in Planning Mitigation Measure 4.3-9: If the Santa Ana River(SAR) Insignificant Area IS may be subject to flooding during a 100-year storm floodplain within the project limits is not removed by the joint event if the property grade is not raised. Orange County/Federal Government funded Santa Ana River Project(SARP) at the time of grading for proposed buildings, • structures,'and residential developments within the existing Santa Ana River floodplain, appropriate additional mitigation measures, including the filing of FEMA Elevation Certificate shall be required for each building, residence,or structure within the existing Santa Ana River floodplain, which demonstrates that the as-built lowest floor is at least 1 foot above the 100-year flood elevation. To the extent required by CEQA,these mitigation measures will be developed through a supplemental and focused environmental review under CEQA. •PDF a Project Design Peature Table 1.5-1 (Continued) SUMMARY OF IMPACTS - APPLICANT'S PROPOSED PROJECT 4.3 SURFACE AND GROUNDWATER HYDROLOGY Significant Adverse Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Impact After Mitigation Impact 4.3-9 (Continued) Mitigation against flooding of any proposed buildings,structures, and residential development from any known residual floodplain (i.e., other than the Santa Ana River)shall be provided in a • manner meeting the approval of the appropriate local jurisdiction before grading permits are issued for the proposed buildings, structures,and residences within the delineated residual floodplain. Furthermore, if these residual floodplains are shown on FEMA's Flood Insurance Rate Maps(FIRM)when the SAR floodplain map is revised as a consequence of SARP, then a certified elevation certificate which demonstrates that the as-built lowest floor is at least 1 foot above flood elevation. Impact 4.3-10: The ECGW Channel,adjacent to the lowland Mitigation Measure 4.3-10: Before grading permits are issued Insignificant .'_. development,has the capacity for less than a 25-year storm for parcels which are adjacent to or are impacted by the existing Oe event. If the EGGW Channel is not improved to a 100-year EGGW Channel,the Developer/Applicant shall design and storm event,it will overtop and flood the proposed Lowland and construct the EGGW Channel within the County LCP Area MWD residential areas. (upstream limit is the Graham Avenue Bridge)including the proposed tidal inlet. It shall be constructed in accordance with OCFCD criteria and standards. The EGGW Channel shall be capable of conveying the discharge resulting from a 100-year storm over the EGGW Channel's fully developed tributary watershed in a manner meeting the approval of OCEMA. • 4.4 WATER QUALITY Ef mts Found to be Inslinil3cant Sedimentation and Turbidity During Construction Runoff from construction on Bolen Chica Mesa and in the back Lowlands has the potential to cause a potentially significant impact on water quality. As adherence to approved methods for stormwater pollution prevention will be part of the Project Design, the impacts of runoff during construction will be adverse but insignificant. •PDF-ProJeet Design Feature Table LS-1 (Continued) SUMMARY OF IMPACTS- APPLICANT'S PROPOSED PROJECT 4.4 WATER QUALITY Restoration of the Bolan Chica wetlands could have impacts on water quality through the creation of turbidity or the introduction of toxic materials associated with construction equipment.Turbidity impacts will be adverse but insignificant as the Applicant has committed to the use of turbidity barriers,silt curtains,or an equivalent measure to contain turbidity in localized areas.The Applicant will prepare and implement an SWPPP which will reduce the potential risk of toxic spille to a level of insignificant. Urban Runoff from the Project Site Diversion of the EGGW Channel from Outer Bolen Bay to the new tidal bay would have a beneficial impact on the water quality of Outer Bolan Bay. A decrease in • exchange in the circulation of some portions of Huntington Harbour would cause a slight decrease in the circulation of some portions of Huntington Harbour and an associated slight decrease in water quality expected to be adverse but not significant. Contaminants introduced into the new tidal area from the EGOW Channel would be diluted with good quality ocean water from the new tidal inlet resulting in an beneficial impact on the water quality of Inner Bolen Bay. Urban runoff will enter the new tidal bay from the EOGW Channel.To avoid significant adverse impacts to receiving waters from urban runoff, the Proposed Project'a Water Quality Management Plan will be used onsite to control predictable pollutant runoff.The Proposed Project will include a program of maintenance dredging near the mouth of the EGGW Channel to remove sediment containing unacceptable concentrations of pollutants.These practices will reduce adverse impacts of increased contaminants in the wetlands to adverse but insignificant. ,r Contaminants that enter the new tidal bay through the EGGW Channel could be introduced into the ocean. Urban runoff would undergo dilution by clean ocean waters. The wetlands would act as a natural cleansing area and detention pond for pollutants. Impacts of contaminants in urban runoff to ocean water would be adverse but insignificant. Stormflow which will enter the new tidal bay from the EGOW Channel can contain high levels of coliform bacteria. Under the Proposed Project there will be less delay and less dilution of channel drainage before it reaches the ocean than under existing conditions. As occasional sewage spills have not resulted in elevated coliform levels in Huntington Harbour,there is even lees of a chance under the Proposed Project for elevated coliform levels in the ocean waters.The potential for increase in coliform levels in nearshore waters near the new tidal inlet is not considered significant. After implementation of PDFs*, no significant impact on water quality in the restored wetlands is anticipated as a result of contaminant levels in the EGGW Channel. • ` Potential for Offshore Oil Spill A direct ocean inlet at Bolen Chica would make the tidal wetlands potentially vulnerable to an offshore oil spill. The Proposed Project's OSPR provides for a boom to be stored near the tidal inlet, reducing risks from an oil spill to insignificant. Cumulative Impacts Increased urban development in the Huntington Beach/Seal Beach areas would contribute urban runoff to the EGGW Channel,which will empty directly into the new tidal wetlands, or to the Bolen or Sunset Channel,which empty into Huntington Harbour. New emphasis on reducing contamination of coastal waters from urban runoff would require that BMPs be implemented to decrease pollutant loads in storm channels.It is expected that pollutant loading from urban runoff may actually decrease over existing conditions in the foreseeable future. •PDF a Project Design Feature Table 1.5-1 (Continued) SUMMARY OF IMPACTS -APPLICANT'S PROPOSED PROJECT 4.4 WATER QUALITY Effects Found To Be Significant Significant Adverse Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Impacts After Mitigation Impact 4.4-1: Wetlands restoration may introduce sediments Mitigation Measure 4.4-la (PDF*): The Applicant shall Insignificant containing toxic materials from existing soil into tidal waters implement the Construction Monitoring Program. • during grading or filling for wetlands restoration. Mitigation Measure 4.4-lb: The Applicant shall conduct a program of sediment toxicity testing. Any sediments found to have a substantial and adverse effect upon aquatic organisms shall be remediated or removed from the site. Impact 4.4-2: Construction of the tidal inlet may introduce Mitigation Measure 4.4-2: During construction of the tidal Insignificant turbidity and contaminants to nearshore waters of the open inlet, measures shall be implemented to reduce introduction of Nocean. sediments and creation of turbidity in nearshore.coastal waters. Impact 4.4 3: Maintenance dredging in the tidal bay and in the Mitigation Measure 4.4 3 Insignificant During maintenance dredging, g ' tidal inlet could reauspend sediments and introduce turbidity to silt curtains or other forms of barriers shall be used to confine the ocean and the tidal bay. turbid water to the immediate area of the dredging activity. Cumulative Impacts-Projects which involve offshore See Mitigation Measures 4.4-2 and 4.4-3. Insignificant construction have the potential to cause short-term increases in turbidity in nearshore waters. 4.5 COASTAL RESOURCES • Effects Found To Be Insienificant Increased Tidal Exchange. The tidal inlet will provide a beneficial impact of reducing velocity of tidal flow and pollutant/debria loading of the Sunset-Anaheim Bay hydrologic regime. Periodic flooding of Pacific Coast Highway from Outer Bolas Bay will be alleviated as well. The increased tidal exchange will have beneficial impact on the implementation of the wetlands restoration concept including generally improved water quality and biological conditions. Potential Erosion of Huntington Cliffs. Modeling of the tidal inlet for shoreline erosion indicates that for S-and 10-year periods, the proposed inlet does not significantly increase the ongoing erosion at the toe of the Huntington Cliffs. 0 PDF- Project Design Feature Fable 1.5-1 (Continued) SUMMARY OF IMPACTS - APPLICANT'S PROPOSED PROJECT 4.5 COASTAL RESOURCES Littoral and Shoreline Impacts.The optimum tidal inlet design and its coastal resource impact have been determined through use of the shoreline response model GENESIS. The modeling has identified several potentially significant impacts including(1)erosion of approximately 20 feet of shoreline immediately north of the inlet which would negatively affect beach recreation, (2)potential short-term longshore and cross-shore beach fluctuations which could threaten Pacific Coast Highway south of the inlet and parking areas north of the inlet, (3)creation of an ebb bar offshore and consequent trapping of up to 130,000 cy of sand which would be lost from the beach,and 4) additional beach erosion impacts immediately north and south of the inlet due to major storm activity.The Proposed Project incorporates several PDFs* which will ensure that these impacts will not become significant. Revetments will be provided for an appropriate distance north and south of the tidal inlet to protect Pacific Coast Highway and existing Bolsa Chica State Beach parking areas. Other PDFs*include Monitoring and Maintenance Plan for sand management at the inlet and adjacent beach areas.This is in addition to the existing sand replenishment program at the State Beach.The PDFs*will also compensate the County for increase maintenance costs associated with the sand program. Wetlands Restoration Phasing Impacts. During construction,the flood gates between Inner and Outer Boise,Bay will be blocked which will increase residence time of the tidal prism from 19 to 20 days.This impact is not significant. Impacts to Surfing. A study of shoreline conditions for wave formation indicates that the proposed tidal inlet is not situated to provide for better wave height amplification than other sites between the San Gabriel River and Huntington Pier; consequently,no adverse(or beneficial)impacts on surfing will occur.The inlet jetties will not extend far enough out to obstruct the primary surfing area,although the shore break during high tide may temporarily obstruct surfing or skimboarding. N These are not considered significant since the shore break is not extensively surfed in this area and adequate additional area for skimboarding occurs up and down coast.The ebb bar and currents will generate a different current structure that could make conditions more hazardous to swimmers and surfers.These impacts are addressed by the provision of lifeguards and signage and are not considered significant. Post Restoration Phasing Impacts. The impacts after restoration phasing is complete are determined to be not significant. Cumulative Impacts. None of the coastal improvement projects listed under cumulative projects will cause additional coastal resource impacts in the Study Area. Effects Found To Be&P-ri tican� Significant Adverse Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Impact After • Mitigation. There are no significant adverse impacts of the Proposed Project No mitigation measures are required. Not Applicable on coastal resources.Implementation of PDFs*as an integral part of the Proposed Project will ensure that impacts remain insignificant. •PDF-Project Design Feature Table 1.5-1 (Continued) SUMMARY OF IMPACTS - APPLICANT'S PROPOSED PROJECT 4.6 MARINE/AQUATIC BIOLOGY Effects Found To Be Inslttalficant Construction and Restoration Disturbance due to restoration in nontidal channels and perennial and seasonal ponds will be adverse but not significant as the aquatic communities are comprised of non-native fishes and opportunistic,salt-tolerant invertebrates. Construction of the tidal inlet will have adverse but insignificant impacts on intertidal and near-shore marine communities.Sandy beach invertebrates are opportunistic species and will recruit rapidly into disturbed areas once the disturbance has ceased. • Potential sedimentation impacts to marine/aquatic resources are short term and related to construction and restoration activities.The Proposed Project's SWPP shall contain specific practices to prevent sediment and hazardous materials from entering tidal water bodies,reducing this impact to adverse but insignificant. Construction of tidal inlet would increase turbidity in the surrounding nearshore.ocean water. Because the turbidity would be localized and the populations affected could be expected to rapidly repopulate any affected areas,the impacts of turbidity on nearshore marine communities would be adverse but not significant. Turbidity would also be created during the wetlands restoration. Use of barriers to confine the turbidity to a localized area is included in the WRP construction �. program which will reduce turbidity impact to adverse but insignificant. tJ N Hazardous Materials-Spill of toxic material into Bolaa Bay or Huntington Harbor during construction would be a significant impact. The Proposed Project's Construction Monitoring Program includes procedures for proper handling of toxic materials reducing the risk of a spill to insignificant. Permanent Changes in Habitat The almost three-fold increase in estuarine habitat after the restoration would be a beneficial impact for aquatic communities. A potential decrease in aquatic diversity in outer Bolaa Bay would be an adverse but insignificant impact of the Proposed Project because it will be compensated for by the expected high diversity of the estuarine community that will colonize the newly crated tidal bay in the central lowlands. A slight decrease in circulation in certain parts of the aquatic environment of Huntington Harbour would have an insignificant impact on the aquatic community. i Improvement in the water quality in Inner and Outer Bolas Bays will have beneficial impacts upon invertebrate and fish populations. The increased circulation and clean water from the new tidal bay might increase fish and invertebrate diversity.The new tidal bay is expected to support a diverse community of estuarine invertebrates and fishes. In addition to the new tidal bay,the new tidal channels of the muted tidal areas of the restored wetlands will provide habitat for estuarine fishes and invertebrates.The high productivity of the estuary will probably add to the local productivity of the adjacent open waters. Coastal fish species that prefer coastal wetland habitat during some stages of their life cycle,like the California halibut,would benefit from the new tidal bay with its direct ocean inlet. •PDF- Project Design Feature rat r�■■� *. �r� � � � �.■.� � �: � � � � �► rir s � •�■� Table 1.5-1 (Continued) SUMMARY OF IMPACTS-APPLICANT'S PROPOSED PROJECT 4.6 MARINE/AQUATIC BIOLOGY Creation of the tidal inlet will result in a permanent lose of 0.8 acre of intertidal and shallow soft bottom habitat.This lose of lees than I percent of shallow subtidal and sandy intertidal habitat and of grunion spawning beach in the local area would be an adverse but insignificant impact of the project. Because grunion spawn at night, daytime construction is not expected to have any adverse impact on grunion. The jetties of the tidal inlet will provide limited habitat for rocky intertidal and shallow subtidal organisms. The creation of a direct opening between the wetlands and the open ocean would make the wetlands vulnerable to an oil spill. The Applicant's commitment to placing • an inflatable boom in place at the tidal inlet would reduce this risk to insignificant. Impacts from maintenance dredging on open coast near-shore communities would be adverse,but insignificant as recolonization would be rapid. Filling of Warner Avenue Pond would not have a significant impact on the populations of any aquatic species.Its loss has been mitigated in the context of project design through the proposed marsh-restoration. Cumulative Impacts In the cumulative context of the very limited amount of estuarine habitat available in the project area, the proposed restoration of the Bolsa Chica wetlands would N represent a significant beneficial impact for estuarine species. w Construction of the tidal inlet could result in cumulative coastal disturbance and turbidity. Even if nearshore construction projects in the project area occurred at the same time, most impacts on marine life would be limited, although tinese effects would still be adverse but not significant. The cumulative lose of less than 1 acre of sandy beach habitat from construction of the tidal inlet would result in a adverse but not significant impact. The cumulative gain in rocky intertidal habitat from construction of the tidal inlet jetties would be a minor beneficial cumulative impact. Effects Found To Be Sign_ififant Impacts related to the resuspension of contaminants during wetlands restoration and turbidity during maintenance dredging in the wetlands were identified and described in Chapter 4.4.3.2 under Impacts 4.4-1 and 4.4-3, respectively. Mitigation Measures 4.4-1a,4.4-lb, and 4.4-3 effectively mitigate the impacts identified. 4.7 TERRESTRIAL BIOLOGY Effects Found IQ Be insignificant Vegetation-There will be a net gain of wetland habitats and a net loss of terrestrian habitats. Impacts found to be adverse but not significant include(1)lose of non- native plant species including grassland vegetation and eucalyptus trees, (2)lose of 1.6 acres of brackish marsh, (3)potential lose of vegetation due to failure of the WRP, and(4)potential lose of vegetation due to erosion during construction.Disturbance to sensitive plant species,including the spiny rush and southern tarplant will be minimized during the restoration program and therefore significant impacts are not expected. •PDF s Project Deaign Feature Table 1.5-1 (Continued) SUMMARY OF IMPACTS - APPLICANT'S PROPOSED PROJECT 4.7 TERRESTRIAL BIOLOGY Wildlife Invertebrates- As the upland and lowland habitat that will be lost to residential development does not support sensitive or unique invertebrate habitat,the overall impact to invertebrates is considered adverse,but not significant. Lose of some saltgrass habitat will impact the wandering skipper. However,as the total amount of saltgrass will increase through restoration,this impact is adverse but not significant. Restoration would beneficially impact Dorothy's dune weevil and the Frost's tiger beetle through gain in habitat. • Amphibians, Reptiles,and Mammals- Lose of upland habitat will impact reptiles and mammals.The ecological value of the site is reduced by existing disturbance, non-native plant species,and isolation from outlying natural habitats.Therefore,the lose of this habitat is considered adverse but not significant. Proposed development could introduce stray lighting into outlying wildlife habitat. Proposed Project features designed to reduce stray lighting into wildlife areas will reduce the impact to insignificant. Rabbit Island will not be directly impacted by the restoration activities, although adjacent construction activities may temporarily disrupt wildlife activities resulting in adverse but not significant impacts. N The salt marsh shrew will benefit from an overall gain in habitat from proposed restoration.There could be a lose of individuals in the lowland area proposed for development,resulting in an adverse but not significant impact. The black-tailed jackrabbit will be impacted by lose of upland habitat, although habitat will remain at Rabbit Island and on the various upland berms throughout the lowland resulting in an adverse but not significant impact. Birds The lose of upland and lowland foraging habitat for raptors may reduce the number of wintering red-tailed hawks. This impact is considered adverse but not significant because the red-tailed hawk is not a sensitive species. The proposed residential development has the potential to introduce significantly higher numbers of doge and • cats into restored habitats.The Applicant will devise a plan to control the presence of invasive and/or feral pets into wildlife areas reducing this impact to adverse but not significant. Many of the upland bird species,besides raptors,that use this area are common,urban-adapted species.The lose of habitat for these common species is not considered significant. Erosion from construction activities and maintenance dredging may increase turbidity in wetlands.This could reduce prey availability and/or affect foraging conditions for terns,pelicans,cormorants,loons, grebes,diving ducks,and ospreys.This short-term adverse impact is not considered significant as conditions will return to normal following completion of activities. •PDF a Project Design Feature Table 1.5-1 (Continued) SUMMARY OF IMPACTS - APPLICANT'S PROPOSED PROJECT 4.7 TERRESTRIAL BIOLOGY Human activities during the construction phases and presence of humans and dogs walking on the trail beside the BCSE may impact common and sensitive birds species.Measures committed to in the WRP will be sufficient to keep disturbance to birds at insignificant levels. Potential attraction of more non-native and urban adapted birds species will result in an adverse but not significant impact as the urban upland birds will not compete directly with wetland species. Increase or enhancement of lowland habitats will beneficially impact Belding's savannah sparrows,terns,diving ducks, skimmers,pelicans,grebes,osprey,light-footed clapper rail, shorebirds,stilts, California least terns, elegant tern, and avocets. Loss of seasonal pond habitat will be minimized by the enhancement of seasonal pond habitat in the northeast portions of the lowlands. Lose of small amounts of sandy shoreline would be an adverse but insignificant impact-to birds, as bird use of this area is limited by human activity. Incorporation of oil spill prevention plans in the WRP will reduce potential adverse impacts of oil spills to birds to not significant. Loss of upland habitat and temporary loss of some lowland foraging habitat will result in an adverse but not significant to peregrine falcons. Potential temporary loss of habitat and displacement of Belding's savannah sparrows during nonbreeding construction will be reduced to adverse but not significant CAthrough provision of 200 acres of pickleweed during construction. Several sensitive bird species,uncommon visitors to Bolsa Chica, will not be significantly impacted by implementation of the Proposed Project as they have a low potential to occur at Bolsa Chica. Lose of burrowing owl habitat is considered adverse but not significant as the present habitat is barely suitable. Construction activities have the potential to cause indirect adverse impacts on resident birds,particularly during the nesting season.Measures incorporated into the WRP include noise level specifications and avoidance of construction in the lowland areas in nesting sites of endangered species during the nesting season,reducing this impact to adverse but not significant. • Cumulative Impacts Vegetation-The Proposed Project would add substantially to the removal of terrestrial, non-native vegetation that occurs in the cumulative project region,but would add substantially to the amount of preserved native habitats.The net gain of native salt marsh is a beneficial cumulative impact. Inclusion of the southern tarplant in the native revegetation program will reduce the potential cumulative lose of this species to insignificant. Wildlife - Net gain in coastal dune habitat will be a significant cumulative benefit for the insect community that is dependent on this habitat which is extremely rare in southern California. Despite degraded condition,the Bolsa Chica Mesa remains an undeveloped coastal bluff upland wildlife habitat. Permanent loss of this habitat is an adverse but not significant impact. The Proposed Project will contribute to the cumulative loss of foraging habitat and/or nesting habitat for some common and some sensitive species of raptors,an adverse but not significant impact. •PDF- Project Design Feature mom WON NO M M M m M m W r m m m r m Table 1.5-1 (Continued) SUMMARY OF IMPACTS - APPLICANT'S PROPOSED PROJECT 4.7 TERRESTRIAL BIOLOGY Effects Found To Be Significant Significant Adverse Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual impacts Alter Mitigation Impact 4.7-1: Implementation of the Proposed Project has the Mitigation Measure 4.7-1a (PDF*): The WRP provides for Insignificant potential to increase the number of people visiting the wetlands, establishment of a program to place fences and posted signs in creating the potential for significant disturbance to vegetation and selected areas to minimize visitor disturbance. • wildlife. Mitigation Measure 4.7-1b: A management plan shall be developed to control or manage public visitation of the natural areas. Impact 4.7 2: Before preparation and implementation of a Mitigation Measure 4.7-2a (PDF*): The WRP provides for Insignificant specific program of long-term management and maintenance of weed eradication and habitat restoration and creation. the habitats,the potential for lose of native vegetation due to exotic species will be significant. Mitigation Measure 4.72b: A management plan shall be developed that specifies how habitats shall be maintained and managed over the long term. Impact 4.7-3: The reduction in the coyote population at Bolen Mitigation Measure 4.7 3a (PDF*): The WRP establishes a Insignificant Chic&has the potential, though speculative,to increase predation mitigation and monitoring program involving coordination with by the red fox. the CDFG to minimize the continuing impact on the red fox. Mitigation Measure 4.7 3b: A program will be implemented by • the Applicant in consultation with CDFG and USFWS to determine the effectiveness of the coyote as a control agent for the red fox at Bolsa Chica. If the coyote's effectiveness is found to be significant, a plan shall be developed and implemented which will encourage the continued presence of the coyote as a control agent for the red fox at Bolea Chica. •PDF Project Design Feature Table 1.5-1 (Continued) SUMMARY OF IMPACTS- APPLICANT'S PROPOSED PROJECT 4.7 TERRESTRIAL BIOLOGY Significant Adverse Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Impacts After Mitigation Impact 4.74: The loge of raptor foraging habitat in the uplands Mitigation Measure 4.74: If raptors begin to prey upon Insignificant may cause some raptors to prey upon nesting birds in the sensitive species,the Applicant shall consult with CDFG and wetlands. USFWS and prepare a relocation program for these raptors. • Impact 4.7-5: Two of the four historic nesting sites of the Mitigation Measure 4.7 5(PDF•): Before the destruction of the Insignificant western snowy plover will be relocated within the project site. two western snowy plover nesting sites in RPA 1A,two new nesting sites shall be established in the area known as RPA 2A. These sites shall be constructed prior to the nesting season (March 15 to August 15). 4.8 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC CIRCULATION Effects Found To Be Insignificant v Roadway Link and Intersection Volumes. Post 2010 traffic volumes,which include the Proposed Project plus areawide traffic growth, have been modeled. Approximately 20 intersections would require capacity improvements greater than existing geometribs to handle the projected traffic volumes. However,the intersection deficiencies, with the exception of Pacific Coast Highway north of Warner Avenue,are correctable through implementation of the proposed ATIP. Because of the ATIP, the Proposed Project will not have a significant adverse impact in the long term. Short term impacts are potentially significant and are discussed below. Pacific Coast Highway Upsizing.The Proposed Project contributes about 3,000 ADT(4% of overall traffic)considering Pacific Coast Highway upsized to six lanes and with or without the Crone Cap Connector,or 2,000 ADT 5% of overall traffic if Pacific Coast Highway remains four lanes,with or without the Cross Cap Connector.The Cross Cap Connector has an insignificant effect on the need to upsize Pacific Coast Highway. • Transit Service.The Proposed Project will increase the demand for public transit service. Logical route extensions to serve the area will be provided by OCTD balled on demand.Therefore,the increase in demand is seen as adverse but not significant. Bike Trails. With the provision of bike trails/lanes through the project,connecting to regional trails, there will be no significant adverse impacts on bike regional facilities. •PDF Project Design Feature Table 1.5-1 (Continued) SUMMARY OF IMPACTS -APPLICANT'S PROPOSED PROJECT 4.8 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC CIRCULATION Effects Found To Be Significant Significant Adverse Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Impact After Mitigation Impact 4.8-1: Temporary impacts on traffic circulation due to Mitigation Measure 4.8-1s: Prior to the start of construction Insignificant project construction may occur where proposed roadways are for each phase of development,the Applicant shall submit a connected to existing roadways. Construction Traffic Control Plan for County approval prior to • issuance of grading permits. Mitigation Measure 4.8-1b: Need for County approval of construction traffic routing plan/construction access plan will be placed on the grading plan.The construction bid package shall also include the need for a construction/grading haul road. Impact 4.8-2: Traffic on Pacific Coast Highway will exceed Mitigation Measure 4-8.2: if the appropriate agencies do not In the case of no upsizing of Ncapacity unless improvements are made to Pacific Coast elect to upsize Pacific Coast Highway,it will be necessary to Pacific Coast Highway, 00 Highway. develop a Deficiency Plan in accordance with the requirements of traffic impacts will be the CMP and California Department of Transportation(Caltrans). significant and unavoidable. • •PDP Project Design Feature ,.� W Table 1.5-1 (Continued) SUMMARY OF IMPACTS- APPLICANT'S PROPOSED PROJECT 4.8 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC CIRCULATION Significant Adverse Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Impact After Mitigation Impact 4.8-3: County General Plan GMP and CMP level of Mitigation Measure 4.8 3(PDF•): The proposed ATIP Insignificant service objectives for existing roadways surrounding the prevents the occurrence of numerous significant traffic impacts Proposed Project site will be impacted as a result of the proposed which otherwise would result from the Proposed Project.The • level of development. following govern the ATIP process: -ATIP shall be implemented on the terms and conditions set forth in the Proposed Project. -Project approvals will require irrevocably offer the necessary construction easements and ultimate rights-of-way required by ATIP. �- -Each phase of development shall require a traffic analysis and plans for the implementation of all applicable PDFs*and ATIP phases. -Before approval of permits for the implementation of any phase of ATIP, a review of the proposed action shall be conducted in the manner set forth in Section 15060 of the CEQA Guidelines. Impact 4.84: Short-term GMP and CMP objectives may not be Mitigation Measure 4.84: Prior to recordation of the first final Insignificant achieved as a result of roadway improvements proposed by the tract map pursuant to the Master Phasing Plan, a traffic analysis • ATIP which have not been analyzed at various increments of shall be prepared in compliance with ATIP conditions analyzing proposed development phasing. the implementation of PDFs*and the adequacy of all ATIP improvements proposed. Impact 4.8-5: Vehicle miles and hours and travel will increase Mitigation Measure 4.8 5: Implementation of Mitigation Insignificant as a result of an amendment to the MPAH revising BCSB(Cross Measures 4.8-3 and 4.8-4 above will mitigate vehicle miles and Gap Connector)from a Scenic Secondary Arterial to a Local hours of travel impacts to a level of insignificance. Collector roadway. •PDF a Project Design Feature Table 1.5-1 (Continued) SUMMARY OF IMPACTS- APPLICANT'S PROPOSED PROJECT 4.9 AIR QUALITY Effects Found To Be Inskrijacant Consistency with the AQMP. With respect to employment/housing relationships,the City of Huntington Beach is housing-rich while the region and subregion are job- rich.The project is generally consistent with the AQMP from the standpoint of growth management as indicated by SCAG(1992). The project has committed to implementation of an ATIP and other measures to reduce traffic congestion and associated air emissions,indicated further consistency with the AQMP. Hazardous Materials in Fugitive Dust. A potential impact is related to the nature of materials that may be contained within fugitive dust created during construction. • In that any areas of existing or suspected surface or subsurface contamination will be evaluated through site assessment,no significant impact from airborne dust will occur. Fuel Storage During Construction. Calculated ROG emissions from fuel storage and refueling activities during typical construction periods will not exceed the 55 pound per day criteria. Carbon Monoxide Microscale Impact. An analysis of micrescale CO hotspot potential using the CALINE4 computer model shows that no significant(i.e., greater than or equal to the California 1-hour standard of 20 ppm)CO hotspots will be produced at any intersection modeled in the traffic analysis. Relative to the 8-hour California standard of 9.1 ppm, the project will about 0.1 ppm to the already exceeded 12.0 ppm 8-hour value.In accordance with AQMD methodology,this increase wis not considered significant. 0 Effects Found To Be Significant Significant Adverse Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Impact After Mitigation Impact 4.9-1: Site construction will create exhaust pollutants Mitigation Measure 4.9-1: To the extent feasible,the contractor The proposed measures have from vehicles used for onsite earth movement and vehicles shall control exhaust emissions from construction equipment in a varying efficiency.Impacts bringing building materials and workers onsite. manner that is consistent with standard mitigation measures for both NO=and ROO are • dictated by the SCAQMD.The County shall verify use of the reduced,but remain above measures during normal construction site inspections. significant. Impact 4.9-2: Site construction will create fugitive dust Mitigation Measure 4.9-2a: Prior to approval of a grading Insignificant emissions. permit, the Applicant shall demonstrate to the Manager, Development Services,that the actions that will be taken to comply with SCAQMD Rule 402 and Rule 403. •PDF- Project Design Featuro Table 1.5-1 (Continued) SUMMARY OF IMPACTS -APPLICANT'S PROPOSED PROJECT 4.9 AIR QUALITY Significant Adverse Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Impact After Mitigation Impact 4.9-2 (Continued) Mitigation Measure 4.9-2b(PDF•): In addition to the standard measures,the Applicant shall implement the specified supplemental measures to reduce fugitive dust emissions to the extent feasible during construction operations. County shall verify compliance during normal construction site inspections. Impact 4.9-3: The project could generate as much as 9,750 tons Mitigation Measure 4.9-3: The Applicant shall specify the use Insignificant of emissions due to the application of cutback asphalt, of emulsified asphalt or asphaltic cement, neither of which produce significant quantities of VOC emissions. Impact 4.9-4: Approximately 580 pounds per day of VOC Mitigation Measure 4.94: The Applicant shall specify the use Insignificant emissions are postulated from the use of architectural coatings. of high-volume, low-pressure or manual application of paints and Ilia value includes the use of high-volume, low-pressure spray coatings on structures,prefinished or pre-primed and sanded wequipment, which is typically considered as a mitigation wood molding and trim products and pre-primed wallboard shall measure. be used where feasible,and nonpolluting powder-coated metal products. Impact 4.9-5: The project has the potential to produce Mitigation Measure 4.9-5a: The Applicant shall assist the The proposed measures have significant exhaust emissions from vehicle trips generated by new County in implementing Transportation Demand Management varying efficiency.The residents within the County LCP Area. measures related to the Proposed Project(ref: "A Reference impact would remain Guide to Transportation Demand Management")published by significant for CO, NO2, and SCAG. Such measures shall include coordinating transit service ROG. • to the development through provision of bus stops,transit stops, shuttle stops,bus shelters and turnouts,and bicycle/transit interface. •PDF Project Design Feature Table 1.5-1 (Continued) SUMMARY OF IMPACTS- APPLICANT'S PROPOSED PROJECT 4.9 AIR QUALITY Significant Adverse Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Impact After Mitigation Impact 4.9-5 Continued Mitigation Measure 4.9 Sb(PDF«): The Applicant shall incorporate,as part of the PDFs*,pedestrian pathways,bus stops,and bikeways to encourage use of alternate forms of transportation. Measures to reduce traffic congestion and its • associated air emissions consistent with the design of the AQMP will be incorporated into the project. These measures include methods of improving traffic flow(i.e., ATIP and lane and intersection improvements)and methods of stimulating alternative forms of transportation(i.e., bicycle routes,and bus turnout lanes). Impact 4.9-6: The project has the potential to generate Mitigation Measure 4.9-6: The Applicant shall provide The proposed measures have significant air quality impacts through secondary sourced. mitigation for secondary source emissions through the specified varying efficiency.The measures.During design review and prior to issuance of building impact would remain N permits, the County will confirm incorporation of measures.The significant for CO, NO2, and project will comply with Title 24 energy-efficient design ROG. regulations. 4.10 NOISE Effects Found To Be Insienificant Land Use Noise Levels. Although creation of residential communities will increase noise levels above ambient conditions in the project area,residential uses(with the • exception of traffic) will not produce significant noise impacts. School Noise Impacts. Existing school sites may be subjected to project-generated traffic noise levels.Modeling has demonstrated such exposure to be negligible and insignificant. •PDF PmJed Design Feature Table 1.5-1 (Continued) SUMMARY OF IMPACTS- APPLICANT'S PROPOSED PROJECT 4.10 NOISE Effects Found To Be Signifkant Significant Adverse Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Impact After Mitigation Impact 4.10-1: Noise from construction activity represents a Mitigation Measure 4.10-1s: The Applicant shall implement Insignificant significant adverse(although short-term) source of noise to measures to protect existing residential areas from high noise • existing residential receptors located in proximity to the site. levels during construction. Assurance of the implementation of these measures shall be provided to the County prior to the issuance of grading permits consistent with County procedures and Noise Control ordinance. Mitigation Measure 4.10-lb: In accordance with the Orange County Code,onsite construction activities shall be limited to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. except in emergency situations,and not permitted at all on Sundays and wfederal holidays. w Impact 4.10-2: Vehicle-generated noise from mobile sources Mitigation Measure 4.10-2: Prior to opening the BCSE to Insignificant will create a significant noise impact to residences adjacent to through traffic, the Applicant will conduct an acoustical analysis Bolas,Chica Street between Warner Avenue and the BCSE. to confirm noise impacts and determine the extent of specific noise reductions measures necessary to achieve the 45 dBA interior noise level it1 residences adjacent to Bolsa Chica Street between Warner Avenue and the BCSB. Impact 4.10 3: Vehicle-generated noise from the projected Mitigation Messure.4.10-3a (PDF*): All new residential lots Insignificant traffic will create a significant noise impact to future residences and dwellings shall be sound attenuated against present and along the proposed Mesa Connector under the Proposed Project. projected noise which shall be the sum of all noise impacting the project so as not to exceed an exterior standard of 60 dBA Ldn in outdoor living areas and an interior standard of 45 dBA Ldn in Ali habitable rooms. Evidence prepared by a County-certified acoustical consultant,that these standards will be satisfied in a manner consistent with applicable zoning regulations, shall be submitted to the County as required. •PDF- Project Design Feature Table 1.5-1 (Continued) SUMMARY OF IMPACTS - APPLICANT'S PROPOSED PROJECT 4.10 NOISE Significant Adverse Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual impact After Mitigation Impact 4.10 3 (Continued) Mitigation Measure 4.10 3b : Prior to the issuance of any certificates of use and occupancy for multifamily dwelling units, field testing in accordance with Title 24 Regulations may be required by the Manager,Building inspection,to verify compliance with FSTC and FIIC standards. • 4.11 CULTURAL RESOURCES Effects Found To Be insignificant Sites Determined to be insignificant By Prior Studies-Sites ORA-78(prehistoric component), ORA-86(prehistoric mesa component), ORA-84/289,-289, and-290 have been found to be not important. Impacts to these sites will not be significant. Historic Components of ORA-93/144 and ORA-85-The historic component of ORA-83/144 has been recommended as not significant. The historic component of O -95 c nsists of a water cistern. A demolition permit has been issued b the Board of Supervisors and CCC which impose measures to mitigate the im acts of RA o PP p Y P demolition. Saltwater marsh resources historically utilized by Native Americans will be enhanced by wetlands restoration. Cumulative impacts-Cumulative impacts to the regional resource base may occur from cumulative projects if not properly mitigated.The Proposed Project's contribution to cumulative impacts will be.reduced to insignificant with implementation of the proposed mitigation measures. Effects Found To Be Significant Significant Adverse Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Impacts After • Mitigation Impact 4.11-1: Several prehistoric archaeological sites may be Mitigation Measure 4.11-la (PDF*): The research study for the insignificant directly impacted by grading for the Proposed Project. Sites on Bolsa Chica region currently in preparation shall be completed. Bolan Chico Mesa that have been found to be important are ORA-83/144 and-85. Mitigation Measure 4.11-lb: Mitigation of impacts to important prehistoric archaeological sites in areas proposed for urban development shall consist of data recovery excavations. •PDF a Project Design Feature � a� a� ..:a :.� .a .<ai ' �■r . a■� .� ..ar �.a� a� rr �� �a� a� a a� Table 1.5-1 (Continued) SUMMARY OF IMPACTS - APPLICANT'S PROPOSED PROJECT 4.11 CULTURAL RESOURCES Significant Adverse Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Impacts After Mitigation Impact 4.11-2: Development activities may impact historic Mitigation Measure 4.11-2: The historic components of Insignificant resources on sites located on the Bolea Chica Mesa. ORA-78, -83/144, and-85, as well as all other facilities, structures and features more than 45 years old within the LCP Area shall be evaluated for significance by a qualified historical • archaeologist and/or.architectural historian. Impact 4.11 3: Park development activities may impact cultural Mitigation Measure 4.113a (PDF*): The research study for the Insignificant resources on prehistoric sites located on the Huntington Mesa. Bolsa Chica region currently in preparation shall be completed. Mitigation Measure 4.11 3b: Sites on Huntington Mesa that will be affected by construction of the Boles.Chica Regional Park shall be tested under a coordinated program that evaluates each site as a whole using the regional research design to assess significance. Because the development of Bolea Chica Regional t^ Park will be the County of Orange's responsibility,the County shall be responsible for funding and testing of those portions of each site within the LCP. Impact 4.114: Park development activities may impact historic Mitigation Measure 4.114: The County shall evaluate all Insignificant resources on sites located on the Huntington Mesa. historic components of ORA-88 and-365, as well as all other facilities, structures and features more than 45 years old within the LCP Area. 4 11- • Wetlands restoration activities and lowland * • •Impact 5. n e r Mitigation Measure 4.11-5 PDF . The two potential Insignificant ( )� P g P 8 urban development activities may impact three potential lowland archaeological sites in the lowlands,ORA-1308 and-1309, and sites, ORA-1308 and 1309 and the extension of ORA-86. the lowland component of ORA-86, shall be tested to determine presence of significant cultural deposits. Mitigation measures consisting of preservation in open space or data recovery using a data recovery plan shall be implemented for significant sites at the expense of the Applicant. •PDF-Project Design Feature �■r r �r r� �r r� r �r r� r� r� .� r� rr� r� r� �r ar rr Table 1.5-1 (Continued) ' SUMMARY OF IMPACTS - APPLICANT'S PROPOSED PROJECT 4.11 CULTURAL RESOURCES Significant Adverse Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Impacts After Mitigation Impact 4.11-6: Wetlands restoration activities may impact Mitigation Measure 4.11-6(PDF'): A cultural resources survey Insignificant undocumented sites in the lowlands. of the lowlands shall be conducted by a qualified archaeologist to determine presence of significant cultural resources.Mitigation measures consisting of preservation in open space or data • recovery using a data recovery plan shall be implemented for significant sites at the expense of the Applicant. Impact 4.11-7: Development activities may impact Mitigation Measure 4.11-7: A reburial agreement for Insignificant archaeological sites that contain cultural resources and possible prehistoric Native American human remains, if any, that may be human burials of significance to Native Americans. encountered on the Bolea Chico property under the Applicant's control shall be negotiated with the Most Likely Descendant designated by the Native American Heritage Commission to address Native American concerns in the event human remains are discovered. The provisions of the reburial agreement shall be implemented at the Applicant's expense. 4.12 AESTHETICS Effects Found To Be InslgnMpnJ Bolea Chico Ecological Reserve-Other than the improvement of a limited access interpretive trail, the Ecological Reserve will remain in its existing, natural state. No visual impacts are expected to the Reserve. • Huntington Mesa - As the natural,undeveloped character of the Huntington Mesa will be altered to reflect a greater variety of uses and vegetation types,the transition from the present use to the Boles Chico Regional Park will not result in a significant visual impact. Bolso Chico Mesa - Proposed development on the Bolea Chico Mesa will significantly alter the visual character of the area, from undeveloped appearance to residential development with bicycle/hiking trails, recreational area,and conservation area. In context of surrounding residential and commercial uses,the proposed structures will be consistent with that of the existing residential development,the development of the Bolsa Chico Mesa is not considered a significant impact. Lowlands/Oil Operations-Proposed lowland residential development along the northeastern Study Area Boundary will be directly adjacent to the existing density single-family residential tract. •PDF Q Project Design Feature Table 1.5-1 (Continued) SUMMARY OF IMPACTS- APPLICANT'S PROPOSED PROJECT F_ 4.12 AESTHETICS Viewsheds Pacific Coast Highway -Views of the lowlands from Pacific Coast Highway will be primarily of restored wetlands replacing oil facilities. No modifications to the Ecological Reserve will occur. Lowland residential development along the northeastern project boundary will be minimally visible in the background.impacts to these views from Pacific Coast Highway are considered insignificant. Warner Avenue-Views of the Bolas,Chico Mesa from Warner Avenue will be of residential units. As the Mesa impedes lines-of-eight beyond the foreground,no ocean • views from Warner Avenue will be impacted.The view of the Ecological Reserve from Warner Avenue will not be impacted. No significant Impacts will occur within this viewshed. Other Public Streets-Vantage points from Springdale Street,Talbert Avenue, and Graham Street will be extended eastward.Views of oil fields will be replaced with views of pedestrian/bicycle paths, BCSE, and restored wetlands resulting in an beneficial impact. Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve- Dominant views from the Reserve will be of the Reserve and the surrounding restored wetlands. Residential development on the Boles Chica Mesa and the lowland will be minimized by landscaping,setbacks,and/or intervening dikes and berms and will not significantly impact this viewshed. Bolsa Chica State Beach-Views from the State Beach will change from oil facilitiea to restored wetlands. Residential development on the northeastern boundary of the wlowlands will appear as an indistinguishable extension of existing development.No significant impacts are expected to this viewshed. Bolsa Chica Regional Park-Dominant views from the proposed park will be of the restored wetlands. Residential development on the northeastern boundary of the lowlands will conform with the existing development.Residential development atop Bolaa Chica Mesa will be insignificant from this viewshed.No significant impacts are expected to this viewshed. Private Viewsheds Northeast Study Area Boundary-Viewsheds to the lowlands and the State Beach from the one-and two-story homes along the LCP Area's northeastern boundary will be impacted by the proposed lowland residential development.These viewsheds are presently dominated by oil facilities and are sometimes limited by block-wall fencing.The proposed residential structures will be compatible in character with the existing residences.Public views of the restored wetlands will be available from • the extension of Graham,Springdale,and Talbert Avenues.impacts to this viewshed are not expected to be significant. Huntington Mesa-Views from townhomes along Seapoint Avenue will change from oil production activities to a regional park,resulting in a beneficial impact. Warner/Los Patos-Residential viewsheds of the Bolsa Chica Mega from Warner Avenue and Los Patos Avenues will be entirely dominated by the proposed residential Mesa development.As these are private views from which there are no view easements or other significance criteria, the impacts are not considered significant. Policy Standards-The Proposed Project is expected to be consistent with the visual elements of the California Coastal Act and the County General Plan with the exception of Impact 4.12-3 described below. Temporary Impacts-Construction activities in each phase of development will be short-term and will not be any more visually offensive than the current state of the oil fields in the lowlands.Such activities will not significantly impact the long-term visual compatibility of the Proposed Project. •PDF- Project Design Feature .. .i... .� . ...�.......i,......�.......i.......i. . i i i i i i i i i i i i Table 1.5-1 (Continued) SUMMARY OF IMPACTS-APPLICANT'S PROPOSED PROJECT 4.12 AESTHETICS I Effects Found To Be SieniRcent �I Significant Adverse Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Impacts After Mitigation Impact 4.12-1: Potential Impact to Pacific Coast Highway Mitigation Measure 4.124a: Landscaping and setbacks from Significant. No effective Viewshed: Residential development will significantly alter the Warner Avenue and Los Patos Avenue shall be used to break up measure can-mitigate the lose • undevelopm' zmarance of the Boles Chic&Mesa within the long linear views of houses from offsite. of natural elements and public viewshed as seen from Pacific Coast Highway at Warner undeveloped area within the Avenue. public viewshed from Pacific Coast Highway. Mitigation Measure 4.12-lb: All exterior lighting shall be designated and located so that all direct rays are confined to the property. Mitigation Measure 4.12-1c: The Applicant shall submit, owo subject to approval of the County Manager HBP Program Planning Division,an urban edge treatment plan. Mitigation Measure 4.12-Id (PDF*): As part of the Development Agreement for the Proposed Project, the Applicant shall implement the Local Parke and Recreation Facilities described in this EIR in Chapter 3.2.2.7. The OCEMA shall ensure implementation of this PDF*through its Development Agreement monitoring program. • Impact 4.12-2: Potential Impact to Boles Chica State Beach No mitigation available. Significant. Viewshed Viewsheds: Construction of the proposed tidal inlet will obstruct interruption along the State public views along the shoreline and toward the ocean. Beach cannot be mitigated. Impact 4.12-3: Inconsistency with Policies of the Coastal Act: No mitigation available. Significant.Viewshed The inlet jetties are inconsistent with Section 30251 of the interruption along the State Coastal Act in that public viewsheds along the shoreline will be Beach remains an blocked by construction of the jetties. unmitigated Coastal Act policy conflict. •PDF a Project Desisn Nature Table 1.5-1 (Continued) SUMMARY OF IMPACTS - APPLICANT'S PROPOSED PROJECT 4.13 SOCIOECONOMICS Effects Found To Be Insienificant The housing associated with the project will contribute to balancing the job-rich subregion and region.This is consistent with SCAG's GMP jobsthousing policy. Estimated population growth from project development does not exceed SCAG estimates or Orange County Board of Supervisors projections for the year 2010. No significant adverse impacts are expected. Cumulative Impacts-Cumulative growth assumptions do not exceed the SCAG estimates for the Northwest Orange Subregion for the year 2010.No significant adverse • cumulative impacts on population growth are expected. Effects Found To Be Significant Significant Adverse Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Impacts After Mitigation No significant adverse socioeconomic impacts are expected. No mitigation required. Not applicable F_ 4.14 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES w Effects Found To Be Insieniffgant Utilities and Energy Estimated electrical loads are within the planning parameters for SCE.SCO has indicated that gas service to the Proposed Project can be provided from an existing main. No significant impacts are expected to these facilities. GTE and Paragon Cable have indicated that service for the project can be provided with no significant adverse impact to their systems. Water • A County Service Area,a water district, or mutual water company will have to be formed to provide the water supply services and administration for the development. The Bolea Chica Water Company would contract with a local water supply agency,or will need to receive their water supply independently of local water agencies. Possible water supply agency options include the City of Huntington Beach or an Independent Water Company or Water District. Either of these options would provide a reliable water supply to the project. No significant adverse impacts are expected from the implementation of any option. Wastewater A preannexation agreement has been executed between the Applicant and the CSDOC for the eventual annexation of the Proposed Project into CSDOC No. 11. Wastewater generated from the project will be treated at Plant No. 2 in Huntington Beach.This treatment plant has capacity to serve the Bolea Chic&project. A new lift station,replacing Lift Station "D", will be constructed within Bolea Chica by the Applicant.This lift station will accommodate the additional wastewater flows from Boles Chica. Flow will be discharged to the Los Patos Trunk Sewer.This line and downstream facilities have the capacity for the Rowe from Bolea Chica based on the updated Wastewater Master Plan for Sanitation District No. 11. No significant impacts are expected. •PDP m Project Dcaisn Feature Table 1.5-1 (Continued) SUMMARY OF IMPACTS -APPLICANT'S PROPOSED PROJECT 4.14 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES Solid Waste Bee Canyon Landfill has the capacity to receive the solid waste generated from the project.Generation of solid waste will incrementally decrease the fife of the landfill and will result in an adverse but not significant impact. Schools Huntington Beach Union High School District has the capacity for the Grade 9-12 students projected to be generated by the Proposed Project. OVSD and HBCSD do not have capacity in their existing open schools for the Grade K-8 students projected to be generated by the Proposed Project. New school construction is not necessary if the districts utilize closed school facilities. Coat impacts will be associated with the actions taken by the school districts to accommodate the new students,even if new facilities are not required.The Applicant will pay the applicable school development fees. Whether these tees will offset cost impacts depends on the Master Planning actions taken by each affected district. Social impacts may result from changes in district boundaries and/or adjusted programs.These potential economic and social impacts are not considered to directly effect the physical environment and are considered adverse but not significant impacts. Libraries The increase of area population from the residential development will increase demands upon library services.If the cost of providing library services to the project exceed the Library Fund revenues generated by the development,the Applicant will enter into an agreement with the County to provide additional funding for expansion of library services.A funding agreement will reduce impacts to an insignifioant level. Cumulative Impacts No significant cumulative impacts are expected to the above mentioned utilities and services. Eff" found To Be Sieoific n Significant Adverse Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Impacts After Mitigation Polece Impact 4.14-1: The Proposed Project will result in the need for Mitigation Measure 4.14-1: The Applicant shall enter into a Insignificant • additional Sheriff services to the project site and is considered a secured agreement with the County of Orange to provide Sheriff significant impact. law enforcement services such as facilities, equipment,or other infrastructure necessary for adequate law enforcement to the Proposed Project. •PDF Project Design Feature Table 1.5-1 (Continued) SUMMARY OF IMPACTS - APPLICANT'S PROPOSED PROJECT 4.14 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES Significant Adverse Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Impacts After 1. Mitigation .............. .. ...... ... ....... . ...... .................... ..... ........ ............ ....... ...................... .. ........... ery ...... . ...... Impact 4.14-2: The Proposed Project will result in emergencies Mitigation Measure 4.14-2: The Applicant shall enter into a Insignificant that are beyond the current response capabilities of the OCFD. secured fire protection agreement with the County of Orange or • its successor fire protection agency. This agreement shall include provision for a new fire station to serve the project. Cumulative Impacts See Mitigation Measures 4.14-1 and 4.14-2. Insignificant Growth in the surrounding Study Area will increase the demand for fire and law enforcement services. 4.15 RECREATION Effects Found To Be InsI&nffigLnA Residents generated from the Proposed Project are expected to increase the demand for area recreation amenities.The Proposed Project will provide additional parking facilities, a comprehensive public trail system throughout the County LCP, and improvements to existing bicycle/pedestrian trails. The project proposes to dedicate approximately 49 acres to the County for incorporation into the Bolas Chica Regional Park.This acreage will complete the acreage necessary to implement the approved Bolas Chica Regional Park GDP consistent with the County Recreation Element. In addition the project proposes a Interpretive Kayak/Canoe Facility at the southwesterly end of the Dole&Chica Regional Park, on the inland side of the tidal inlet near the Wetland Restoration Area. Approximately 24.8 acres of proposed local parks will meet the County's Local Park Code requirement,which is estimated at approximately 24.7 acres.These include active recreation areas on the Boles Chica Mesa and in the Lowland,a passive park amphitheater on the Boloa Chica Mesa overlooking the wetlands,and a passive park/trails staging area in the Lowland. The ocean area directly in front of the tidal inlet will be restricted for surfers and swimmers at high tide for safety considerations.This area may extend 100-200 feet north of the inlet. As this condition is limited only to high tide periods,it is considered adverse but not significant. The tidal inlet is not expected to adversely impact the local wave climate of Bolas,Chica State Beach.Once stability is reached on the shoreline following construction of the inlet, the pattern of seasonal beach profiles change is"peeled to be the same or very similar to the preconstruction profile. Cumulative Impacts-Cumulative projects may result in the need for additional local park land dedication.The Proposed Project will provide local park acreage IL required for the project. •PDF-Project Design Feature rr ar ■r rr rr r �r r� r �r +r� r� �r it irr �r r� r� r Table 1.5-1 (Continued) SUMMARY OF IMPACTS -APPLICANT'S PROPOSED PROJECT 4.15 RECREATION Effects Found To Be Slenillcant Significant Adverse Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Impacts After Mitigation Impact 4.15-1: Potential Logs of Beach Area: The tidal inlet Mitigation Measure 4.15-1: There is no mitigation for this Significant. There is no and its associated jetties will cause the initial loge estimated at impact. available mitigation. approximately 4 percent of the total beach area between Warner • Avenue and the Huntington Mega bluffs. Impact 4.15-2: Potential Reduction in Public Beach Safety: Mitigation Measure 4.15 2: Prior to issuance of building Insignificant Construction of the tidal inlet could reduce public safety by permits for construction of the tidal inlet, the Applicant shall limiting the ability of lifeguards to keep eight of rescue victims, provide for an additional lifeguard tower for Bolsa Chica State and by increasing the time needed to travel up the beach to the Beach near the tidal inlet in a manner meeting the approval of the overcrossing during high tide conditions. California Department of Parke and Recreation. Impact 4.15-3: Potential Interpretive Trail Impacts on Mitigation Measure 4.15-3: A visitor access and interpretive Insignificant NWetlands: Depending on the interpretive programs and program for the wetlands will be developed by the County of restrictions actually developed,public use of wetlands trails Orange Harbors,Beaches and Parke Department in consultation during certain seasons of the year could result in significant with the CDFG, which restricts public access to interpretive trails adverse impacts to habitat and sensitive species during nesting in the wetlands and to other wetlands areas to the period from season. October 1 through March 31. Fencing and/or other means to control access should be used to reduce disruption to sensitive species. Impact 4.15A: Potential Impact of Interpretive Kayak/Canoe Mitigation Measure 4.154: See Impact 4.15-3. Insignificant • Program on Wetlands: The operation of a ranger-led Kayak/Canoe Interpretive Program for the public has the potential to create an impact to sensitive habitat areas and species. caused by the increased proximity of park visitors and interpretive rangers. •PDF-Project Design Feature r �■■� rNOr r r .. rr �■ r r r r r r Table 1.5-1 (Continued) SUMMARY OF IMPACTS -APPLICANT'S PROPOSED PROJECT CIS RECREATION Significant Adverse Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Impacts After Mitigation Impact 4.15 5: Potential Impact of Interpretive Kayak/Canoe Mitigation Measure C15-5: An interpretive program will be Insignificant Program on Public Safety. The operation of the Kayak/Canoe developed by the County Harbors,Beaches and Parks Department Interpretive Program has the potential to create impacts to public which avoids public kayak/canoe outings during hours of safety caused by exposing interpretive rangers and the general potentially dangerous tidal fluctuations. public to tidal currents near the Pacific Coast Highway bridge and tidal inlet. 4.16 PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES )affects Found To.Be inskpfffl ant Bolsa Chica lowlands contain sediments that are geologically young and nonfoasiliferous in nature. For these reasons,project development and restoration activities in the lowlands will not result in significant adverse impact to paleontological resources. wCumulative Impacts-Cumulative projects could have an adverse impact on yet to be discovered fossil resources.The Proposed Project's contribution to these cumulative impacts is reduced to insignificant through implementation of Proposed Project's construction monitoring and data recovery programs. Effectx Found To Be Significant Significant Adverse Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Impacts After Mitigation Impact 4.16-1: Grading operations on Huntington Mesa and Mitigation Measure 4.16-1a (PDF*): Any grading operations Insignificant Bolsa Chica Mesa have the potential to disturb potentially on the Bolsa Chica or Huntington Mesas shall be monitored by a • significant deposits of similar age to the underlying Quaternary qualified paleontological field observer under the direction of an deposits which have produced significant vertebrate and Orange County certified paleontologist and at the Applicant's invertebrate fossils. expense. The paleontological field inspector shall be able to divert equipment to avoid destruction of significant fossils that may be discovered during grading. •PDF-Project Desian Feature 1 Sub-Section A-2 1 Bolsa Chica 1 Environmental Impacts Option A and Option B 1 1 Source: Table 1.3 from the Executive Summary from Re vlsed DEN No. 551 (prepared by the County of Orange Aug. 1994) r Table 1.3 ~' SUMMARY Or IMPACTS - BOLSA CHICA LCP 4.1 LAND USE Effects round to be Insignificant Proposed CPA and Zone Change/Compatibility. The Proposed Project has considered the goals and policies of the Orange County Central Plan relative to preservation of(lie Bolsa Chica's unique open space, natural, and energy resources. Nearly 75 percent of(lie County LCP Area will be dedicated to open space, parks, protected wetlands, and ESHAs. PDFs will provide buffer zones and fencing to protect from intrusion into restored wetlands by people and undesirable animals, will provide measures to screen continuing oil operations from new development, and will provide other measures to mitigate natural hazards. Willi only limited exceptions, public views in and around the area will be preserved. Adjacent Residential Use/Compatibility. Potential land,use conllic(s that could occur include incompatibility between proposed uses and existing uses(such as high • density residential adjacent to single family, large building masses). 111317r, have been developed which provide for physical separation of the existing and proposed development at Los Palos consisting of the 40-foot roadway plus a 34-foot landscaped parkway and.community theme wall. Proposed development will be set back a minimum of 15 feet from the wall and will be restricted to a 35-foot-height within 150 feet of the theme wall. Proposed lowlands residential development will be single-family detached units to be compatible with existing adjacent homes. Analysis of the proposed LUP has determined that it will not create internal conflicts among proposed uses or land use densities. Consistency with County of Orange General Plan. Components of the Proposed Project are generally consistent with the goals and policies of the Orange County General Plan, although it will be necessary to amend the LUE and Transjhortation Element, and MPAH to accommodate the project. Detailed analysis has shown that J no significant physical impacts would occur from amending die LUE and reducing the overall residential density. The main inconsistency of the project relative to the MPAH is that Bolsa Chica Street is not connected to Garfield Avenue as a secondary arterial. However, with inhplenhentation of an ATIP and subsequent traffic analysis, these impacts will either be avoided or reduced to an insignificant level. (Analysis.shows that no significant adverse impacta result from this modification as proposed). Consistency with County LCIh. The Proposed Project eliminates the tidal inlet across Bolsa Chica State Beach and results in a net increase in wetlands. These changes will not result in significant adverse impacts. Bolso Chien Planning Coalition (BCPC) Concept Plan. The Proposed Project is generally consistent with the BCPC Concept Plan although the project has incorporated several modifications and refinements from possible interpretations of the plan. The main differences are exclusion of the Cross t3ap Connector; e111nlnallon of the lldal Inlell sspeuls relnled to houNing, traffla circulation, hufforn nod rooloratlunl and wo tit aVarage devalop(MYoI ddNNlly RN 016 dwrittlim til ariledo. • Theme niodincadons do Not result In Nignificant adverse hnpacla. Zoning - County of Orange. The County would be required to formally amend existing plans and approve any related zoning modifications. Zoning necessary to implement the Proposed Project generally would be consistent with the County's existing general plan, except that Lowland uses would be less intense. Zoning to implement the Proposed Project must be proposed to concur with (he proposed General Plan Amendment designation. No significant inconsistencies between existing and proposed zoning have been identified. Consistency with California Coastal Act. Many features have been incorporated into project design to respond to Coastal Act policy. The detailed explanation of these features is contained in Section 4.1.2. Detailed consistency analysis will be necessary during the processing of the specific LCP; however, (lie project has been found to positively address the key policy provisions of the Coastal Act, subject to further analysis and plan refinement as the LUP and LCP proceed through CCC review and federal permitting. h Table 1.3 (Continued) �. SUMMARY Or IMPACTS - BOLSA CHICA LCP 4.1 LAND USE Wetlands disruption. The Proposed Project calls for buffer zones and fencing to eliminate(lie potential for physical intrusion by humans and non-native animals into die proposed wetlands restoration area. These features will eliminate the potential for any significant adverse potential disruption to wetlands biota caused by such potential human intrusion. Park/1etlands Compatibility. The 15-acre active use community park proposed in Lowland Planning Area 3D will be buffered from the wetlands area by a 6-foot high berm and a 100-foot wetlands buffer. Significant Adverse Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual 1"toneltl Aflor • Mitigation Impact 4.1-1: Oilfield compatibility. (e.g., wells, tank farms, Mitigation Measure 4.1-1n: The Oil Spill Prevention Control Insignificant gas plants, pipelines, e(c.) which remain in the proposed and Countermeasure Plan (OSPCCP) and Oil Spill Contingency wetlands restoration/protection area until phased out, are Plan (OSCP) enacted between(lie oil field operators and potentially incompatible with proposed residential and wetlands appropriate state agencies will remain in effect for the duration of areas. the oil activities at Balsa Chica. These plans will be amended as required for each Residential Planning Arca and will require the approval of the state contracting agencies at that time. Mitigation Measure 4.1-1b: All potential buyers of onsite residences shall be notified of(lie potential hazardous conditions associated with onsite oil production activities.,Such information shall be disclosed in the Department of Real Estate reports prior to unit sales. • W 0 - '` Table 1.3 (Continued) 0 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS - BOLSA CHICA LCP 4.2 GEOLOGY AND SEISMICITY Effects Found to be Insignificant Construction/Bolsa Chien and Huntington Mesas. Construction activity on (lie Mesas is not expected to encounter near-surface groundwater or result in hazards associated with such occurrence. Adverse geologic conditions such as die nature of existing bedding,joints, faults, ancient landslides, or other inherent zones of rock or soil weakness can cause bluff/slope instability. These conditions can be exacerbated as a result of llte addition of groundwater or surface water, loading(lie top of bluff/slopes with fill or constructing structures, or when excavation or pile-driving for development occurs. Horizontal ground accelerations.may cause damage ranging from slight nonstructural cracking and facing failures to major structural damage of inadequately designed buildings. However, (he applicant is required to submit a geolechnical report, prepared by a certified geologist, which identifies any unstable soil or otter geologic conditions and prescribes remediation to ensure die site meets established standards for construction. When implemented, these routine measures, will reduce any potential impacts to insignificance. • Apart from ground subsidence caused by dewatering or seismically induced liquefaction, compressible/collapsible soil potential exists in the mesa areas. Near surface settlement can be caused by loading from proposed fills, stockpiles, or structures. The Proposed Project incorporates those standards set forth in the Orange County Grading Manual which, when implemented, will reduce(his impact to a level of insignificance. Construction/Lowlands Residential. Seismic hazards and associated activity during construction cannot be avoided; however, reasonable care associated with established site safety will ensure dial such impacts arc not significant. The surficial layer will be removed and stockpiled onsite to increase tie efficiency of DDC work and for engineered fills. The stockpile will Ile subject to erosion control as specified in Section 4.5. Construction/Wetlands Restoration. Minor impacts from water and wind erosion may occur in specific wetlands areas and are not considered significant during construction(prior to establishment of final grades and improvements). Operation of heavy mechanical equipment in wetland areas could result in accidental spills of fuels; however, the WRP specifies that refueling take place in areas removed from occupied habitats or other sensitive areas. Project impacts/Lowlands Residential. Post-seismic settlement in the Lowland greater than 2 inches would potentially result in a significant adverse impact. In order to limit post-liquefaction settlement in die Lowland to less than 2 inches and alleviate its surface manifestations(e.g., ground cracking and sand boils), die Proposed Project incorporates ground improvement technitlucs for residential areas which, when implemented, will reduce any post-liquefaction sculemenl to a level of insignificance. Several ground improvement measures have been included as PDFs, including dynamic deep compaction(DDC) of localized areas needing stabilization, stockpiling of tie surficial layer will be accomplished to a depth of I foot above die water(hole at the time of ground improvement to increase the efficiency of DDC work, plooanitint of at lead I-raul•lhlok granulite hlnnkat Iti provide a Wills working phithirm Air pr000d Imprdvottiont equilmidi a, Aeld ioalltta and tnoithorinp of • adjacent neighborhoods for any effect from DDC, and, alternatively, installations of stone colunins in those areas where needed stabilization In excess of 25 feet bgs In warranted, and within 100-foot zone near existing residential areas to prevent possible damage from vibration. The potential for seiche in the full tidal area is remote and impacts are considered insignificant due to the infrequent occurrence expected and lack of damage or risk of human safely associated with scichc. The Proposed Project includes as a PDF the construction of a cutoff wall which, when implemented, would reduce any potential effect from salt water, freshwater, and irrigation water from (he seasonal ponds into the existing residential neighborhood to an insignificant level. Table 1.3 (Continued) SUMMARY OF IMPACTS - BOLSA CHICA LCP F_ 4.2 GEOLOGY AND SEISMICITY Project Impncts/Mesa Development. The potential for future artificial cut or fill slope failure due to ground shaking, the presence of expansive or corrosive soils, and major seismically induced structural damage would all be reduced to levels of insignificance with tic implementation of standard grading and construction code requirements. The potential for fault rupture for the residential use of the site has been evaluated in accordance with the Alquist-Priolo Act, and an exclusionary zone for habitable strictures has been established north of Freeman Creek. The Proposed Project does not provide for any habitable stricture within this exclusionary zone. Therefore, no significant adverse impacts associated with fault rupture are expected. Effects round to be Significant Significant Adverso Impacts Mltlgntlon Measures Residual Impact After • MtEI etlon. llttpa.et 4.1.1 t Large quantltoa of oxoaveted matorlal•nood to be Mitlgallon Measure 4.1.1 t The project Applicant shall oomply Unavoidable end slytllltuant transported from the Project Area to an off-site location under with County grading regulations which limit truck traffic for Lowlands Option A wetlands restoration. importing or exporting material to 15 trips per hour. Impact 4.2-2: DDC in the Lowland may affect existing adjacent Mitigation Measure 4.2-2a: DDC for ground improvement shall Insignificant homes due to noise and vibration which may cause damage to be designed by a Registered Civil Engineer and Geotechnical structures. Consultant so that vibration levels do not damage adjacent structure or provide unacceptable nuisance levels as determined and approved by the County. Mitigntion Measure 4.2-21r: Prior to implementation of the DDC for ground improvement, the Applicant's geotechnical consultant shall also prepare and present to the County an evaluation of an alternative method of compaction involving the use of a rolling surcharge and dewatering of near-surface soils with well points. The information on both the DDC measures • and die alternative rolling surcharge measure shall be provided to the County, and the County shall approve die preferred technique prior to issuance of grading permits for the Lowland. Impact 4.2-3: Potentially active fault splays associated with die Mitigation Measure 4.2-3: Prior to issuance of a grading permit Unavoidable and significant Noah Branch Fault may exist and cause surface rupture in the for construction of the 9-million-gallon tank by the City of proposed location of the 9-million-gallon water reservoir. Huntington Beach, or other agency, a geologic investigation shall Therefore, such rupture may result in the loss of water for be performed to determine the suitability of the site. domestic and fire-fighting use. 0 0 E �>t k Ip". -no ow im Table 1.3 (Continued) ' ° SUMMARY OF IMPACTS - DOLSA CHICA LCP 4.2 GEOLOGY AND SEISMICITY Significant Adverse Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Impact After Mitigation Impact 4.24: Underground utilities constructed within the Mitigation Measure 4.24a: To prevent discharge of sewage Unavoidable and significant Alquist-Priolo Act exclusionary zone, especially Utose traversing should the force main from the new sewage lift station be it, may be damaged from fault movement or rupture. sheared,the following design measures are recommended: (1) a backflow preventer could be installed immediately east of the potential area of breakage, (2) the lift station (wet well) could be oversized to accommodate extra capacity until the broken main can be repaired, and (3) an automatic breaker installed in the pump circuit to shut off the system in die even to severe seismic movement. Mitigation Measure 4.24b: Utilities that are expected to cross tote fault could include natural gas for residential use, water, �. telephone, electrical power, and storm drains. Whenever possible, utility lines should he routed to prevent traversing the fault. If utility lines must traverse the fault, die following safely measures shall be implemented: the natural gas line(s)should have automatic shutoff valves installed which would actuate in die event of severe seismic movement; lie water mains)should have manual valves located on either side of tie fault; telephone and cable services should have junction boxes on opposing sides of (lie fault which could provide for emergency reconnection during repairs of underground lines. Sanitary newer lines crossing the fault zone should be constructed.of ductile iron pipe. 4.3 HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES Effects round to he lnsienificant General Construction Hazards. Construction of the planned residential homes and wetlands areas will involve lite use of heavy equipment during grading, excavation, and associated activities. Typical construction hazards will be encountered during these activities, but standard safety practices and adherence to OSHA regulations should decrease these hazards to a level of insignificance. As a PDF, the oil operator will be required to remediate all areas of known soil contamination and remove or properly abandon all oil wells and other appurtenances before the property can be released. However, there is a low possibility that additional areas of soil contamination or unknown oil wells or pipelines exist that may not he delineated until they are encountered during grading or excavation activities. Therefore it is possible that grading or other construction workers could come into contact with contaminated soil or oilfield appurtenances during grading operations. It is also possible that offsite residents could he exposed to particulate dust emissions during site grading that contain traces of petroleum hydrocarbons or heavy metals. To avoid these possibilities a Grading Mitigation Plan will be developed as a PDF. As a result of the PDFs these potential impacts are not considered significant. Table 1.3 (Continued) SUMMARY OF IMPACTS - BOLSA CHICA LCP 4.3 HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES Potential Oil Spill to Wetlands. The potential for oil spillage into tidal areas would be considered a significant impact if not for the PDF which provides a plan for' die installation of berms and dikes around the tidally influenced areas. Potential Explosion/Fire Related to Underground Pipeline. There is an insignificant risk of explosion or fire related to die low-pressure wet gas fines or other petroleum pipelines that traverse die site. Potential Explosion/Fire Related to Oil Production. The most likely risk of fire or explosion associated with oil wells would occur during initial drilling and installation of die well, and also during some maintenance procedures. Well blowout prevention equipment and procedures are required to be used during these types • of operations to minimize these risks to insignificance. As a PDF, homes will be set back at least 50 feet from operating wells and 10 feet from abandoned oil wells. Potential Explosion/Fire Related to Gas Plant. There is a risk of explosion, fire, or release of toxic gases from the gas plant located on the Hundngton Beach Mesa, However, this gas plant is currently slated for decommissioning in 1995 and a new plant is being constructed out of the study area. Potential Exposure to Corrosive Soils. Soils that would be considered corrosive to buried metal utilities and concrete have been encountered in some portions of Bolsa Chica. These types of soils pose an insignificant health hazard to future residents of the site. Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials. Areas where naturally occurring radioactive materials (NORMS) can be found at anomalous levels are typicafiy .i associated with igneous and metamorphic rocks and where radioactive minerals such as uranium exist. The Los Angeles and Orange County areas are considered to have a very low potential for significant levels of NORMs. Sediments in die Bolsa Chica area are a thick sequence of recent to Pleistocene age alluvium, which contain little of die minerals exhibiting radioactive decay. For these reasons, NORMs are not considered a potentially significant concern. Soil Contamination. It is possible that several areas of known or suspected soil contamination could contain concentrations of contaminants high enough to pose a health risk to future residents.To address this die Proposed Project provides for die preparation of a remedial action plan based on a health risk assessment. With this PDF the potential impact is considered insignificant. Effects Found to be Significant Significant Adverse Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Impact After Mitigation Inhpact 4.3-1: There is a potential that abandoned oil wells Mitigation Measure 4.3-1: Prior to grading in residential areas, Insignificant could pose a risk of leakage of subsurface gas. all abandoned oil wells shall be relocated and tested for release of gases. Wells shall be reabandoned as necessary in accordance with current CDOC regulations. Impact 4.3-2: There is a potential that future landowners could Mitigation Measure 4.3-2: Department of Real Estate disclosure Insignificant disturb abandoned wells if they are not aware of their existence. shall be provided to future landowners concerning the location of c any abandoned wells or other appurtenances. 1 � Impact 4.3-3: If(lie pressurized gas line is relocated beneath Mitigation Measure 4.3-3: The pressurized gas line shall be Insignificant homes, there is a potentially significant safety risk related to relocated so that it is a minimum of 20 feet away from habitable leaks or ruptures of this line. structures. �� law Nei n "M am im Table 1.3 (Continued) ° SUMMARY Or IMPACTS - 13OLSA CHICA LCP 4.3 HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES Significant Adverse Intpacl.I Mitigation Measures Residual Impact After Mitigation Impact 4.34: If the pressurized gas line is relocated such that it Mitigation Measure 4.34: The pressurized gas line shall be Insignificant. crosses llic Newport-Inglewood Fault zone, (hero is a potentially relocated so that it does not cross the Newport-Inglewood Fault significant risk of fire or explosion related to stismicily or zone in a residential planning area and automatic shut-off valves surface rupture of[his fault. shall be installed which activate in die event of severe seismic movement. • 4.4 SURFACE AND GROUNDWATER HYDROLOGY Effects round to be Insienificant Grading/Bolsa Chica Mesa. An insignificant amount of recharge(i.e., groundwater replenishment)of the upper Pleistocene aquifer underlying the Bolsa Chica Mesa �. may occur; however, groundwater quality is not expected to be significantly impacted. Heavy rains may cause erosion and runoff of sediment from the lots and roads at any time during(Ile grading process.Such erosion could cause substantial impact from sediment deposition or fouling of existing drainage strictures, including pump stations, and/or receiving waters such as Outer Bolsa Bay. The Proposed Project will conform to the County of Orange Grading and Excavation Code requiring temporary and permanent erosion control devices during the rainy season.The impact is considered insignificant. Grading/Huntington Bench Mesa and Bolso Chica Regional Park. Grading for lute Bolsa Chica.Regional Park along (Ile Huntington Beach Mesa is anticipated to be minor and insignificant for the purpose of establishing landscaping and hardscape palhs, except for a potential 5-acre fill area. Filling of this area could result in runoff from the Huntington Beach Mesa to the Lowland area at the toe of the bluffs, potentially increasing bluff erosion and sedimentation. However, the County of Orange Grading and Excavation Code Suharticle 13 (Erosion Control) requires,when necessary,measures to prevent such erosion and sedimentation impacts, Therefore,this impact is considered insignificant. • C I'll dinµAvet III ntls ItraloruUun. Implicit; to lute Bolsa Aquifer are not expected anywhere hencalh the areas undergoing wetlands restoration because of(hc existing aquiclude. 'Therefore, there would be no impacts to (his aquifer or to its water quality. Potential debris fouling impacts on the EGGW Channel will be managed as required by OCFCD Design Manual. Incidental flooding and ponding may occur within lite restoration area during phased construction. The WRP Grading Plan indicates several features(o alleviate these effects including temporary bertning and fills. Such effects are not considered significant. During dredging and excavation of the full and milled lidal areas, ponding stay occur from heavy rain. During high lidos, seepage might also occur from an adjacent water body (i.e., Inner Bolsa Bay). The WRI,Grading flan indicates that this condition will occur only in a very linti(cd portion of RPA IC. This potcntial effect is not considered to be significant. Pursuant to state and federal law, hazardous materials and waste will be rentediated by late Oil Leaseholder before construction. Therefore, no significant adverse impacts to hydrology or water quality related(o hazardous materials and waste are anticipated during construction. Table 1.3 (Continued) SUMMARY Or IMPACTS - BOLSA CHICA LCP 4.4 SURFACE AND GROUNDWATER HYDROLOGY Grading/Lowland Development. Siltation from storms during site grading may potentially affect (lie operation of the new pump stations. Malfunction of any of these pump stations from siltation could potentially cause flooding in the adjacent neighborhood around the pump stations. Redundancy in the pumping system of the Proposed Project will effectively reduce these potential impacts to a less than significant level. Grading for the lowland portion of the MWD property within (lie LCP boundary will require as much as 150,000 cy of raw fill. To prevent loss of viable flood storage capacity, grading in this area is restricted in the Proposed Project until after Santa Ana River Main Stem improvements are completed. These improvements will eliminate the most significant potential flooding of die MWD property and die adjacent neighborhood. Therefore, no significant impacts are attributable from • overflow of(he r3GGW Channel drainage system, or from die related displacement of flood storage capacity in(his property. Project impact/Huntington clench Maya. Since the CRWQCB and OCEMA will have Cleanup oversight of the SOVI gas plant for the(mitigation for hazardous materials and waste in the soil and groundwater, die potential impact to groundwater quality arising from the use of Bolas,Chica Regional Park is not considered significant. Project Impact/Wetlands Restoration Area. Excess sedimentation in die full tidal area will be removed through Hydraulic dredge operations and only dredge spoils suitable for beach replenishment will be placed on the downcoast beaches. Unsuitable dredge spoils will be disposed of offsite subject to County and stale regulations. Therefore, die potential effect of sediment deposition into (lie full tidal area is not considered significant. +' The +9 foot MSL dike elevation is designed to contain it flow in excess of a 100-year storm event. A PDF provides for periodic monitoring(i.e., a survey)of the heights of these(likes and, where indicated, die placement of fill to compensate for greater than anticipated settlement. Therefore, die potential effect of possible overtopping of tie +9-foot MSL berm is not considered significant. Project Impact/Loivland Development. Pump station failure or malfunction during a significant storm event night flood portions of the proposed Lowland residential area or die existing adjacent neighborhood. However, as a PDF, the Proposed Project includes a standby pump having an alternative power source(e.g., natural gas, direct fuel, etc.) to augment lice proposed pump stations. Therefore, any potential flooding impacts arising from either of(lie following events would not be considered significant. • 0 0 Table 1.3 (Continues!) SUMMARY OF IMPACTS - BOLSA CHICA LCP 4.4 SURFACE AND GROUNDWATER HYDROLOGY Effcvls Found to he Significant Significant Adverse Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Impact After Mitigation Impact 4.4-1: Inundation of muted tidal areas may result in Mitigation Measure 4.4-1: Prior to issuance of a grading permit Insignificant increased salinity of(lie semi-perched zone and an increase in for RPAs 1 D, 4A, 5A, and 5C, the Applicant's geotechnical groundwater levels in the adjacent residential neighborhood to the consultant shall develop detailed studies to evaluate die potential east. occurrence of natural near-surface groundwater and artificially • induced groundwater to determine die potential of shallow groundwater recharge to the adjacent area caused by the wetlands restoration. Studies shall include, but shall not be limited to, subdrains, impermeable soil caps on finish grade, subsurface harriers such as cutoff walls or interceptor drains, or French Drains with dewatering wells. The preferred mitigation shall be approved by the County and implemented by the Applicant. v� Impact 4.4-2: 'Tidal inundation of the RPA IC full lidal area Miligntion Measure 4.4-2: To prevent degradation of Insignificant may potentially degrade groundwater quality of the exposed groundwater due to tidal inundation, die Applicant's geotechnical portion of the upper Pleistocene Alpha and Beta Aquifers consultant shall provide a detailed study that evaluates the impact underlying the Bolsa Chica Mesa east of the Newport-Inglewood of saltwater intrusion into the upper Pleistocene Alpha and Beta Fault. Aquifers, and provide recommendations to prevent this if either a full tidal or muted tidal area is constructed in the Bolsa Pocket. The report shall include, but not be limited to, impermeable soil caps and subsurface barriers. The report and design recommendations shall be reviewed by the County and this ntltigation shall be Implemented through the WRP. • Table 1.3 (Continued) SUMMARY OF IMPACTS - BOLSA CHICA LCP 4.4 SURFACE AND GROUNDWATER HYDROLOGY Significant Adverse impacts Mitigation Measures Residual impact After Mitigation impact 4.4-3: Well and stormwater discharge to provide Mitigation Measure 4.4-3: To prevent adverse hydrological insignificant seasonal pond water for the Edwards Thumb parcel potentially impacts in (he Edwards Thumb area, the Applicant's geotechnical may (1) increase the existing rate of ground settlement and cause consultant, prior to wetlands restoration, shall evaluate damage to the existing neighborhood and infrastructure, and transtnissivity and other hydrogeologic characteristics in the (2) increase the existing rate of incidents of flooding in the Edwards Thumb area and die Lowland near the existing • neighborhood. However, llte groundwater extraction from the residential neighborhood in order to evaluate die Impacts of well is expected to last only a few weeks each year. irrigation and Impounded water on groundwater levels in die existing residential neighborhood. Such att Investigation would, at it minimum, be expected to require the Installation of monitoring wells and die performance of pump test for data collection. This detailed study shall include but not be limited to die following mitigation measures: subsurface cutoff wall, subsurface drains, and French Drains. Through this process, it is important that a definitive geotechnical design be approved by the County which would assure that no significant adverse impacts would result from changes in groundwater level. The specific mitigation will be approved by (lie County and implemented by the Applicant. impact 4AA: Rerouting of(lie Bolsa Chica Pump Station Mitigation Measure 4AA: The Applicant's civil engineer shall Insignificant discharge may not result in a continuous conduit or path for provide a design and construction schedule to reroute the Bolsa successful water discharge. This may cause the existing Chica punip station discharge water without disruption. The neighborhood in the vicinity of the punip station to become County shall review and approve this design prior to issuance of flooded under certain storm conditions. grading permits for Planning Areas 10 and 11. • ' Impact 4.4-5: inundation of muted tidal areas may result in Mitigation Measure 4.4-5: Prior to issuance of a grading permit Insignificant increased salinity of(lie semi-perched zone and an increase in for RPAs I D, 4A, SA, and 5C, llte Applicant's geotechnical groundwater levels in the adjacent residential neighborhood to the consultant shall develop detailed studies to evaluate lite potential east. occurrence of natural near-surface groundwater and artificially induced groundwater to determine the potential of shallow groundwater recharge to the adjacent area caused by the wetlands restoration. Studies shall include, but shall not be limited to, o subdrains, impermeable soil caps on finish grade, subsurface barriers such as cutoff walls or interceptor drains, or French Drains with dewatering wells. The preferred mitigation shall he approved by the County and implemented by the Applicant. �' o A - too, Table 1.3 (Continued) SUMMARY Or IMPACTS - BOLSA CHICA LCP go 4.4 SURFACE AND GROUNDWATER HYDROLOGY Significant Adverse Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Impact After Mitigation Impact 4.4-6: Additional runoff front the Regional Park may Mitigation Measure 4.4-6: Prior to the issuance of a grading Insignificant increase bluff erosion and sedimentation impacting the perennial permit for the Regional Park, the Park developer shall and seasonal ponds at the toe of the slope and also decreasing incorporate design measures, in a manner meeting the approval slope stability. of(lie County, (list prevent additional ntnoff caused by new Park development from further erosion to the Huntington bluff and • impacting the seasonal ponds in the Lowland. Impact 4.4-7: Periodic inundation of(lie Edwards Thumb Mitigation Measure 4.4-7: Same as Mitigation Measure 4.4-4. Insignificant seasonal pond area, without mitigation of shallow groundwater recharge, may increase the groundwater level under the existing residential neighborhood to the north causing inundation of subterranean structures, or springs. Impact 4.4-8: The proponcd residen(inl development in Planning Mitignlion Measure 4.4-8: insignificant i Areaa 10 and I I may he subject to flooding during it 100-year storm event if die property grade is not raised. ► Santa Ann River Floodpinin If the Santa Ann River floodpinin within the project limits is not removed by llie joint Orange County/f cderal Government funded Santa Ann River Project (SARP) at the time of grading for proposed buildings, structures, and residential developments within the existing Santa Ann River floodplain, appropriate additional tniligatiart measures, • including lite filing of FEMA Elevation Certificate shall be required for each building, reside►ute, or a(nuchlre wllhlli the exleling sni t Ann River fluudpinln, whloh demonstrated that llte as-built lowest floor IN at least 1 font above lute 100- year flood elevation. Thin shall be accomplished prior to receiving Use and Occupancy Certification, in it manner meeting the approval of the appropriate local jurisdiction. To the extent required by CEQA, these mitigation measures will be developed through a supplemental and focused environmental review under CCQA. Table 1.3 (Continued) SUMMARY Or IMPACTS - BOLSA CHICA LCP 4.4 SURFACE AND GROUNDWATER HYDROLOGY Significant Adverse Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Impact After Mitigation Mitigation Measure 4.4-8 (cont'd): ► Residual Floodplains - CGGW Channel and Others • Additionally, as appropriate, mitigation against flooding of any proposed buildings, structures, and residential development from any known residual floodplain (i.e., other than ilia Santa Ana River) shall be provided in a manner meeting the approval of die appropriate local jurisdiction before grading permits are issued for 11►e proposed buildings, structures, and residences within the delineated residual floodplain. Furthermore, if these residual floodplains are shown on FCMA's Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) when the Santa Ana River floodplain map is revised as a 00 consequence of SARP, then a certified elevation certificate which den►onstratea That ilia as-built lowest fluor is at least I foot above the 100-year flood elevation of(lie FIRM in effect shall be submitted or a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) from FCMA for revising die FIRM shall be obtained, then the LOMR shall be processed through FCMA in a manner meeting the approval of the appropriate local • jurisdiction prior to receiving Use and Occupancy Certifications for these buildings, structures, and residences. To the extent required by CCQA, these mitigation measures will be developed through a supplemental and focused environmental review. Impact 4.4-9: The CGGW Channel, adjacent to the lowland Mitigation Mensure 4.4-9: Before grading permits are issued Insignificant development, has the capacity for less than a 25-year storm for Lowland parcels which are adjacent to or are impacted by the event. If the CCGW Channel is not improved to a 100-year existing CGGW Channel, the Applicant shall design and construct storm event, it will overtop and flood Ilia proposed Lowland the CGGW Channel within ilia Project Area (upstream limit is the residential areas. Graham Avenue Bridge) in accordance with OCFCD criteria and o standards. The CGGW Channel shall be capable of conveying ilia discharge resulting from a 100-year, 50 percent confidence level storm over ilia CGGW Channel's fully developed tributary watershed as stated in Orange County CMA's C05/C06 Project Report. Table 1.3 (Continual) ~' ° SUMMARY Or IMPACTS - BOLSA CHICA LCP Y m 5d 4.5 WATER QUALITY Effects Found to be Insignificant Construction/Bolso Chica Mesa. Construction on Bolsa Chica Mesa could introduce sediments and contaminants directly into Outer Bolsa Bay through storm runoff down the bluffs. Runoff could also flow into Huntington Harbour via Outer Bolsa Bay or Warner Avenue. Tidal flow would spread the sediments and any contaminants into Huntington Harbour and Inner Bolsa Bay. Construction runoff could thus cause short-tern violations of water quality objectives in Bolsa Bay and Huntington Harbour. Runoff from construction on Bolsa Chica Mesa thus has the potential to cause a significant impact on water quality. However, the project will be required to prepare a SWPPP which includes the adoption of erosion and sediment control practices such its desalting basins and construction site chemical control management measures. Adherence to approved methods for stornwuuer pollution prevention will prevent significant amounts of sediment and contaminants from. entering Outer Bolsa Bay and Huntington Harbour. • Construction/Wetlands Restoration. Restoration of the Bolsa Chica wetlands could have impacts on water quality through die creation of turbidity, the introduction or resuspension of contaminants in the sediments, or(lie introduction of toxic materials associated with construction equipment. Turbidity impacts will be insignificant since the Applicant has committed to die use of turbidity barriers, silt curtains, or an equivalent measure to contain turbidity in localized areas. A large spill of a hazardous substance into tidal waters would have a significant adverse impact on water quality. However, the Applicant will prepare and implement _ an SWPPP which will reduce the potential risk of toxic spills to it level of insignificance. Similarly, many of the grading activities planned during die wetlands restoration have die potential to cause an increased exposure of the newly-created wetlands to potential oil spills. However, the oil operator's Spill Prevention, Countermeasures,and Contingency Plan (SPCC)will be reviewed and revised whenever the operations undergo a significant change and no significant impacts will result. Construction/Mesa and Lowland Development. Construction on Bolsa Chica Mesa and tie Lowland could introduce sediments and contaminants directly into existing and proposed wetland areas front runoff. However, (lie impact would be reduced to less than significant by the utilization of standard erosion and sediment control practices contained in the SWPPP. Project Impact/Mesa Development. Urban runoff from development of Bolsa Chica Mesa would have the potential to degrade tare water quality of aquatic habitats. The impacts of increased contaminant loads in urban runoff our the wdsting and newly constructed wetlands are considered to be potentially significant. As it Standard Cutithflon, tine Proposed Project will includes a Water Quality Manniltbnent Plan (WQMP) to Orange County for approval pHur to INsuaned ul budding parmitx. This • WQMP will epeolduadly 1411dly the 1IMhei butt►structural raid nunwMitituralh that will bu used onNlte to controf limliletable pollt runo ff,off, lmpatlld Will be rrdudttd to imigninonnt leveiN. Project Impact/Wetlands Restoration. Urban nuhoff will enter the new tidal bay from the EGGW Channel. Concentrations of contaminants that exceed water quality criteria are measured periodically in this channel. Therefore, tidal water near the place where the EGGW Channel enters the Bolsa Pocket will receive water that at times may exceed objectives in the California Enclosed Bays and Estuaries Plan. This represents a potentially significant adverse impact.on the newly-created tidal bay. However, the shortening of the EGGW Channel will result in a decreased loading of contaminants to Bolsa Bay and Huntington Harbour with the net effect of no impact. Additionally, the Proposed Project will include a program of maintenance dredging near the mouth of the EGGW Channel to remove sediment containing unacceptable concentrations of pollutants. After implementation of these PDFs, no significant impact on water quality in the restored wetlands is anticipated as a result of shortening tie EGGW Channel. Project Impact/Wetlands Restoration. Because the Newport-Inglewood fault zone acts as a barrier to the landward flow of saline groundwater to the important freshwater aquifers of the Orange County Main Basin, the tidal component of the wetlands restoration will not result in a significant adverse impact on groundwater quality. Table 1.3 (Continued) SUMMARY OF IMPACTS - BOLSA CHICA LCP 4.5 WATER QUALITY Project Impact/Wetlands Restoration. Groundwater extraction from the Edwards Thumb well could cause a significant impact on groundwater quantity and quality if it causes art overdraft in the Orange County Main Basin, or if it results in a vertical downward head within the Bolsa Aquifer severe enough to potentially cause the downwards movement of overlying water of poor quality into the Bolsa Aquifer. This possibility is relatively remote because the planned groundwater extraction from the well is relatively small. In addition, SC-4 requires well construction plans and pumping schedules to be reviewed by die Regional Water Quality Control Board and the Orange County Water District. in addition, a well permit will be obtained from Orange County Health Care Agency. Compliance with these requirements will avoid a significant impact from groundwater extraction. Project Impact/Lowland Development. Considering the incrementally small quantity of contaminants to be potentially added to die system by Option Bi development under Option B will cause impacts to urban runoff which are less than significant. The additional urban drainage area Is lean than a 1 peroent Inoreane over the existing • condition and, when combined with the requirement for implementation of BMPs to improve the quality of urban runoff, will not result in a significant Impact to aquatic habitat. Effects Found to he Significant Significant Adverse Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Impacts After Mitigation oImplenhenudiuit of the Proposed Project will not result in tiny No mitigation measures necessary. Not applicable significant short-or long-term impacts to water quality. 4.6 COASTAL HYDRAULICS Effects Found to be insignificant Flow Velocities. Hydrodynamic circulation modeling of the proposed wedands restoration project indicates that hydraulic impacts, such as bulkhead scouring and channel erosion, are not significant due to the relatively low flow velocities and water levels predicted even under extreme conditions. The widening of Outer Bolsa Bay, lengthening of Warner Avenue Bridge, and armoring the channel under the Anaheim Bay Bridge as needed will reduce die impact of scouring at Anaheim Bay • Bridge and Warner Avenue Bridge to an insignificant level. Tidal Impacts of Wetland Restoration. Modeling results indicate that water surface elevations at Outer Bolsa Bay, Inner Bolsa Bay and die CDFC cell during all phases of tie project are tie same as existing conditions and are not likely to result in flooding of Pacific Coast Highway or adverse impacts to wetland habitats. Long-tern impacts from project water levels are not significant due to the relatively low water surface elevations resulting from project implementation. �' W, anr ' Table 1.3 (Continued) ~" SUMMARY Ole IMPACTS - BOLSA CIIICA LCI° 4.6 COASTAL HYDRAULICS Effects Found to be Significant Significant Adverse Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Impact After Mitigation Impact 4.6-1: Increased erosion of the channel bed of Mitigation Measure 4.6-1: The applicant shall implement a Insignificant Huntington Harbour at bulkhead footings may occur from higher monitoring program(described in detail in Section 4.6.5 of the tidal flow velocities resulting from the Proposed Project. EIR) to assess the existing baseline bathymetric condition throughout Huntington Harbour and to record any changes to that • condition as die result of project implementation. If the program reveals increased channel bet scouring caused by the Proposed Project which worsens the existing scour at die footings of bulkheads in Huntington Harbour, the applicant shall contribute funds on a pro rata basis for remedial action required to mitigate the incremental scouring. N `- 4.7 MARINE/AQUATIC BIOLOGY Effects Found to be Insignificant Construction/Bolao Chien Mesa. Aquatic communities in Bolas Bay and Huntington Harbour may be subjected to turbidity from erosion and runoff of sediments during earihmoving activities. Runoff during construction on Bolsa Chica Mesa could enter Outer Bolan Bay directly from due bluffs or from material washed Into the CGGW Channel. This is a potentially significant impact. However, the Proposed Project proposes compliance with all local, state, and federal.regulations related to erosion and runoff. To reduce impacts of erosion, slormwater runoff, and contaminant spill on the estuarine communities of the Bolsa wetlands and Huntington Barbour during constriction, an SWI'PP will he prepnred prior to any grading or carthmoving. Implementation of the SWPPP and die County-mandated WQMP will effectively eliminate duesc short-term impacts or reduce them to a level of insignificance. A spill of toxic material into Bolsa Bay or Huntington Harbour during construction would be it significant Impact. However, the risk of a spill will be mitigated to • insignificant using proper procedures to handle toxic materials, as set forth in the Construction Monitoring Program. Table 1.3 (Continued) SUMMARY Or IMPACTS - BOLSA CI-IICA LCP 4.7 MARINE/AQUATIC BIOLOGY Construction/Wetlands Restoration. Restoration activities will completely disrupt the existing aquatic communities in the nontidal channels and perennial and seasonal ponds. Because the aquatic communities in these nontidal habitats are comprised of non-native fish and opportunistic, salt tolerant invertebrates, these impacts will be insignificant. During wetlands restoration, aquatic organisms could also be exposed to toxic substances through the mobilization of contaminants in the soils or sediments of the Bolsa Chica Lowland. If large areas of contaminated soils exist or if very high concentrations of toxic substances are incorporated into the sediments of restored wetlands, they could have significant effects on species sensitive to contaminants. however,potentially significant impacts of contaminated soils on estuarine organisms will be reduced to insignificant by PDFs, including a comprehensive sampling and remediation program prior to restoration. • Turbidity impacts during wetlands restoration Could have a significant impact on aquatic organisms. However, Uiese impacts will be mitigated to insignificant levels by the use of barriers to confine the turbidity to a localized area. The impacts of turbidity on aquatic organisms will, therefore, be reduced to an insignificant level. Construction/Lowland Development. During construction for urban development in file back portion of die Lowland, aquatic communities in Bolsa Bay and Huntington Harbour may be subjected to turbidity from (lie erosion and runoff of sediments during earlhmoving activities. A large amount of storm runoff during construction could cause enough turbidity to have significant impacts on estuarine communities in Bolsa Bay. However, (lie Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan will contain specific management measures and erosion control practices to prevent sediment and hazardous materials from entering tidal water bodies. By taking this action, the impacts shall be reduced to insignificant levels. Project Impact/Bolsa Chica Mesa. Development on die Bolsa Chica Mesa will add to the contaminant loadings in die stortnwater of the EGGW Channel,which already exceeds water quality objectives some of the time. Contaminant concentrations near the inlet of die flood control channel would periodically exceed water quality objectives of the enclosed bays and estuaries plan and thereby affect sensitive bendiie organisms in the new full tidal wetlands, where contaminants settle and accumulate in the sediments. However,compliance with SC-2 iii Section 4.5.3.2, which requires die use of trash racks, grease and oil separators,and BMPs for proper disposal of the materials collected in these structures will reduce this impact to a level of insignificance. Project Impact/Wetlands Restoration. Widening of(fie Outer Bolsa Bay Channel will result in a permanent loss of mudflat habitat. However, because new mudflat Habitat will be created in the full tidal area, this loss of mudflat in Outer Bolsa Bay is not considered a significant impact. Project Impact/Maintenance Dredging. Significant adverse impacts to estuarine organisms in the new tidal bay could occur from the considerable turbidity which could be generated in (lie flay during dredging. However, the use of turbidity screeds and curtains during maintenance dredging will reduce turbidity impacts to an insignificant level. Project Impact/Pernianenl Changes in habitat. A potential decrease in aquatic diversity in outer Bolsa Bay would be an adverse but insignificant impact of the Proposed Project Because it will be compensated for by the expected High diversity of the estuarine community that will colonize die newly created tidal bay in the central Lowland. The increase in estuarine Habitat after the restoration would be a beneficial impact for aquatic communities. A slight decrease in circulation in certain parts of the aquatic environment of Huntington Harbour would have an insignificant impact on the aquatic community. 0 ; G Or I,• 4M lift M Aft ■i t Table 1.3 (Continuer]) SUMMARY Or IMPACTS - BOLSA CHICA LCP 4.7 MARINE/AQUATIC BIOLOGY Effects round to be Sienificant Significant Adverse Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Impact After Mitigation Impact 4.7-1: The dredging of a channel through Outer Bolsa Mitigation Measure 4.7-1: The dredging of Outer Bolsa Bay Insignificant Bay will have a significant adverse impact on the benthic shall be accomplished during the spring and summer months invertebrate community of Outer Bolsa Bay. It also will only. interfere with die feeding activities of many shorebirds during • constriction. 4.8 TERRESTRIAL BIOLOGY Effects round to be Insignificant Construction/Bolsa Chica Mma. The loss of non-native plant species, including grassland vegetation and eucalyptus trees would not be a significant impact to N vegetation communities. At minimum, removal of the eucalyptus trees would benefit native plant species of the adjacent coastal bluff scrub community by reducing w shade and excess leaf litter in the area. The eucalyptus trees have been designated an ESHA because of their value to raptors. However,the Proposed Project includes are-creation of this ESHA on the Huntington Beach Mesa. The eucalyptus ESHA will be replaced with native trees, roosting poles, and nesting boxes for raptor use. This replacement habitat reduces the impact on raptors to a level of insignificance. Construction/Wetlands Restoration. The Proposed Project has the potential to result in a significant loss of vegetation due to erosion and sedimentation during die construction phase. I lowever, the Proposed Project includes standard compliance with state, federal, and local regulations regarding construction. Standard conditions in the EIR require temporary and/or permanent erosion control devices to be employed to control erosion and sedimentation during the rainy season. The application of standard erosion control measures pursuant to dhese permit requirements will reduce the potential for erosion and sedimentation to an insignificant level. Pick/r!weerl vegulallon dint will he displaced in RPA IC and 3A will be salvaged in accordance with the requirements of the WRP. The salvaged pickleweed will be Placed in muted tidal areas to enlahlish additional stands. Th*plokleweed stands located In the nun-tidal aran will itot he dlsturliud. 1•tawevar, nu l"Irodudllafl u'n Hew • water source Is planned. The existing water sources are runoff f in the Springdale hump 31811011 and rain fall, Wherefore, Impaetn to pieklowead will be Indlgnhloanl. The Proposed Project could potentially affect spiny rush. However, during die restoration program for native habitat, dune sand will be added to Rabbit Island and non-native vegetation such as ice plant will be removed. Disturbance to native species including spiny rush, will be minimized during die restoration program and as required in the WRP. Therefore, impacts to die spiny rush will be insignificant. Similarly, loss of some sattgrass habitat will impact die hvandering skipper. However, as the total amount of sattgrass will increase through restoration, this impact is insignificant. There will he temporary disturbance to wildlife during implementation of the phased restoration plan. Rabbit Island, with its importance as a wildlife area, will not be directly impacted by die restoration activities, though local fighting and acoustical disturbances during construction may temporarily disrupt wildlife activities. Nevertheless, temporary disturbances to wildlife on Rabbit Island during construction would not be a significant impact. Table 1.3 (Continued) SUMMARY OF IMPACTS - BOLSA CHICA LCP 4.8 TERRESTRIAL BIOLOGY Erosion of earth materials as a result of construction activities may potentially increase[lie turbidity of lie water in (he wetlands. This could reduce prey availability and/or affect foraging conditions for terns,pelicans, cormorants, loons, grebes, diving ducks, and ospreys. These impacts would be short-term and insignificant because conditions should return to normal following the completion of construction, and foraging habitat for these species is abundant in Huntington Harbour. The presence of construction workers and heavy machinery in (lie wetlands during(Ire breeding season has lire potential to disrupt tie breeding activities of both common and sensitive species of birds. The use of flagging and signs to keep workers and other individuals out of sensitive areas have been designed as part of the prgicct to minimize Urese impacts. These proposed measures also include minimization of the size of construction areas, timing of construction during the nonbreeding season, signing of sensitive areas, and installation of fencing around sensitive areas. In addition, preconstnuction orientation and education of construction workers may help to keep hunrnns out of die sensitive areas. 'These measures, committed to in the WRP and listed as PDPs, will be sufficient to keep worker disturbance to birds at Insignificant levels during construction. There would be construction-related impacts to lice broiwt pellean, Callfornla /east tern, and elegant tern in Outer Bolsa Bay during only one season, $Inee the brown pelican principally forages off die coast, the short-term impacts to foraging habitat resulting from construction in Outer Bolsa Bay and Preeman Creek would not be significant. The creation of approximately 29.8 acres of full tidal, open water habitat in RPA I and 3A will be beneficial to sensitive bird species. Monitoring during construction, as stated in lie WRP, will also reduce impacts to the least tern and other sensitive birds to a level of insignificance. Construction/Wetlands Restoration. There could be temporary, construction-related impacts to the nesting and foraging habitat of tie Beldings savannah sparrow. In addition, removal of oil facilities could temporarily disturb nesting and foraging habitat. Without adequate compensation, (he temporary loss of habitat and the temporary displacement of 58 pairs of Belding's savannah sparrows during the nonbreeding season would be significant during construction. However, PDF-9, requiring 200 acres of pickleweed retention, would reduce this impact to a level of insignificance. Western snot+y plovers will experience construction-related impacts for one season. The Proposed WRP would create foraging habitat and provides for the maintenance of 14.5 acres of suitable nesting habitat. The WRP will create 2.4 acres of better quality nesting habitat and two new nesting sites prior to the destruction of the existing habitat and wetlands construction during the non-breeding season, thus reducing these impacts to a level of insignificance. Construction/Lowland Development. There will be a temporary loss of degraded pickleweed stands due to Lowland development Utat will be replaced in RPA I. There will also be a loss of one perennial pond and one seasonal pond(hat will be replaced in RPA 1. Since other higher grade pickleweed stands are found on-site, and other seasonal and perennial ponds also exist on-site, this impact is insignificant. • Project Impact/Bolsa Chica Mesa. The loss of the southern tarplant population on Bolsa Chica Mesa is considered potentially significant. However, the occurrence of the species in disturbed types of habitats would indicate that the plants can be readily propagated elsewhere in the project area. With successful revegetation of the species in the project area as required in the WRP, potential impacts on southern tarplant are not considered significant. The Proposed Plan will result in the permanent loss of invertebrate habitat on the Bolsa Chica Mesa. It is likely (hat some of the habitat generalist species will re- invade landscaped areas and parks. As the uplands do not support unique invertebrate populations or sensitive invertebrate habitats, the overall impact to invertebrates in upland habitats is not considered significant. w 0 l � i � �. mo`' awl aw am Table 1.3 (Continued) SUMMARY OF IMPACTS - BOLSA CHICA LCP 4.8 TERRESTRIAL BIOLOGY The black-tailed jackrabbit will potentially suffer a significant loss of upland habitat from the proposed development, although habitat will remain at Rabbit Island and on the various upland berms throughout the Lowland. Since the overall project-related loss represents only a fraction of lie total available habitat in the project area, the impact to this species will not be significant. The Proposed Project will substantially reduce die amount of foraging habitat for wintering red-tailed hawks and other raptors, resulting in a potentially significant impact. ilowevcr, large portions of the Irvine Ranch are utilized by wintering red-tails. These birds are also found soaring over other grassland areas throughout southern California. Therefore, the impact is not considered significant because die red-tailed hawk is not a sensitive species. The presence of large numbers of domestic cats in areas adjacent to the wetlands could have a potentially significant impact on common and sensitive species of birds. • Dogs, when not on a leash, can cause a great amount of disturbance to nesting and foraging birds. Flowever, lite WRP requires that, in conjunction with the County Animal Control and the CDFG, die Applicant devise and implement it plan to control the presence of invasive and/or feral pets into wildlife areas and 'inform future residents about the detrimental effects of pets on common and sensitive species of birds. Impacts will thereby be reduced to a level of insignificance. Many of the upland hird species, besides raptors, that use this area are common, urban-adapted species, The loss of habitat for these common species in not considered significant. Potential attraction of more non-native and urban adapted birds species will not result in a significant impact since(lie urban upland birds will not compete directly with wetland species. v Project Impact/Balsa Chien Mesa. Implementation of die Proposed Project will result in the Ions of foraging habitat for the black-shouldered kite. Because Utis species is not listed as threatened or endangered,tic loss of habitat would not be considered significant. Implementation of the Proposed Project will result in the loss of foraging habitat in the uplands and Lowland for the loggerhead shrike. The shrike may continue foraging in the Lowland and the restored wetlands. The ESHA on(lie Huntington Beach Mesa may also provide some foraging and perching opportunities for this species. impacts to the loggerhead shrike are not expected to be significant. Although the elimination of suitable grassland habitat on the BOISa Chica Mesa and ruderal habitats in die Lowland would be a significant loan of habitat for the burrowing owl, the present habitats at Balsa Chica are barely suitable. Therefore, die loss of poor habitat is not considered significant, Spar,eared eavO and tu,rNturlt harrfors built utilize upland and marsh habitatn, Socause most upland habilat will he lost an a result of the Proposed Project, a significant • foraging area will be lost fur these two birds. I lowever, there Is oil)evidence(lint either Biladiaa Is breading at Dulan Chlon, Itrdnultlably, Mont at the anit marah portions of the Lowland would be suitable foraging habitat fir those two species of senaldve raptors. Thorofare, llte Impact would not bo slgnlfioant. The peregrine falcons use the eucalyptus trees in the ESHA for perching and roosting. The elimination of these trees will constitute a loss of roosting habitat for peregrine falcons. However, approximately 18 acres of native trees will be included on the Huntington Beach Mesa and will serve as alternative perching sites to reduce this impact to a level of insignificance. Table 1.3 (Continued) SUMMARY OF IMPACTS - BOLSA CHiCA LCP 4.8 TERRESTRIAL BIOLOGY Project Impact/Wetlands Restoration. The Proposed Project is expected to result in (lie loss of 1.6 acres of brackish marsh vegetation. However,the acreage would be replaced by freshwater marsh and, if restoration is successful,would result in a net gain in species diversity and viability of the marsh community. Therefore, the loss of brackish marsh is not considered significant. The loss of native vegetation directly due to wetlands restoration is not expected;therefore, impacts clue to implementation of the phased restoration are not considered significant. implementation of the monitoring and maintenance plans as required in the WRP will reduce impacts to vegetation in the non-tidal area to an insignificant level. The San Diego coast horned lizard and the.silvery legless lizard are known to occur on Rabbit Island, but[Ills area will not be directly affected by the development or • the wetland restoration piano. The direct impacts to theca species are not considered significant ainoe the most sensitive habitats will be preserved with the WRP. Some of the known nesting areas for species such as Ainerican avocet, black necked stilt, mallard, and American coot, will be eliminated by restoration. This loss of habitat will be minimized by the enhancement of seasonal pond habitat in the northeast portions of(lie Lowland. if habitat enhancement is conducted prior to removal of nesting sites and if restoration construction activities are conducted outside of the nesting season, the loss of nesting habitat would not be expected to be significant. incorporation of oil spill prevention plans in rite WRP will reduce potential adverse impacts of oil spills to birds to not significant. N Project Impact/Wetlands Restoration. The loss of peregrine falcon foraging habitat due to wetland restoration will occur in one phasing area at a time over twenty or more years. Therefore, die falcon will be able to use the remaining areas during these construction phases. Because the peregrine falcon is an opportunistic feeder, it may forage in other areas to a greater extent during construction. Peregrine falcons that may be intolerant of the construction activities may forage in similar wetland habitats within the region, like Anaheim Bay and Upper Newport Bay. Therefore, impacts will not be significant. Project impact/Lowland Development. Although the salt marsh shrew will benefit from an overall gain in habitat from proposed restoration, there could be adverse impacts to any individuals which might occur in die areas proposed for Lowland development. Because the salt marsh shrew is not listed as endangered or threatened, die loss of isolated individuals,.when coupled with the long-term benefit for (lie species, is not considered a significant impact. Option B will introduce artificial lighting into the wildlife habitats, which could have a potentially significant impact on wildlife such as larger mammalian predators and • smaller rodents active at night, as well as the avian community. Of particular concern are flood lights and high output street lamps, which can introduce stray lighting into outlying wildlife habitat, including lowland areas. A PDF will provide for flood lamp shielding and sodium bulbs to be used in developed areas to reduce(he amount of stray lighting into wildlife areas. As a result, this potential impact will not reach a level of significance. Some of the known nesting areas for species such as Anterican avocet, black necked.still, mallard, and American coot will be eliminated by Lowland development. 'this loss of habitat will minimized by the enhancement and creation of seasonal pond habitat in the northeast portions of the Lowland. If habitat enhancement is conducted prior to removal of nesting sites(lie loss of 10 percent of the seasonal pond habitat would not be expected to be significant. to 0 , G . a Ma owltwo low Table 1.3 (Continued) SUMMARY OF IMPACTS - BOLSA CHICA LCP 4.8 TERRESTRIAL BIOLOGY Effects Found to be Significant Significant Adverse Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Impacts After Mitigation Impact 4.8-1: If development proceeds on the Bolsa Chica Mesa Mitigation Measure 4.8-1: A program shall be implemented by Insignificant and in the Lowland, the reduction in the coyote population at the Applicant in consultation with CDFG and USFWS to Bolsa Chica has else potential, though speculative, to increase determine the.effectiveness of(lie coyote as a control agent for predation upon sensitive hind species by the red fox. site red fox at Bolsa Chica. If the coyote's effectiveness is found • to be significant, a plan shall he developed and implemented which will encourage the continued presence of due coyote as a control agent for(lie red fox at Bolsa Chica. The plan shall include specific measures designed to create and/or maintain adequate habitat for the coyote in the undeveloped portions of(he project site so that (lie coyote may maintain its ongoing role as a control agent for(lie red fox. O.CEMA shall approve this .. program before restoration of the Lowland. v Impact 4.8-2: The Ions of raptor foraging habitat in the uplands Mitigation Mensure 4.8-2: If raptors begin to prey upon nesting Insignificant may cause some raplorn to prey upon nesting birds in the sensitive target species or other sensitive species, the Applicant wetlands. shall consult with CDFG and USFWS and prepare a relocation program for these raptors. Impact 4.8-3: Implementation of Option B has the potential to Mitigation Measure 4.8-3: A management plan shall be Insignificant increase due number of people visiting the wetlands, creating the developed and incorporated into the LCP that specifies how public potential for significant disturbance to vegetation and wildlife. visitation of the natural areas will be controlled or managed. The plan shall include; at minimum: ► methods for public education on sensitive habitats.and • plants, ► identification of die group or agency which will enforce access restrictions and the restrictions to be employed in the various habitats, and ► restriction of people from internal trails during the nesting season(i.e., March 15 to August 15)of Federal and State listed Endangered and Threatened bird species. Table 1.3 (Continued) SUMMARY OF IMPACTS - BOLSA CHICA LCP 4.9 TERRESTRIAL BIOLOGY Significant Adverse Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Impact After Mitigation Impact 4.8-4: Before preparation and implementation of a Mitigation Measure 4.84: A management plan shall be Insignificant specific program of long-term management and maintenance of developed that specifies how habitats shall be maintained and the habitats, the potential for loss of native vegetation duc to managed over the long term. This plan shall be included in the exotic species will be significant. WRP Long-Tenn M&M Plan. The plan shall include, at a minimum: ► Methods for ongoing weed eradication. It is unlikely • that cite landscaping practices of private homeowners can be controlled, and therefore an ongoing program of monitoring end weed eradication shall be essential for long-tern preservation of native habitats. ► Methods for public education, including information jregarding invasive exotics that homeowners could avoid )o planting in their yards. ► An erosion control and storm runoff plan shall be prepared prior to construction(see Section 4.5.3). If straw bales are used for erosion control, rice straw or equivalent weed-free straw shall be used to prevent additional introduction of exotic species into native habitat. 4.9 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Effects Found to be Insignificant Project lrnpact/Mesa Development and Lowland Option A. The Mesa Component and Lowland Option A is projected to generate approximately 23,420 trip-ends per day, which represents about 1 percent of the trip-ends generated within the City of Huntington Beach each day under Year 2020 conditions. The end result of the complete project, including die ATIP improvements; is to eliminate all study area peak hour measurably impacted intersection operations deficiencies, other than the five locations along PCH. If the ATIP improvements are funded and completed in accordance with the ATIP phasing plan there will be no long tern adverse effects o associated with the proposed project except at the five locations along PCH. ; G 3 ' Table 1.3 (Continued) `+ G SUMMARY OF IMPACTS - BOLSA CHICA LCP 4.9 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Project Impact/Mesa Development and Lowland Option B. The Mesa Component and Lowland Option B is projected to generate a total of approkimately 32,940 daily trip-ends which represents about 1.5 percent of the total trip-ends generated with the City of Huntington Beach under Year 2020 conditions. The end result of the complete project, including the ATIP improvements,is to eliminate all study area peak hour measurably impacted intersection operations deficiencies, other than the five locations along PCH. If the ATIP improvements are funded and completed in accordance with the ATIP phasing plan there will be no longterm adverse effects associated with (lie proposed project except at the five locations along PCH. Construction Traffic. Construction traffic short term impacts of the project are primarily related to die construction of on-site and off-site project features. These impacts are expected to be insignificant, due to the time of day when most construction traffic occurs, as well as the fact that the project site is set in close proximity to designated truck routes as defined by the City of Huntington Beach. The Standard Conditions will ensure that construction related impacts will remain at it level of • insignificance. Transit Service. The proposed project will increase the local and regional demand for public transportation services. Initially, bus service may not be provided on- site, resulting in some inconvenience for potential public transportation users, though access to bus lines are available on Warner Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway in the vicinity of the proposed project. As part of the ongoing transportation planning process, OCTA will evaluate the feasibility of adding new lines to serve the proposed project. Overall, increased demand for transit service is seen as an insignificant short-term impact. NBike Trails. The proposed project will not remove any existing bike trails. Several new trails will be added to (lie network. With the provision of these new.trails, `D no significant adverse impact on bike facilities will occur. Effects round to be Significant Significant Adverse Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Impact After Mitigation Impact 4.9-1: PCH will experience short tern significant No feasible mitigation measures are available in addition to the The project has an adverse impacts due to achievement of LOS "E" or "F" at Project Design Features and Standard Conditions. unavoidable adverse impact various Intersections along PCH for each phase of the Proposed at five intersections Rio' Project na Idenllflad In Fables 4.4.14 and 4.9.13. pCH. To ppjt rovide a Mobile • heneflt wlllo Adis& unavoidable adverse Impact, the ATIP PDF has been designed to include "full construction"improvements elsewhere in the study area. The improvements have been demonstrated to provide an overall improvement in study area circulation and coastal access relative to the project's fair share traffic impacts. Table 1.3 (Continued) SUMMARY OF IMPACTS - BOLSA CHICA LCP 4.9 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Significant Adverse Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual impact After Mitigation Impact 4.9-2: Five intersections along Pacific Coast Highway No feasible mitigation measures are available in addition to die See Residual impact After will experience a measurable traffic contribution from the project Project Design Features and Standard Conditions. Mitigation above. and are expected to experience or continue to experience deficient peak hour intersection operations. • Impact 4.9-3: The proposed project may have a significant long No feasible mitigation measures are available in addition to die See Residual Impact After term adverse liihpaet on PCH and in other Arena within the traffic Project Design features and Standard Cond(t1onA. Mitigation Above. study Aron to the extent that Jurisdictions other than the County of Orange do not cooperate in funding or constructing roadway segment and Intersection Improvements identified for fair share contribution in the ATIP or to the extent that funding sources for die share of improvement costs not funded by die proposed project are unavailable when the improvements are required. 4.10 AIR QUALITY Effects Found to be Insienifcant Consistency with (lie AQMP. With respect to employment/Housing relationships, the City of Huntington Beach is liousing-rich while the region and subregion are job-rich. The project is generally consistent with die AQMP from the standpoint of growdi management as indicated by SCAG (1992). The project has committed to implementation of an ATIP and other treasures to reduce traffic congestion and associated air emissions, indicating further consistency with the AQMP. Hazardous Materials in Fugitive Dust. Petroleum residue is present in die soil and could be stirred tip during grading operations. At locations where spillage of • fluids from the petroleum extraction process has occurred, the soils will be remediated using appropriate techniques. Removal of petroleum contamination will also alleviate the generation of hydrogen sulfide and its attendant odor, (hereby reducing impacts to it level of insignificance. Fuel Storage During Construction. Calculated ROG emissions froin fuel storage and refueling activities during typical construction periods will not exceed(lie 55 pound per day criteria. Carbon Monoxide Microscale Impact. An analysis of microscale CO hotspot potential using the CALING4 computer model shows(fiat no significant(i.e., greater than or equal to the California I-hour standard of 20 ppm) CO hotspots will be produced At any intersection modeled in Ilse traffic analysis. Relative to the 8-hour m California standard of 9.1 ppm, (he project will result in about 0.1 ppni over the already exceeded 12.0 ppm 8-hour value. in accordance with AQMD methodology, this increase is not considered significant. SWIM to M - su as M AWIMION maim 'mom Table 1.3 (Continued) SUMMARY Or IMPACTS - BOLSA CHICA LCP 4.10 AIR QUALITY Effects round to be Significant Significant Adverse Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Impact After Mitigation Impact 4.10-1: Site construction will create exhaust pollutants Mitigation Measure 4.10-1: Mitigation for both heavy The impacts for both NO2 from vehicles used for on-site earth movement and vehicles equipment and vehicle travel is limited. However, to die extent and ROC are reduced, but bringing building materials and workers on-site. feasible by the Applicant's contractor, exhaust emissions from remain significant adverse • constriction equipment shall be controlled in a manner(fiat is impacts. consistent with standard mitigation measures dictated by die SCAQMD. The measures to be implemented are as follows: ► use low emission on-site mobile construction equipment; ► maintain equipment in line per manufacturer's specifications; w P. use catalytic converters on gasoline-powered equipment; ► retard diesel engine injection timing by 4 degrees; ► use reformulated, low-emission diesel fuel; ► substitute electric and gasoline-powered,and, where applicable, methanol-and propane-powered equipment for dlosel•powored equipment where 11daaiblel ► where applicable, equipment will not be left idling for • prolonged periods(i.e., more titan 2 minutes); and ► curtail (cease or reduce)construction during periods of high ambient pollutant concentrations(i.e., Stage 2 smog alcrts). The County shall verify use of the above measures during normal construction site inspections. •i Table 1.3 (Continued) `+ SUMMARY OF IMPACTS - BOLSA CIIICA LCP 4.10 AIR QUALITY Significant Adverse Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Impact After Mitigation Impact 4.10-2: Site construction will create fiugitive dust Mitigation Measure 4.10-2: In addition to PDF-1 and PDF-2, Insignificant cmissions. water trucks will be on-site at all times during grading operations and will regularly water the site to keep the soil moist and prevent fugitive dust. These impacts are, therefore, reduced to a level of insignificance. Impact 4,10-3at Option A construction could generate as much Mitigation Measure 4.10-3a and b: The Applicant shall specify Insignificant as 3,465 tons of VOC emissions due to the application of cutback the use of emulsified asphalt or asphaltic cement, neither of asphalt. which produce significant quantities of VOC emissions thereby reducing this Impact to a level that IN WIN than eignifloant, Impact 4.10-31): Option B construction could generate as much an 5,063 tons of VOC emissions due to the application of cutback asphalt. Impact 4.104a: The Mesa Component and Lowland Option A Mitigation Measure 4.104a and b: The Applicant shall specify Insignificant construction could generate approximately 345 pounds per day of the use of high-volume, low-pressure or manual application of VOC emissions from the use of architectural coatings. This paints and coatings on structures. Where applicable, pre-finished value includes the use of high-volume, low-pressure spray or pre-primed and sanded wood molding and trim products and equipment, which is typically considered as a unitigation pre-primed wallboard shall be used. Additionally, where measure. applicable, the Applicant shall specify die use of non-polluting powder-coated metal products. Impact 4.1041t: The Mesa Component and Lowland Option B construction could generate approximately 441 pounds per day of • VOC emissions from the use of architectural coatings. This value includes(lie use of high-volune, low-pressure spray equipment, which is typically considered as a mitigation measure. Impact 4.10-5a and b: The project has the potential to produce Mitigation Measure 4.10-5n and b: The Applicant shall assist Insignificant significant exhaust emissions from vehicle trips generated by new lie County in implementing Transportation Demand Management residents within the County LCP Area. measures related to (lie Proposed Project (ref: "A Reference Guide to Transportation Demand Management")published by w SCAG. Such measures shall include coordinating transit service Gto the development through provision of bus stops, transit stops, shuffle stops, bus shelters and turnouts, and bicycleAransit interface. M Table 1.3 (Con(inued) SUMMARY OF IMPACTS - BOLSA CHICA LCP 4.11 NOISE Effects Found to be Significant Significant Adverse Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Impact After Mitigation Impact 4.11-1: Vehicle-generaled noise from mobile sources Mitigation Measure 4.11-1: Prior to extending the segment of Insignificant will create a noise impact to residences adjacent to Bolsa Chica Bolsa Chica Street from its current terminus at Warner Avenue to Street between Warner Avenue and die Mesa Connector under rite Bolsa Chica Mesa, (lie Applicant shall conduct an acoustical the Proposed Project. analysis to confirm noise impacts.and determine die extent of specific noise reduction measures necessary to achieve die 45 • dBA interior noise level in residences adjacent to.Bolsa Chica Street between Warner Avenue and die Mesa Connector. Impact 4.11-2: Vehicle-generated noise from mobile sources Mitigation Measure 4.11-2: Prior to the issuance of building Insignificant will create a noise impact to residences located along Graham permits for residential development in the Lowland under Option Street, Springdale Street and Talbert Avenue east of die proposed B, the Applicant shall conduct an acoustical analysis to confirm wLowland development. noise impacts and determine llte extent of specific noise reduction measures necessary to achieve the 45 dBA interior noise level in residences adjacent to Graham Street, Springdale Street and Talbert Avenue. 4.12 CULTURAL RESOURCES Effects Found to he InslanloSlps Native American Concerns. Potential significant adverse impacts include llte grading and development activities on lands that may contain Native American cultural (archaeological)resources, including the Cogged Stone Site (ORA-83) and other archaeological and cultural resources that may he located on Bolsa Chica Mesa and in the t)otsa Chica Lowland. Thase sites are nonrenewable ulan(tsnts of the Native Amorlosn oullural herlings, In order to avoid pulvilliNl signllh:anl Impacts, die ptojeet includes several PDFs designed to avoid and address potential impacts, thereby reducing die potential significant impact. If the sites cannot he avoided, the resources present there will be properly recovered through implementation of a data recovery program and any discovered human remains will receive proper reburial which is performed in consultation with the most likely descendants. Sites Determined to be Insignificant By Prior Studies, Sites ORA-78 (prehistoric component), ORA-86 (prehistoric mesa component), ORA-84/289, -288, and-290 have been found to be not important due to die fact that significant cultural.material no longer exists at these sites. S Table 1.3 (Continued) 0 SUMMARY Or IMPACTS - BOLSA CHICA LCP 4.10 AIR QUALITY Significant Adverse Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Impact After Mitigation Impact 4.10-6a and b: The project has the potential to generate Mitigation Measure 4.10-6a and b: The Applicant shall provide The impacts on CO, NOx air quality impacts through secondary sources. mitigation for secondary source emissions(i.e., enissions and ROG remain as associated with stationary sources within the development) significant adverse impacts. through the measures listed below. During design review and prior to issuance of building permits, the County will assure • confirmation that the measures have been incorporated to the maximum extent feasible. Aa stated previously; the project will comply with Title 24 enerayefficlent design regulations and shall Inooghorate to the maxentum extent feasible, the design measures listed in Section 4.10.5. 4.11 NOISE- Effects round to be Insignificant Land Use Noise Levels. A potentially significant impact would be produced at any proposed residences located along the Mesa Connector roadway if some form of noise mitigation is not provided. Therefore, PDFs will ensure that all new residential construction will be designed to meet both interior and exterior noise standards and, further, that all construction will comply with FSTC and FIIC standards for noise reduction. Commercial activity noise may intrude into nearby homes. However, careful design for any commercial (especially retail)/residential interface will be planned to ensure that sufficient buffer is created to achieve residential suitability. Future visitor-serving commercial which may be constructed on the Mesa Component will address the residential interface. Further, any future commercial land uses will incorporate adequate buffers and other measures to minimize or eliminate the potential • noise conflicts. Construction Noise Levels. Noise from construction activity exceeding 60 dBA Ldn represents a potentially significant adverse(although short-tern) source of noise to existing residential receptors located in proximity to the site. However, implementation of PDFs will result in tine reduction of short-term noise associated with construction. With tie exception of noise associated with deep dynamic compaction, construction noise impacts will be reduced to a level of insignificance by ensuring that mufflers on all equipment are operating in according to their specific design specifications and (fiat stockpiling and staging areas where noise-generating operations occur are located away from existing residential development. Additionally, all construction operations, including those resulting from die DDC operations,will comply with the County's Noise Control ordinance;therefore, these impacts will not be significant. School Noise Impacts. Existing school sites may be subjected to project-generated traffic noise levels. However, modeling has demonstrated such exposure to be negligible and insignificant. # I AM SW MAW MWAW 'Ift 4 on M M I ! Oft i name am m on Mae Table 1.3 (Continued) o SUMMARY OF IMPACTS - BOLSA CI-IICA LCP N > 4.12 CULTURAL RESOURCES Historic Components of ORA-83, -144 and ORA-85. The historic component of ORA-85 consisted of a smaller aboveground bunker which wait demolished in accordance with issued permits. The permits required that the demolition of the hunker be mitigated by (lie compilation of a photographic documentary record. The permittee has compiled photographs of the demolition which will be transmitted to the County upon completion of the bunker demolition project. Compliance with this condition will mitigate the impacts of the historic features or ORA-85 to a level of insignificance. The historic components of ORA-83 and -144 consist of a World War R aboveground concrete hunker which has been partially demolished pursuant to issued permits, and a subsurface plotting survey room. The significance of these facilities has been evaluated using federal criteria (Whitney-Desaulels 1990). The evaluation concludes that the facilities are not significant (not eligible for the NRHP) because better examples of these facilities are preserved elsewhere in southern California. With implementation of the conditions and mitigation measures imposed by the County of Orange and the CCC, impacts to the historical components of ORA-83 and- • 144 are considered insignificant. Prehistoric Components of ORA-83 and ORA-85. ORA-83 and ORA-85 on Bolan Chica Mesa have been determined to be unique or important archaeological resources based upon test excavations and data recovery programs. Both of these sites will be impacted by grading for residential construction proposed for the Bolan Chica Mesa. However, the landowner has already implemented an extensive data recovery program for both sites and will incorporate PDFs to avoid or minimize impacts to these sites. h;a Elistoric Components of ORA-78. The historic components of site ORA-78 (Bolan Chica Gun Club) have not been formally evaluated, if these historic resources are Vh found to be significant, impacts to the historic components of these sites would also be significant without mitigation. Therefore,in order to avoid significant impacts, the Project Applicant shall engage a qualified historical archaeologist and/or architectural historian to evaluate all historic components of ORA-78 as well as any other facilities, strictures and features more than 45 years old on Bolaa Chica Mesa to determine their significance prior to any development occurring that may impact these resources. Implementation of this PDF will mitigate any potential impacts to historic resources at ORA-78 to a level of insignificance. Potential Prehistoric and llisloric Lowland Sites of Option B. The , need to be tested to determine if they are cultural deposits, and if so, whether they are important. If potential Lowland sites, ORA-1308 and -1309, and the Lowland locus of ORA-86 are found to be important or unique archaeological resources,impacts from urban development or wetlands restoration activities under Option B could affect these sites and would be significant. In order to avoid significant impacts to These alter, the Project Applicant under Option B fins incorporated n PDP which provides for a test program prior to development of the site to determine whether these sites are Important or unique archaeologleal reaoureea. Testing and dam recovery programs will reduce polunflal Intpaeta to loyals of lnsl nlnalanuo, • Table 1.3 (Continued) SUMMARY OF IMPACTS - BOLSA CHICA LCP 4.12 CULTURAL RESOURCES Effects Found to be Significant Significant Adverse Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Impacts After Mitigation Impact 4.12-1: Wetlands restoration activities for Lowland Mitigation Measure 4.12-1: The two potential archaeological Insignificant Option A may impact three potential Lowland sites, ORA-1308 sites in the Lowland, ORA-1308 and-1309, and the Lowland and 1309 and the extension of ORA-86. component of ORA-86, shall be tested by a County-certified archaeologist to determine whether they represent unique or • important cultural deposits. If they are determined to be unique or important deposits, llte County-certified arehaeoloiflet will recommend appropriate nrltigatfon maaaures to be Implemented by the Lowland applicant which could include tlhe implementation of a data recovery program or the "capping" of the site which shall be implemented at the expense of the Lowland applicant. All data recovery excavations shall be completed prior to w issuance of a grading permit for Lowland wetlands restorations activities or Lowland urban development activities for these sites. Impact 4.12-2: Wetlands restoration activities under Lowland Mitigation Measure 4.12-2a: A systematic cultural resources. Insignificant Option A may impact undocumented sites in the Lowland. survey of the Lowland shall be carried out by a qualified, County-certified archaeologist to determine if cultural resources are present and, if so, to evaluate their significance. If found to be significant, mitigation measures consisting of preservation in open space or data recovery using a data recovery plan shall be implemented at the expense of the Lowland applicant. All data recovery excavations shall be completed prior to issuance of a • grading permit for Lowland wetlands restoration activities that may impact any sites discovered. Mitigation Measure 4.12-21h: Areas of the Lowland that have the potential to contain buried archaeological sites shall be monitored by a County-certified archaeologist and should include areas within (lie Lowland adjacent to the Bolsa Chica Mesa and Huntington Beach Mesa bluffs. �., G Impact 4.12-3: The development of Bolsa Chica Regional Park Mitigation Measure 4.12-3: A Native American nhonitor shall Insignificant on Huntington Beach Mesa and the inhplenhentation of Lowland be present during all grading activity monitored by a County- Option A may impact archaeological sites that contain cultural certified archaeologist. resources of significance to Native Americans. Table 1.3 (Continued) SUMMARY OF IMPACTS - BOLSA CHICA LCP 4.12 CULTURAL RESOURCES Significant Adverse Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Impact After Mitigation Impact 4.124: Park development activities may impact cultural Mitigation Measure 4.124a: Sites on tl:e Huntington Beach Insignificant resources on prehistoric sites located on the Huntington Beach Mesa that will be affected by construction of the Bolsa Chica Mesa. Regional Park shall be tested under a coordinated program that evaluates each site as a whole using the regional research design to assess significance. The development of Bolsa Chica Regional Park will be the County of Orange's responsibility. The impacts • of Park development have been considered in a separate EIR which identified mitigation measures. These measures will be implemented by We County. Mitigation Measure 4.124b: For archaeological sites located in the area of the Linear Regional Park, the County shall consider �- in situ preservation or the "capping" of these sites to prevent disturbance by placing a layer of soil over die site that protects v the site once the site boundaries have been determined through a test excavation. Capping avoids die need to conduct data recovery excavations on a site unnecessarily. If"capping" is determined by it County-certified archaeologist to be infeasible, other mitigation measures shall be recommended to mitigate die impacts of park development on the site. impact 4.12-5: Park development activities may impact historic Mitigation Measure 4.12-5: The County shall evaluate all Insi.gni.ficanl resources on sites located on the Huntington Beach Mesa. historic components of ORA-88 and-365, as well as all other faotlltlus, atrttaluray find fnaturan mom than 45 yoare old with a w County LCP Area. A qualified historical archaeologist and/or • architectural historian shall be engaged to conduct this evaluation. This evaluation shall be conducted at die County's.expense and the County shall implement the recommendations of the historical archaeologist and/or architectural historian regarding significant historical cultural resources. Significance criteria to be employed should be the eligibility criteria for the NRIIP and Appendix K to the CEQA Guidelines. Table 1.3 (Continued) SUMMARY OF IMPACTS - BOLSA CI-IICA LCP 4.13 PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES Effects Found to be Insignificant Construction/Bolsa Chica Mesa. Although there are no known surface occurrences of fossils within the County LCP Area that will be adversely impacted by future development, grading operations on Huntington Beach and Bolsa Chica Mesas have the potential to disturb potentially significant deposits of similar age to the underlying Qualcrnary deposils which have produced significant veilebralc and invcrtebralc fossils. The disturbance and potential destruction of lialeonlological resources is potentially significant. However, a Standard Condition will be imposed on die applicant which requires that all grading be monitored by a qualified paleontological field observer. Grading operations will be diverted to avoid destruction of significant fossils and other scientific materials. Any fossils located during • grading will be salvaged and donated to the Natural History Foundation of Orange County, resulting in the avoidance of this potential impact. Construction/Wetland Res(orntion and l,owlnnd Development. The dolsa Chien Lowland contains aedimenta that are geologically young and non-fopsiliferous In nature. Por these reasons, project development and restoration activities proposod to occur within the Lowland Component(in eltter.Optlons A or b) will not result In aignitloant Impacts to paleontologleal reaources. Effects Found to be Significant Significant Adverse impacts Mitigation Measures Residual impacts After Mitigation w 00 No short-or long-tour significant impacts to paleontological Potential impacla to paleontological resources which may occur Not applicable resources are anticipated to occur on either die Mesa or Lowland on either die Huntington beach and/or Bolsa Chica Mesas will be Components of die County LCP Area as it result of project insignificant with the implementation of die Standard Condition implementation. as mandated by (lie County of Orange. No potential significant impacts will occur in the.Lowland and no mitigation measures are required. 4.14 AESTHETICS • Effects Found to be Insignificant Construction/Bolsa Chica Mesa. Grading will result in visible cut and fill slopes on tie Mesa and associated construction activities. However, PDFs will ensure that exposed pads and slopes will be hydroseeded so as not to be apparent to die surrounding residents and commuters. Additionally, construction activities will be screened via the use of temporary fencing, landscaped berms, and/or landscaping. Therefore, construction activities in each phase of development will be short-term and will not significantly impact the long-term visual compatibility of die Proposed Project. Other than minor scraping of the Huntington Beach Mesa for vegetation removal, no significant grading activities or elevation changes will occur o Constrtction/Wetlands Restoration. Constriction activities are a necessary,yet short-terns, please of development and will not be any more visually offensive than the G current state of the oil fields in the Lowland. Such temporary visual impacts are expected to remain insignificant. Construction/Lowland Development. Lowland development would result in similar visual impacts as those described for the Mesa Component, except manufactured slopes would not be a visual element. Construction operations would be subject to the same 111DFs, which will serve to screen construction-related visual impacts. Short-term impacts are not expected to reach significant levels. m m u' im m m m M W M M M ON " mom r � .r Table 1.3. (Contintied) ' ° SUMMARY OF IMPACTS - BOLSA CH1CA LCP 4.14 AESTHETICS Project Impacts/Bolsa Chica and Huntington Bench Mesas. iroposed development on die Bolas Chica Mesa will significantly alter tie visual character of this area and grading activities will alter tie site's topography. Since die Boisa Chica Mesa is designated for development in lire County and City of Huntington Beach General Plans, the planned development is not unexpected and die Mesa would eventually incur visual impacts regardless of the type of development ultimately approved. In the context of surrounding residential and commercial land uses, the development of the Bolsa Chica Mesa is not considered a significant impact. Although the natural, undeveloped character of the Huntington Beach Mesa will be altered to reflect a greater variety of uses and vegetation types, die transition from . one use to the other will not result in a significant visual impact. Most of the public views from PCii would be heavily influenced by and drawn to the natural expanse of the restored wetlands and the Bolsa Chica Mesa would serve • only as a backdrop to such panoramic views. The proposed development on lie Bolsa Chica Mesa would not appear visually obtrusive in the context of surrounding urban development. Therefore, the impacts to most Pacific Coast Highway viewsheds are insignificant. Views from Warner Avenue will he of residential units atop tie Bolsa Chica Mesa. Tile Mesa topography currently impedes most lines-of-sight beyond the foregroundl literature, no ocean views from the roadway will be impacted by the proposed grader or residential strictures. No significant impacts will occur within thin public transportation viewsl►ed. w Although die undeveloped character of the Wait Chica Mesa will be lost, the Mesa will not serve as a dominant focal point for Rcscrve visitors. Residential `Q development on die Bolsa Chica Mesa will be minimized b landscaping and setbacks. Therefore this viewshed will not be significantly impacted b the proposed 1 Y 1 6 � 6 Y � P Y P P development. Residential development atop the Bolsa Chica Mesa would not constitute a significant visual impact on private views from the northeast LCP Area boundary since it would neither impede any viewshed easements nor would it serve to introduce visually incompatible elements into a landscape already characterized by surrounding residential development. Although the existing second-story views of tie State Beach from homes along Los Palos will be blocked by file proposed residential development, these are prfvote views for which there are no view easements or other slgnlllcance arlterin, thus ilia Impacts nre not conidderad NlgnUaoan!. Project Impacts/Lffwland Development. Prom tie;hale benefit the residential development proposed for did Lowland would aprosr an on bldliiflogulelitlbbi exfrnelon • of flit d(tlaling ratilddllliNl doWslupmanl In background views. ThIN will not result In it lilgHllldefll I ftlmol. Proposed single-family homes in (lie Lowland will be in the middleground and Background of views from the Huntington Beach Mesa. However,the homes will visually conform (o the character of(lie landscaped residential neighborhoods so prevalent to tie northeast of the LCP Area. No significant impacts will result. Views of proposed development from lice Ecological Reserve will be minimized. Visual features will include the restored wetlands in the foreground and development in the distant Background. The unified appearance of the restored natural features will result in visual continuity throughout(lie viewshed. The phasing out of oil production activities and (lie extension of restored wetlands will result in a beneficial impact. I'rojmt Impacts/Lowland Development. The proposed Lowland residences will completely obstruct existing first and second-story viewshed%of homes along die northeastern LCP Area boundary. I lowever, the proposed residential strictures and landscaping trees and shrubs would be entirely compatible with the residential character of the surrounding single-family detached residences. The overall aesthetic benefit to the public of restoring the degraded wetlands and fulfilling the goals of current public land use policy will outweigh the loss of private viewsheds. No significant impacts will remain. Table 1.3 (Continued) SUMMARY Or IMPACTS - BOLSA CHICA LCP 4.14 AESTHETICS Effects round to be Sienificant Significant Adverse Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Impacts After Mitigation Impact 4.14-1: Potential Impact to Pacific Coast Highway Mitigation Measure 4.14-1a: Landscaping,including use of No mitigation measure will Viewshed: Residential development will significantly alter the native vegetation, and setbacks from Warner Avenue and Los fully mitigate the loss of undeveloped appearance of the Bolsa Chica Mesa within the Patos Avenue shall be used to break up long linear views of natural elements and public viewshed as seen from Pacific Coast Highway at Warner houses from offsite. undeveloped area within tie Avenue, public viewshed from Paciflo Mltlghdton MCntture 4il4•Ilit Prior to Issunnue of any building connl Highway Ihnl hinluden perm t, flits Applioant shall dentnnstrhfe that nil exterlor lighting tits Ijolna Clhlca MINN. has been dosignatad and located so llim all direct rays are confined to the property In a manner meeting die approval of Use Manager, Building Permits. Mitigation Measure 4.14-le: Prior to issuance of any grading cpermit or recordation of any applicable tract/parcel map, the Applicant shall submit, subject to the approval of the County Manager HBP Program Planning Division, an urban edge treatment plan which includes but is not limited to: building height and setback limits; landscape and fuel modification treatments;provisions for walls, fences or berms; slope gradients and ratios (i.e., 2:1 - 4:1)proposed;slope drainage structures, and architectural or landscape design themes. 4.15 SOCIOECONOMICS • Effects round to be Insienifiennt Project Impacts/Residential Development. The housing associated with the project will contribute to balancing(lie job-rich subregion and region. This is consistent wif i SCAG's GMP jobs/libusing policy. Estimated population growth from project development does not exceed SCAG estimates or Orange County Board of Supervisors projections for tlse year 2010. Development of tip to 100,000 square feet of commercial uses will generate employment opportunities for the area in the vicinity of the City of Huntington Beach, which has been characterized as housing-rich and jobs-poor. If implemented, the employment opportunities will help offset the current jobs-housing imbalance at die local level. No significant adverse impacts are expected: 0� _ o �r rr �r � r �r � r r •� � it r r r i� �r rr r M M m m it m ! Table 1.3 (Con(inued) SUMMARY Or .IMPACTS - BOLSA CHICA LCP 4.15 SOCIOECONOMICS Effects round to be Significant Significant Adverse impacts Mitigation Measures Residual impacts After Mitigation No significant adverse socioeconomic impacts are expected. No mitigation measures arc required. Not applicable 4.16 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES Effects round to be fnsianificant • Utilities and Energy. Estimated electrical loads arc within the planning parameters for SCE. SCG has indicatcd that gas service to die Proposed Project can be provided from an existing main. No significant impacts are expected to these facilities. GTE and Paragon Cable have indicated that service for the project can be provided with no significant adverse impact to their systems. Water. A County Service Area, a water district, or mutual water company will have to be formed to provide die water supply services and administration for the development.The Bolsa Chien Water Company would contract with it local water supply agency,or will need to receive their water supply independently of local water agencies. Possible water supply agency options include the City of Huntington Beach or an independent Water Company or Water District. Either of these options would provide a reliable water supply to the project. No significant adverse impacts are expected from the implementation of any option. Wastewater. A pre-annexation agreement has been executed between die Applicant and die CSDOC for die eventual annexation of the Proposed Project into CSDOC No. 11. Plant No. 2 in Huntington Beach has capacity to serve die Dolsa Cities project. A new lift station, replacing Lift Station "D", will be constructed within Bolas, Chica by the Applicant. This lift station will accommodate die additional wastewater flows from Bolsa Cltica. Flow will be discharged to the Los Paton Trunk Sewer. This line and downstream facilities have the capacity for(lie flows from Dolsa Cltica based on the updated Wastewater Master Plan for Sanitation District No. 1 I. No significant impacts are expected. Solid Waste, Bee Canyon Landfill has the capacity to receive die solid waste generated from the project. Generation of solid waste will not result in a significetlt Impact, blrht►t►Ni i111111111gh1n beach Unlon Nigh School blatrid►has 01e capaclly for ilid drfidM Oil%Ntudultta prWadied to Ile yanurated by die Orullhod Project. &Sb and • 1117C81) do not have capacity In their existing open mohnoln for the dratld K-A oludenla 11rigoated to be generated by die Propeaed Project, New aottanl oenallvollbn Is not necessary if die districts utilize closed school facilities. Cost impacts will be associated with (lie actions taken by the school districts to accommodate die new students, even if new facilities are not required. The Applicant will pay die applicable school development fees. Wliedier these fees will offset cost impacts depends on the Master Planning actions taken by each affected district. Social impacts may result from changes in district boundaries and/or adjusted programs.These potential economic and social impacts are not considered to directly effect the physical environment and are considered adverse but not significant impacts. Libraries. The increase of area population front the residential development will increase demands upon library services. If die cost of providing library services to die project exceed the Library Fund revenues generated by tie development, the Applicant will enter into an agreement with the County to provide additional funding for expansion of library services. A funding agreement will reduce impacts to an insignificant level. Table 1.3 (Continued) - SUMMARY OF IMPACTS - BOLSA CHICA LCP 4.16 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES Effects found to be Sienificant Significant Adverse Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Impacts After Mitigation Police Impact 4.16-1: The Proposed Project will result in the need for Mitigation Measure 4.16-1: The Applicant shall be required to Insignificant additional Sheriff services to (lie project site and is considered a enter into a secured agreement witli the County to provide Sheriff • significant impact law enforcement services such as facilities, equipment, or other infrastructure necessary for adequate law enforcement services to the Proposed Project. Fire Protection/Emergency.Services Impact 4.16-2: The Proposed Project will result in emergencies Mitigation Measure 4.16-2: The Applicant shall be required to Insignificant (lint are heyond the current response capabilities of(he OCFD. enter into a secured fire protection agreement with die County or its successor fire protection agency. The agreement shall include the following. IJ ► Provision for dedication of an adequate site within (he project siren for construction of a fully equipped and furnished fire station, subject to the approval of die Orange County Fire Department or successor agency; ► Provision for funding of land acquisition, construction, equipping and furnishing die new fire station and adequate fire access,water distribution, and other • supporting infrastructure by like Applicant; and ► Provision for commencement of fire station operation in accordance with development phasing. 0 y4 � Table 1.3 (Continued) SUMMARY OF IMPACTS - BOLSA CHICA LCP 4.16 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES School Significant Adverse Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Impact After Mitigation Impact 4.16-3: The Proposed Project will create potential Mitigation Measure 4.16-3: The Project Applicant will pay the Insignificant additional demand on OVSD and IIBCSD facilities that are statutory school fee, as applicable to the project, or enter into an currently at or near capacity. agreement with the affected school district to provide those measures deemed necessary to address the impact of die project, • which may include the construction of new schools, the payment of additional fee for die use of temporary facilities. But in no event shall the applicant he required to provide more than that required by CEQA and die then applicable statutory provisions relating to school facilities. 4.17 RECREATION w Effects round to be Insignificant Project Impacts/Bolso Chicu Mesa. The Proposed Project will provide parking and a variety of recreational trails and facilities. The proposed regional and local parks and recreation facilities will sufficiently accommodate the future, project-related population growth. The Mesa Community Park fulfills the County local park code requirements for die Mesa Component of the LCP. No significant impacts will result. Project impacts/Lowland Development. The Lowland Community Park will benefit existing and new resident and visitors to die wetlands. No significant impacts to the wetlands or residential Atehh Are anticipated since the park activity would be limited to day use and would be separated from the wetlands by a 6-foot berm And 1004.01 buffos area, Additional public parking In die Lowiattd elnao to Iltu Irall ayalettt would provido it aubetanflal InoreAAe In pulilie Items to qu ouAwl area and iA not considered an ndverme Impact. • Significant Adverse impacts Mitigation Measures Residual inipact Mitigatio n After n The capacity of(lie recreation facilities to be provided in (lie No potentially significant impacts are anticipated as a result of Not applicable LCP area will exceed the demand created by new residents and incorporating Project Design Features and Standard Conditions provide significant coastal access opportunities to visitors. The into the proposed LCP. No mitigation measures are required. Proposed Project will not result in a significant adverse impact to regional or local recreation facilities. 1 1 1 1 1 � ApnenducB 1 � Mitigation Measures 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 MITIGATION MEASURES This section provides a summary of the mitigation measures associated with each plan, as identified in the draft environmental impact reports prepared for each plan. The environmental impacts have been provided in the following tables. Plan Sub-Section Source Koll Plan B_1 Chapter 8 of DEIR No. 551 (prepared by the County of Orange Dec. 1993) Option A and B B_2 Chapters 10 and 11 of Revised DEIR No. 551 (prepared by the County of Orange Aug. 1994) g:\owgi\blsach.%.dbook\text.doc 1 Bolsa Chica Handbook 10/24/94 ' Sub-Section B-1 1 � Bolsa Chica 1 � Mitigation Measures 1 Koll Plan 1 1 Source:DEN No. 551 (prepared by the County of Orange Dec. 1993) 1 1 1 1 ' 2 3 CHAPTER 8 - INVENTORY OF MITIGATION MEASURES 4 5 6 8.1 LAND USE 7 8 N itigation Measure 4.1-1a: The OSPCCP and OSCP enacted between the oil field operators and 9 appropriate state agencies will remain in effect for the duration of the oil activities at Bolsa Chica. These 10 plans will be amended as required for each Residential Planning Area and require the approval of the state 11 contracting agencies at that time. 12 13 Mitigation Measure 4.1-1b: All potential buyers of onsite residences shall be notified of the potential 14 hazardous conditions associated with oasite oil production activities. Such information shall be disclosed 15 in the Department of Real Estate reports prior to unit sales. 16 17 18 82 GEOLOGY AND SEISMICITY 19 20 Mitigation Measure 4.2-1a through Sa. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant shall 21 submit a geotechnical report to the Manager, Development Services, for approval. The report shall 22 include the information and be in a form as required by the Orange County Grading Manual, Section 5.4 23 and the Orange County Excavation and Grading Code Section 7-1-919. 24 25 Mitigation Measure 4.2-1b through 5b: The Applicant's grading plan shall provide stabilization of 26 manufactured slopes to the satisfaction of the Manager, Development Services and may include, but is 27 not limited to, buttressing of fills, rock bolting, grouting, slope gradient laybacks, and construction of 28 retaining walls; and for natural slopes, use of drainage control and establishing vegetation. 29 30 Mitigation Measure 4.2-6 (PDF): Measures to satisfactorily mitigate compressible/collapsible soil 31 conditions may include,but are not limited to, the following: (1) removal and recompaction of identified 32 compressible/collapsible zones, (2) fill surcharging and settlement monitoring, and (3) compaction 33 grouting or foundation design which utilizes deep piles. Specific measures shall be based upon surface 34 and subsurface mapping, laboratory testing and analysis by the project geotechnical consultant. The 35 Applicant shall incorporate such measures in the site-specific Tentative Tract Map Review and Rough 36 Grading Plan Review reports prepared.by the project geotechnical consultant. The geotechnical 37 consultant's site-specific reports shall be approved by a certified engineering geologist and a registered 38 civil engineer and shall be completed to the satisfaction of the County. 39 40 Mitigation Measure 4.2-7a: Specific measures shall be implemented to eliminate any significant adverse 41 effects of trencbing for utilities. These measures shall be designed to alleviate the effects which 42 groundwater may have on existing or future bluffs, slopes, and structures. These measures may include 43 techniques to prevent "sloughing-in" or the accumulation of water or to remedy the effects of such ' 44 incidents so that there is no risk of loss of integrity of bluffs, slopes, or structures. Examples of such 45 measures include shoring of trench face, laying back of trench side slope if recommended by the certified 46 engineering geologist, and pumping of standing water. Before grading permits are issued for the Bolsa 47 Chica Mesa, the County shall determine the specific measures to be implemented on the basis of a report 48 prepared by the Applicant's geotechnical consultant which shall address all salient geotechnical issues, 49 including groundwater. This report shall include site-specific reviews of the tentative tract maps and 50 grading plans and address the potential for ground subsidence on the sites and properties adjacent to the NO%M I=M 8-1 - 1 I sites if dewatering is recommended. On the basis of the review of the tentative tract maps and grading ' 2 plans, this report shall make specific recommendations of the appropriate measures to be implemented. 3 These recommendations shall be approved by a certified engineering geologist and registered civil 4 engineer and shall be completed to the satisfaction of the County. ' 51 6 Mitigation Measure 4.2r7b: All project construction elements shall maintain the standards set forth by 7 the Occupational Safety and Health Administration Section 1926.652. , 8 9 Mitigation Measure 4.2r8a (PDF): DDC for ground improvement shall be designed by a Registered 10 Civil Engineer and Geotechnical Consultant so that vibration levels do not damage adjacent structure or I 1 provide unacceptable nuisance levels as determined and approved by the County. 12 13 Mitigation Measure 4.2-8b: As an alternative to the DDC method of compaction, and provided that 14 vibration meet the same standards as applied in the Mitigation Measure 4.2-8a,the Applicant's consultant ' 15 shall evaluate using a rolling surcharge method and dewatering of near surface soils with well points. 16 The final technique shall be approved by the County for compliance with this mitigation measure before 17 grading permits are issued. ' 18 19 Mitigation Measure 4.2-9: All onsite generated waste that meets hazardous materials criteria shall be 20 stored, manifested, transported and disposed of in accordance with the California Code of Regulations 21 Title 22 and in a manner satisfactory to the Manager, HCA/Hazardous Materials Program. Storage, 22 transportation, and disposal records shall be kept onsite and open for inspection by any government 23 agency upon request. 24 , 25 Mitigation Measure 4.2-10a (PDF): Prior to the recordation of a final parcel/tract map or the issuance 26 of any grading or building permits, whichever occurs first, the Applicant shall provide, in accordance 27 with criteria supplied by OCEMA, a "Hazardous Materials Assessment" and a "Disclosure Statement" 28. covering the property which will be offered to the County of Orange, for review and approval by the 29 Manager, Development Services, in consultation with the Manager, Environmental Resources. 30 '31 Mitigation Measure 4.2-10b (PDI): All onsite generated waste that meets hazardous materials criteria 32 shall be stored, manifested, transported and disposed of in accordance with the California Code of 33 Regulations Title 22 and in a manner satisfactory to the Manager, HCA/Hazardous Materials Program. , 34 Storage, transportation and disposal-records shall be kept on-site and open for inspection by any 35 government agency upon request. 36 37 Mitigation Measure 4.2-11a: Measures to mitigate expansive soils conditions shall be implemented by 38 the Applicant. These measures include, but are not limited to, specialized foundation design (such as 39 post-tensioned slabs), removal and replacement of expansive soils, presaturation of footing and slab ' 40 subgrade soils prior to foundation construction,or other appropriate methods as determined by the project 41 geotechnical consultant. The County shall approve all such measures before they are implemented. 42 43 Mitigation Measure 4.2-11b (PD)E): The Applicant shall incorporate measures to mitigate expansive 44 and corrosive soil potential as outlined in Measures 4.2-13a and 4.2-13b in the site-specific Tentative 45 Tract Map Review and Rough Grading Plan Review reports prepared by the project geotechnical ' 46 consultant. Recommendations shall be based on surface and subsurface mapping, laboratory testing and 47 analysis. The geotechnical consultant's site-specific reports shall be approved by a certified engineering 48 geologist and a registered civil engineer, and shall be completed to the satisfaction of the County. 49 8-2 Imp" I I Mitigation Measure 4.2-12a (PDF): Measures to mitigate corrosive soil conditions shall be implemented 2 by the Applicant. These measures include, but are not limited to, specially formulated cement for 3 concrete placed in contact with corrosive soils, and cathodic protection or specialized coatings to prevent 4 corrosion of metals in contact with corrosive soils. 5 ' 6 Mitigation Measure 4.2-12b (PDF): The Applicant shall incorporate measures to mitigate expansive 7 and corrosive soil potential as outlined in a site-specific report to be prepared by the project geotechnical 8 consultant. Recommendations shall be based on surface and subsurface mapping, laboratory testing and 9 analysis. The geotechnical consultant's site-specific reports shall be approved by a certified engineering 10 geologist and a registered civil engineer, and shall be completed to the satisfaction of the County. 11 12 Mitigation Measure 4.12-13: Prior to construction of the 9-million-gallon tank by the County of 13 Orange, a geologic investigation shall be performed to determine the suitability of the site. 14- 15 Mitigation Measure 4.2-14a: A new sewage lift station is proposed on Warner Avenue to pump sewage 16 collected from gravity lines from the Bolsa Chica Mesa residential neighborhood. The force main from 17 the pump station will run eastward along Warner Avenue and cross the active fault zone. To prevent 18 discharge of sewage should the force main be sheared the following design measures are recommended: 19 (1) a backflow preventer could be installed immediately east of the potential area of breakage, (2) the lift 20 station(wet well) could be oversized to accommodate extra capacity until the broken main ca be repaired, 21 and (3) an automatic breaker installed in the pump circuit to shut off the system in the even to severe 22 seismic movement. 23 24 Mitigation Measure 4.2-14b: Other utilities that are expected to cross the fault would be natural gas ' 25 for residential use, water, telephone, electrical power, and storm drains. When possible these should be 26 routed to prevent traversing the fault. Otherwise, the natural gas line(s) could have automatic shutoff 27 valves installed which would actuate in the event of severe seismic movement; the water main(s) should 28 have manual valves located either side of the fault; phone and cable services could have junctions boxes 29 on opposing sides of the fault which could provide for emergency reconnection during repairs of 30 underground lines; while similar installations could be made for electrical power, sanitary sewer line 31 crossing the fault zone should be constructed of ductile iron pipe. Little can be done to prevent damage 32 to storm drains because of their size and locations. 33 34 35 83 SURFACE ANM GROUNDWATER HYDROLOGY 36 37 Mitigation Measure 4.3-1 (PDF): The .Applicant's Civil Engineer shall provide a design and 38 construction schedule to reroute the Bolsa Chica pump station discharge water without disruption. The 39 County shall review and approve this design prior to issuance of grading permits for Development 40 Areas V and VI. 41 42 Mitigation Measure 4.3-2 (PDF): A construction phasing plan for RPA 1A will be prepared to show 43 the EGGW Channel levees to be removed after April 15 and the tidal inlet to be opened prior to the 44 following October 15. This phasing plan will be reviewed and approved by the County prior to issuance 45 of mass grading permits for RPA 1A. 46 47 Mitigation Measure 4.3-3: To prevent degradation of groundwater due to tidal inundation, the 48 Applicant's Geotechnical Consultant shall provide a detailed study that evaluates the impact of saltwater 49 intrusion into the upper Pleistocene Alpha and Beta Aquifers, and provide recommendations to prevent 50 this if either a full tidal or muted tidal area is constructed in the Bolsa Pocket. The report shall include, �� 8-3 . 1 1 but not be limited to, impermeable soil caps and subsurface barriers. The report and design ' .2 recommendations shall be reviewed by the County and this mitigation shall be implemented through the 3 WRP. 4 '5 Mitigation Measure 4.3-4: Prior to issuance of a grading permit for RPAs 3A, 4A, SA, and SC, the 6 Applicant's Geotechnical Consultant shall develop detailed studies to evaluate the potential occurrence 7 of natural near-surface groundwater and artificially induced groundwater to determine the potential of 8 shallow groundwater recharge to the adjacent area caused by the wetlands restoration. Studies shall , 9 include, but shall not be limited to, subdrains, impermeable soil caps on finish grade, subsurface barriers 10 such as cutoff walls or interceptor drains, or French drains with dewatering wells. The preferred 11 mitigation shall be approved by the County and implemented by the Applicant. 12 13 Mitigation Measure 4.3-5: To prevent adverse hydrological impacts in the Edwards Thumb area, the 14 Applicant's Geotechnical Consultant,prior to wetlands restoration,shall evaluate transmissivity and other , 15 hydrogeologic characteristics in the Edwards Thumb area and the lowlands near the existing residential 16 neighborhood in order to evaluate the impacts of irrigation and impounded water on groundwater levels 17 in the existing residential neighborhood. Such an investigation would, at a minimum, be expected to 18 require the installation of monitoring wells and the performance of pump test for data collection. This 19 detailed study shall include but not be limited to the following mitigation measures: subsurface cutoff 20 wall, subsurface drains, and French Drains. Through this process, it is important that a definitive 21 geotecbnical design be approved by the County which would assure that no significant adverse impacts 22 would result from changes in groundwater level. The specific mitigation will be approved by the County 23 and implemented by the Applicant. 24 ' 25 Mitigation Measure 4.3-6: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit for the Regional Park, the Park 26 developer shall incorporate design measures, in a manner meeting the approval of the County, that 27 prevent additional runoff caused by new Park development from further erosion to the Huntington bluff 28 and impacting the seasonal ponds in the Lowland. 29 30 Mitigation Measure 43-7: The project shall incorporate specific design measures such as subdrains, ' 31 impermeable soil caps on finished grade, subsurface barriers such as cutoff walls or interceptor drains, 32 and French Drains to prevent any substantial seepage of surface groundwater into subterranean structures. 33 To achieve this, before grading permits are issued for the MWD parcel, the project Geotechnical ' 34 Consultant shall provide to the County'a report recommending specific design features which will identify 35 the specific measures to be employed. The recommendations of the Geotechnical Consultant are subject 36 to review and approval by the County. 37 , 38 Mitigation Measure 4.3-8 (PDF): Same as Mitigation Measure 4.3-5. 39 40 Mitigation Measure 4.3-9 (PDF): 41 42 ► Santa Ana River Floodplain 43 44 If the Santa Ana River floodplain within the project limits is not removed by the joint Orange 45 County/Federal Government funded Santa Ana River Project (SARP) at the time of grading for ' 46 proposed buildings, structures, and residential developments within the existing Santa Ana River 47 floodplain, appropriate additional mitigation measures, including the filing of FEMA Elevation 48 Certificate shall be required for each building,residence, or structure within the existing Santa Ana 49 River floodplain, which demonstrates that the as-built lowest floor is at least 1 foot above the 100- 50 year flood elevation. This shall be accomplished prior to receiving Use and Occupancy Draft 8-4 ,2rom Certification in a meeting the approval appropriate local jurisdiction. To the extent I manner g pp al of the app p 2 required by CEQA, these mitigation measures will be developed through a supplemental and 3 focused environmental review under CEQA. 4 5 ► Residual Floodplains - EGGW Channel and Others ' 6 7 Additionally,as appropriate,mitigation against flooding of any proposed buildings,structures,and 8 residential development from any known residual floodplain(i.e., other than the Santa Ana River) 9 shall be provided in a manner meeting the approval of the appropriate local jurisdiction before 10 grading permits are issued for the proposed buildings, structures, and residences within the 11 delineated residual floodplain. Furthermore, if these residual floodplains are shown on FEMA's 12 Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) when the Santa Ana River floodplain map is revised as a 13 consequence of SARP, then a certified elevation certificate which demonstrates that the as-built 14 lowest floor is at least 1 foot above the 100-year flood elevation of the FIRM in effect shall be IS submitted or a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) from FEMA for revising the FIRM shall be 16 obtained,then the LOMR shall be processed through FEMA in a manner meeting the approval of 17 the appropriate local jurisdiction prior to receiving Use and Occupancy Certifications for these ' 18 buildings,structures, and residences. To the extent required by CEQA, these mitigation measures 19 will be developed through a supplemental and focused environmental review. 20 21 Mitigation Measure 4.3-10: Before grading per are issued for parcels which are adjacent to or are 22 impacted by the existing EGGW Channel,the Developer/Applicant shall design and construct the EGGW 23 Channel within the County LCP Area (upstream limit is the Graham Avenue Bridge) and to and 24 including,the proposed tidal inlet shall be constructed in accordance with OCFCD criteria and standards. 25 The EGGW Channel shall be capable of conveying the discharge resulting from a 100-year storm over 26 the EGGW Channel's fully developed tributary watershed in a manner meeting the approval of OCEMA. 27 28 29 8.4 WATER QUALITY 30 31 Mitigation Measure 4.4-1a(PDF): The Applicant shall implement the Construction Monitoring Program 32 described above as a PDF. 33 1 34 Mitigation Measure 4.4-1b: To reduce impacts to the water quality of tidal waters from existing 35 contaminants in sediments in the Lowlands, the Applicant shall conduct a program of sediment toxicity 36 testing. Representative areas in the Lowlands proposed for grading and/or inundation with tidal waters, 37 as well as similar areas whose location and characteristics indicate susceptibility to contamination, shall 38 be sampled and the sediments tested for toxicity to aquatic organisms. Any sediments found to have a 39 substantial and adverse effect upon aquatic organisms shall be remediated or removed from the site. 40 ' 41 Mitigation Measure 4.4-2: During construction of the tidal inlet, measures shall be implemented to 42 reduce introduction of sediments and creation of turbidity in nearshore coastal waters. These measures 43 would include insuring that no excavated material would be stockpiled on the beach where it could be 44 introduced to the ocean during high tides, using barriers to confine the majority of excavated sediments 45 within the landward side of the tidal inlet and pumping all waters from the dewatering process into a 46 sediment basin and not into the ocean. All such measures must be approved by County Environmental 47 Management Agency before construction of the tidal inlet begins. 48 ::� 8-5 I Mitigation Measure 4.4-3: To reduce to'insignificant the impacts of resuspended sediments during 2 maintenance dredging silt curtains or other forms of barriers shall be used to confine turbid water to the 3 immediate area of the dredging activity. 5 ' 6 8S COASTAL RESOURCES 7 8 No mitigation measures are required. 9 10 11 8.6 MARINEIAQUATIC BIOLOGY 12 13 Impacts related to the resuspension of contaminants during wetlands restoration and turbidity during 14 maintenance dredging in the wetlands were identified and described in Section 4.4.3.2 in Impacts 4.4-1 15 and 4.4-3, respectively. Mitigation Measures 4.4-la, 4.4-lb, and 4.1-3 effectively mitigate the impact 16 identified. j 17 � `I 18 19 8.7 71 UIESTRIAL BIOLOGY 20 21 Mitigation Measure 4.7-1a (PDF): The WRP provides for establishment of a program to place fences ' 22 and posted signs in selected areas to minimize visitor disturbance. 23 24 Mitigation Measure 4.7-1b: A management plan shall be developed and incorporated into the LCP that ' 25 specifies how public visitation of the natural areas will be controlled or managed. The plan shall include, 26 at minimum: 27 28 ► Methods for public education on sensitive habitats and plants. 29 30 ► Identification of the group or agency which will enforce access restrictions and the restrictions to ' 31 be employed in the various habitats. 32 33 ► Restriction of people from internal trails during the nesting season (March 15 to August 15) of 34 federal and state listed endangered and threatened bird species. 35 36 Mitigation Measure 4.7-2a (PDF): The WRP provides for weed eradication and habitat restoration and 37 creation. 38 39 Mitigation Measure 4.7-2b: A management plan shall be developed that specifies how habitats shall be ' 40 maintained and managed over the long term. This plan shall be included in the WRP Long-Term M&M 41 Plan. The plan shall include, at a minimum. 42 43 P. Methods for ongoing weed eradication. It is unlikely that the landscaping practices of private 44 homeowners can be controlled, and therefore an ongoing program of monitoring and weed 45 eradication shall be essential for long-term preservation of native habitats. 46 47 ► Methods for public education, including information regarding invasive exotics that homeowners 48 could avoid planting in their yards. 49 DmftE I 8-6 ,vmrn I ► An erosion control and storm runoff plan shall be prepared prior to construction (see 2 Chapter 4.4.3.4). If straw bales are used for erosion control, rice straw or equivalent weed-free ' 3 straw shall be used to prevent additional introduction of exotic species into native habitat. 4 5 Mitigation Measure 4.7-3a(PDF): The WRP establishes a mitigation and monitoring program involving ' 6 coordination with the CDFG on trapping and other efforts to minimize the continuing impact of the red 7 fox. 8 9 Mitigation Measure 4.7-3b: A mitigation and monitoring program will be implemented by the Applicant 10 in consultation with CDFG and USFWS to determine the effectiveness of the coyote as a control agent 11 for the red fox at Bolsa Chica. If the coyote's effectiveness is found to be significant, a plan shall be 12 developed and implemented which will encourage the continued presence of the coyote as a control agent 13 for the red fox at Bolsa Chica. The plan shall include specific measures designed to create and/or 14 maintain adequate habitat for the coyote in the undeveloped portions of the project site so that the coyote ' 15 may maintain its ongoing role as a control agent for the red fox. OCEMA shall approve this program 16 before restoration of the lowlands. 17 18 Mitigation Measure 4.7-4: If raptors begin to prey upon nesting sensitive target species or other 19 sensitive species, the Applicant shall consult with CDFG and USFWS and prepare a relocation program 20 for these raptors. 21 22 Mitigation Measure 4.7-5 (PDF): Before the destruction of the two western snowy plover nesting sites 23 in RPA 1A, two new nesting sites shall be established in the area known as RPA 2A. These sites shall 24 be constructed prior to the nesting season (March 15 to August 15). 1 25 26 27 8.8 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC CIRCULATION 28 29 Mitigation Measure 4.8-1a: Prior to the start of construction for each phase of development, the 30 Applicant shall fund a Construction Traffic Control Plan, to be prepared by a registered traffic engineer 31 and submitted to the County of Orange for approval. Approval shall be required prior to issuance of 32 grading permits. -All traffic control work for construction shall conform to the latest editions of the State 33 of California Department of Transportation Manual of Traffic Controls, Standard Plans, Standard 34 Specifications, and Special Provisions. 35 36 Mitigation Measure 4.8-1b: Notes indicating the need to obtain County approval of a construction 37 traffic routing plan/construction access plan will be placed on the grading plan and included in the 38 construction bid package. If determined necessary by the Manager, Development Services, OCEMA, 39 that a construction/grading haul road must be established, the Applicant/subdivider shall indicate this on 40 all grading plans. Further, the construction bid package shall also include the need for a 41 construction/grading haul road. 42 43 ' 44 Operations 45 46 Mitigation Measure 4-8.2: If the appropriate agencies do not elect to upsize Pacific Coast Highway, 47 it will be necessary to develop a Deficiency Plan in accordance with the requirements of the CMP. CMP 48 legislation recognizes that not all projected roadway system deficiencies are avoidable through local 49 actions and decisions. When a deficiency is identified, however, a jurisdiction must undertake specific D,d+la � � 8-7 I actions if it is to comply with the 00. One of the mecbanisms for identifying potential deficiencies is 2 through a specific development traffic impact analysis. 3 4 In the case of state highways, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) has primary 5 responsibility for preparing deficiency plans. The plan must identify the need for isolated location or an , 6 areawide deficiency plan, with areawide deficiency plans being the preferred approach. There are several 7 other requirements, including 8 9 ► decide on lead agency in multi jurisdictional area, 10 11 ► identify facilities to be included which are off the CMP Highway System and establish a means of 12 balancing additional capacitylbenefits provided against the on-system deficiencies, 13 14 ► identify deficiency causes, 15 16 ► identify improvements and costs needed for both direct correction of deficiencies and overall 17 improvements (including air quality benefits) if direct correction is not possible, and 18 ' 19 P. formulate action plan to address deficiency. ! 20 21 The plan must then be adopted at a noticed public hearing by the CMP Agency. 22 23 Mitigation Measure 4.8-3 (PDI): Implementation of ATIP: The proposed ATIP program prevents the 24 occurrence of numerous significant traffic impacts which otherwise would result from the Proposed 25 Project. Nonetheless, it is appropriate to supplement the "Standard Mitigation for All PDFs" to provide 26 assurances regarding ATIP implementation. The following conditions will be included as part of project 27 approvals: 28 29 ► ATIP shall be implemented on the terms and conditions set forth in the Proposed Project. Any 30 modification of ATIP shall be subject to further environmental review. ' 31 32 ► Before the approval of the first final subdivision for a phase of development or the issuance*of the 33 first building permit for a phase of development, whichever happens first, the Applicant shall 34 irrevocably offer for dedication.the necessary construction easements and ultimate rights-of-way 35 which are located on property that is (1) owned by the Applicant, (2) within the proposed phase 36 of development, and (3) required for ATIP improvements. 37 38 ► Prior to the issuance of the first building permit for each phase of development,the Applicant shall 39 submit a traffic analysis and plans for the implementation of all PDFs and phases of ATIP which 40 are applicable to that phase of development. The traffic analysis and implementation plans shall 41 be approved by the County and shall include construction phasing and traffic management plans.ffi 42 43 ► Before approval of permits for the implementation of any phase of ATIP, a preliminary review of ' 44 the proposed action shall be conducted in the manner set forth in Section 15060 of the CEQA 45 Guidelines. That preliminary review shall determine the necessity for further environmental review 46 of the implementation.of ATIP. If additional environmental review is required, the County shall 47 determine whether permit issuance requires a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, 48 subsequent EIR, supplemental EIR, addendum, or other documentation. 49 DWI M 8-8 ,,,xnrj I Mitigation Measure 4.8-4: Prior to the recordation of the first final tract at each phase of �P 2 development proposed under the Master Phasing Plan (Figure 3.4-1), a traffic analysis shall be prepared ' 3 in compliance with ATIP conditions analyzing the implementation of PDFs and all ATIP improvement 4 proposed for the Master Planned phase of development. Should the traffic analysis indicate that the 5 proposed ATIP improvements do not adequately achieve current GMP and CAP requirements, additional 6 ATIP improvements may be provided satisfactory to mitigate project impacts or the phased level of 7 development (i.e., number of dwelling units) will be reduced until suitable mitigation is achieved. The 8 criteria for evaluation shall be the achievement of current County adopted GMP and CMP standards. 9 10 Mitigation Measure 4.8-5: Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.8-3 and 4.8-4 above will mitigate 11 vehicle miles and hours of travel impacts to a level of insignificance. 12 13 14 8.9 AIR QUALITY 15 16 Mitigation Measure 4.9-1: Mitigation for both heavy equipment and vehicle travel is limited. However, 17 to the extent feasible by the Applicant's contractor, exhaust emissions from construction equipment shall 18 be controlled in a manner that is consistent with standard mitigation measures dictated by the SCAQMD. 19 The measures to be implemented are as follows: 20 21 ► use low emission onsite mobile construction equipment; 22 23 ► maintain equipment in tune per manufacturer's specifications; 24 25 ► use catalytic converters on gasoline-powered equipment; 26 27 ► retard diesel engine injection timing by 4 degrees; 28 29 ► use reformulated, low-emission diesel fuel; 30 31 ► substitute electric and gasoline-powered, and, where applicable, methanol- and propane-powered 32 equipment for diesel-powered equipment where feasible; 33 34 ► where applicable, equipment .will not be left idling for prolonged periods (i.e., more than 35 2 minutes); and 36 37 ► curtail (cease or reduce)construction during periods of high ambient pollutant concentrations (i.e., 38 Stage 2 smog alerts). 39 40 The County shall verify use of the above measures during normal construction site inspections. 41 42 Table 4.9-7 presents the construction emissions for the combined infrastructure/building erection phase, 43 the anticipated efficiency of these control measures, and the residual impact for those impacts that are to 44 be mitigated. Note that the impacts for both NO, and ROG are reduced, but remain significant. 45 46 Mitigation Measure 4.9-2a: Prior to approval of a grading permit, the Applicant shall demonstrate to 47 the Manager, Development Services, that the actions that will be taken to comply with SCAQMD 48 Rule 402, which requires that there be no dust impacts offshe sufficient to cause a nuisance, and 49 SCAQMD Rule 403, which restricts visible emissions from construction shall appear on each grading plan 50 under the General Notes Section. Specific measures will include premoistening of soil prior to grading, Dr4M daily watering, washing truck tires, covering loads of dirt, early paving of roads, cessation of grading during periods of high winds, and revegetation of graded areas after soil disturbance. , Mitigation Measure 4.9-21b (PDF): In addition to the standard measures,the Applicant shall implement 5 supplemental measures to reduce fugitive dust emissions to the extent feasible during construction 6 operations. To assure compliance, the County shall verify compliance that these measures have been ! 7 implemented during normal construction site inspections. 8 .� 9 ► spread soil binders on the site, unpaved roads, and in parking areas; 10 11 ► water the site and equipment in the morning and evening; , .12 13 ► reestablish ground cover on the construction site through seeding and watering, except in wetlands 14 restoration areas; 15 , 16 ► pave onsite haul roads; 17 18 ► phase grading to prevent the susceptibility of large area to erosion over extended periods of time; 19 20 ► schedule activities to minimize the amounts of exposed excavated soil during and after the end of 21 work periods; ' 22 23 ► dispose of surplus excavated material in accordance with local ordinances and use sound 24 engineering practices; , 25 26 ► restore landscaping and irrigation that are removed during construction in coordination with local 27 public agencies; 28 29 ► sweep streets on a daily basis if silt is carried over to adjacent public thoroughfares or occurs as 30 a result of hauling; 31 32 ► suspend grading operations during high winds in accordance with Rule 403 requirements; 33 34 ► wash off trucks leaving site; 35 36 ► maintain a minimum 12-inch freeboard ratio on haul trucks; and 37 '38 ► cover payloads on haul trucks using tarps or other suitable means. 39 40 Note that in accordance with Table 4.9-7, these measures are expected to reduce the impact to a level of 41 adverse, but not significant. 42 43 Mitigation Measure 4.9-3: The Applicant shall specify the use of emulsified asphalt or asphaltic cement, ' 44 neither of which produce significant quantities of VOC emissions. 45 46 Mitigation Measure 4.9-4: The Applicant shall specify the use of high-volume, low-pressure or manual ' 47 application of paints and coatings on structures. Where applicable, prefinished or pre-primed and sanded 48 wood molding and trim products and pre-primed wallboard shall be used. Additionally,where applicable, 49 the Applicant shall specify the use of nonpolluting powder-coated metal products. 50 Dr%t ER 8-10 ,:�� Occu an I p cv 2 3 Mitigation Measure 4.9-5a: The Applicant shall assist the County in implementing Transportation 4 Demand Management measures related to the Proposed Project (ref: "A Reference Guide to 5 Transportation Demand Management") published by SCAG. Such measures shall include coordinating 6 transit service to the development through provision of bus stops,transit stops, shuttle stops,bus shelters 7 and turnouts, and bicycleltransit interface. 8 ' 9 Mitigation Measure 4.9-5b (PDF): The Applicant shall incorporate, as part of the PDFs, pedestrian 10 pathways, bus stops, and bikeways to encourage use of alternate forms of transportation. Verification 11 of such programs shall be made by the-County prior to issuance of occupancy permits. ' 12 13 ► Measures to reduce traffic congestion and its associated air emissions consistent with the design 14 of the AQMP will be incorporated into the project. These measures include methods of improving 15 traffic flow (i.e., ATIP and lane and intersection improvements) and methods of stimulating 16 alternative fortes of transportation (i.e., bicycle routes and bus turnout lanes). 17 18 Mitigation Measure 4.9-6: The Applicant shall provide mitigation for secondary source emissions (i.e., 19 emissions associated with stationary sources within the development)through the measures listed below. 20 During design review and prior to issuance of building permits, the County will assure confirmation that 21 the measures have been incorporated to the maximum extent feasible. As staged previously, the project 22 will comply with Title 24 energy-efficient design regulations and shall incorporate to the maximum extent 23 feasible, the following design measures: 24 25 ► include energy costs in the capital expenditure analyses; 26 27 ► incorporate appropriate passive solar design; 28 29 ► minimize electricity distribution losses; 30 31 ► limit installed lighting loads; 32 33 ► install lamps that give the highest light output per watt of electricity consumed; 34 35 ► control mechanical systems or equipment with time clocks or computer system; 36 37 ► recycle lighting system- or process-heat for space heating during cool weather, and exhaust this 38 beat via ceiling plenums during warm weather; 39 40 ► cascade ventilation air from high-priority (occupied spaces) areas to low-priority (corridors, 41 equipment, and mechanical spaces) areas before being exhausted; 42 43 ► facilitate the use of electric yard maintenance equipment through the placement of exterior outlets 44 both front and rear for all single-family dwellings; 45 46 ► provide shade trees to reduce building heating/cooling needs; and 47 48 ► reduce the production of particulate matter by installing fireplaces designed to burn natural gas to 49 the exclusion of wood where applicable. ' S0 Daft mM �� 8-11 I Table 4.9-8 presents the anticipated efficiency of the mitigation measures where proposed and the residual 2 impact. Note that the impact would remain significant for CO, NO2, and ROG. 3 4 5 8.10 NOISE 6 7 Mitigation Measure 4.10-1a: The Applicant shall implement measures to protect existing residential 8 areas from high noise levels during construction. Assurance of the implementation of these measures 9 shall be provided to the County as follows. 10 11 ► Prior to the issuance of any grading permits, the project Applicant shall produce evidence ' 12 acceptable to the Manager, Development Services, 13 14 - All construction vehicles or equipment, fixed or mobile, operated within 1,000 feet of a 15 dwelling shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers. 16 17 - All operations shall comply with Orange County Codified Ordinance Division 6 (Noise , 18 Control). 19 I 20 - Stockpiling and/or vehicle staging areas shall be located as far as practicable from dwellings. 21 ' 22 ► Notations in the above format, appropriately numbered and included with other notations on the 23 front sheet of grading plans, will be considered as adequate evidence of compliance with this 24 condition. 25 26 Mitigation Measure 4.10-1b: In accordance with the Orange County Code, onsite construction activities ' 27 shall be limited to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. except in emergency situations,and not 28 permitted at all on Sundays and federal holidays. 29 30 Mitigation Measure 4.10-2: Prior to opening the BCSE to through traffic, the Applicant will conduct 31 an acoustical analysis to confirm noise impacts and determine the extent of specific noise reductions 32 measures necessary to achieve the 45 dBA interior noise level in residences adjacent to Bolsa Chica Street 33 between Warner Avenue and the BCSE. 34 35 Mitigation Measure 4.10-3a.(PDF):' All new residential lots and dwellings shall be sound attenuated 36 against present and projected noise which shall be the sum of all noise impacting the project so as not to 37 exceed an exterior standard of 60 dBA Ldn in outdoor living areas and an interior standard of 45 dBA 38 Ldn in all habitable rooms. Evidence prepared by a County-certified acoustical consultant, that these 39 standards will be satisfied in a manner consistent with applicable zoning regulations, shall be submitted 40 as follows: 41 42 ► Prior to the recordation of a final tract/parcel map or prior to the issuance of grading permits, as 43 determined by the Manager, Development Services, an acoustical analysis report shall be submitted 44 to the Manager, Building Permits, for approval. The report shall describe in detail the exterior 45 noise environment and preliminary mitigation measures. Acoustical design features to achieve ' 46 interior noise standards may be included in the report in which case it may also satisfy the next 47 measure below. 48 49 ► Prior to the issuance of any building permits for residential construction, an acoustical analysis 50 report describing the acoustical design features of the structures required to satisfy the Manager, 8-12 Hass I Building Permits, for approval along with satisfactory evidence which indicates that the sound 2 attenuation measures specified in the approved acoustical report have been incorporated into the 3 design of the project. 4 5 • Prior to the issuance of any building permits, all freestanding acoustical barriers must be shown 6 on the project's plot plan illustrating height, location, and construction in a manner meeting the ' 7 approval of the Manager, Building Permits. 8 9 1Vrtigation Measure 4.10-3b : Prior to the issuance of any certificates of use and occupancy for 10 multifamily dwelling units, field testing in accordance with Title 24 Regulations may be required by the 11 Manager, Building Inspection, to verify compliance with FSTC and FIIC standards. In the event such 12 a test was previously performed, satisfactory evidence and a copy of the report shall be submitted to the 13 Manager, Building Permits, as a supplement to the previously required acoustical analysis report. 14 15 16 8.11 CULTURAL RESOURCES 17 18 Mitigation Measure 4.11-1a (PDF): The research design for the Bolsa Chica region currently in 19 preparation shall be completed. The research design shall contain a discussion of important research 20 topics that can be addressed employing data from the Bolsa Chica sites. The research design shall be 21 reviewed by at least three qualified arcbaeologists, as required by CCC guidelines. 22 23 Mitigation Measure 4.11-1b (PDF): Mitigation of impacts to important prehistoric archaeological sites 24 in areas proposed for urban development shall consist of data recovery excavations. The scope or work 25 for the data recovery excavations shall be determined by the project archaeologist and reviewed and ' 26 approved by the three qualified peer reviewer archaeologists established pursuant to CCC permit 27 conditions. The data recovery excavations shall be completed prior to issuance of a grading permit. In 28 addition to hand excavation in the grove area of ORA-83/144, data recovery at this site shall include ' 29 controlled grading by the project archaeologist of the field area to recover any cogged stones or other 30 important artifacts which may remain in this disturbed portion of the site. Mitigation of the impacts to 31 these'two sites shall be considered complete when the peer review group that reviewed the regional 32 research design concludes that the data recovery excavations have been completed in accordance with its 33 approved scope of work. Once data recovery excavations have been completed, a report of the data 34 recovery program shall be prepared by the project archaeologist and reviewed by the peer review team, 35 and submitted to appropriate governmental and academic institutions. Data recovery investigations, 36 testing, analysis, and reports shall be completed at the Applicant's expense. 37 38 Mitigation Measure 4.11-2 (PDF): The historic components of ORA-78, -83/144, and -85, as well as 39 all other facilities, structures and features more than 45 years old within the LCP Area shall be evaluated 40 for significance by a qualified historical archaeologist and/or architectural historian. This evaluation shall 41 be conducted at the Applicant's expense and the Applicant shall implement the recommendations of the 42 historical archaeologist and/or architectural historian regarding significant historical cultural resources. 43 Significance criteria to be employed should be the eligibility criteria for the NRHP. 1 44 45 Mitigation Measure 4.11-3a (PDF): The research design for the Bolsa Chica region currently in 46 preparation shall be completed. The research design shall contain a discussion of important research 47 topics that can be addressed employing data from the Bolsa Chica sites. The research design shall be 48 reviewed by at least three qualified archaeologists, as required by CCC guidelines. 49 aon MR 8-13 I , • I Mitigation Measure 4.11-3b: Sites on Huntington Beach Mesa that will be affected by construction of ' 2 the Bolsa Chica Regional Park shall be tested under a coordinated program that evaluates each site as a 3 whole using the regional research design to assess significance. Because the development of Bolsa Chica 4 Regional Park will be the County of Orange's responsibility,the County shall be responsible for funding 5 and testing of those portions of each site within the LCP. For those sites determined to be significant, ' 6 preservation shall be considered the preferred mitigation measure, or if preservation is not feasible, 7 impacts will be mitigated in accordance with the State guidelines and provisions under the GDP/Resource 8 Management Plan for Bolsa Chica Regional Park. The County shall be responsible for funding any 9 mitigation of impacts for portions of sites within the LCP Area. The County shall also adhere to the 10 cultural resources mitigation measures set forth in the EIR that was prepared and certified for the Linear 1 I Regional Park. These measures are as follows: , 12 13 P. Prior to approval of the grading plan, a test-level investigation of all noted sites, with the exception 14 of CA-ORA-290, which has totally been destroyed, shall be conducted by an archaeologist who 15 meets the qualifications of the County of Orange approved list of archaeological consultants. The 16 investigation shall include subsurface testing of deposits through auger holes and test pits to 17 determine vertical depth, horizontal distribution, and internal complexity of the cultural deposit. ' 18 Subsurface investigations shall comply with appropriate local, state and federal guidelines for 19 Native American involvement and be acceptable to the Manager, Harbors,Beaches, Parks/Program 20 Planning Division. ' 21 22 ► Based on the results of the test-level investigation, a comprehensive archaeological resource 23 management program acceptable to the Director, Harbors, Beaches, Parks shall be submitted by 24 an archaeologist who meets the qualifications of the County of Orange approved list of , 25 archaeological subconsultants which shall include such requirements as further analysis of sites, 26- resource recovery, or in situ preservation. Measures to protect resources in areas proposed as open 27. space will also be included. The program shall be implemented according to a schedule which , 28 conforms to the proposed phasing of development. Additional recommendations may be made 29 upon completion of test-level investigation or at the professional discretion of the consulting 30 archaeologist conducting the test-level work. 31 32 Mitigation Measure 4.11-4: The County shall evaluate all historic components of ORA-88 and -365, 33 as well as all other facilities, structures and features more.than 45 years old within the LCP Area. A , 34 qualified historical archaeologist and/or architectural historian shall be engaged to conduct this evaluation. 35 This evaluation shall be conducted at the County's expense and the County shall implement the 36 recommendations of the historical archaeologist and/or architectural historian regarding significant 37 historical cultural resources. Significance criteria to be employed should be the eligibility criteria for the 38 NRHP. 39 '40 Mitigation Measure 4.11-5 (PDF): The two potential archaeological sites in the lowlands, ORA-1308 41 and -1309, and the lowland component of ORA-86, shall be tested to determine whether they represent 42 cultural deposits. If they are found to be cultural deposits, they will be evaluated to determine their 43 significance using research questions in the regional research design. If found to be significant, , 44 mitigation measures consisting of preservation in open space or data recovery using a data recovery plan 45 shall be implemented at the expense of the Applicant. All data recovery excavations shall be completed 46 prior to issuance of a grading permit for lowland wetlands restorations activities or lowland urban ' 47 development activities for these sites. 48 49 Mitigation Measure 4.11-6 (PDF): A systematic cultural resources survey of the lowlands shall be ' 50 carried out by a qualified archaeologist to determine if they are-cultural and, if so, to evaluate their 8-14 ,��� ' I significance. If found to be significant, mitigation measures consisting of reservation in open space or gn gm P 2 data recovery using a data recovery plan shall be implemented at the expense of the Applicant. All data 3 recovery excavations shall be completed prior to issuance of a grading permit for lowland wetlands 4 restoration activities that may impact any sites discovered. 5 6 Mitigation Measure 4.11-7 (PDF): A reburial agreement for prehistoric Native American human 7 remains, if any, that may be encountered on the Bolsa Chica properly under the Applicant's control shall 8 be negotiated with the Most Likely Descendant designated by the Native American Heritage Commission 9 to address Native American concerns in the event human remains are discovered. The provisions of the 10 reburial agreement shall be implemented at the Applicant's expense. The provisions of the reburial 11 agreement currently in force for Huntington Beach Mesa shall be implemented at the Applicant's expense ' 12 for any human remains found within the LCP area. 13 14 ' 15 8.12 AES T=CS 16 17 Mitigation Measure 4X?,1a: Landscaping, including use of native vegetation, and setbacks from 18 Warner Avenue and Los Patos Avenue shall be used to break up long linear views of houses from offsite. ' 19 20 Mitigation Measure 4.12-1b: Prior to issuance of any building permit, the Applicant shall demonstrate 21 that all exterior lighting has been designated and located so that all direct rays are confined to the 22 property in a manner meeting the approval of the Manager, Building Permits. 23 24 Mitigation Measure 4.12-Ic: Prior to issuance of any grading permit or recordation of any applicable 25 tract/parcel map, the Applicant shall submit subject to approval of the County Manager HBP Program 26 Planning Division, an urban edge treatment plan which includes but is not limited to: building height and 27 setback limits; landscape and fuel modification treatments; provisions for walls, fences or berms; slope ' 28 gradients and ratios (i.e., 2:1 - 4:1) proposed; slope drainage structures, and architectural or landscape 29 design themes. 30 31 Mitigation Measure 4.12-1d (PDF): As part of the Development Agreement for the Proposed Project, 32 the Applicant shall implement the Local Parks and Recreation Facilities described in this EIR in 33 Chapter 3.2.2.7. The OCEMA shall ensure implementation of this PDF through its Development 34 Agreement monitoring program. 35 36 37 8.13 SOCIOECONOVIICS ' 38 39 No mitigation measures are required. 40 41 42 8.14 PUBLIC SERVICES AND U`rn TIES 43 ' 44 Mitigation Measure 4.14-1: The Applicant shall enter into a secured agreement with the County to 45 provide Sheriff law enforcement services such as facilities, equipment, or other infrastructure necessary 46 for adequate law enforcement services to the Proposed Project. ' 47 48 Mitigation Measure 4.14-2: The Applicant shall be required to enter into a secured fire protection 49 agreement with the County or its successor fire protection agency. The agreement shall include the 50 following. DraftEM 8-15 1 ► Provision for dedication of an adequate site within the project area for construction of a fully 2 equipped and furnished fire station, subject to the approval of the Orange County Fire Department 3 or successor agency, 4 5 ► Provision for funding of land acquisition, construction, equipping and furnishing the new fire , 1 6 station and adequate fire access, water distribution, and other supporting infrastructure by the 7 Applicant; and 8 9 ► Provision for commencement of fire station operation in accordance with development phasing. 10 11 12 8.15 RECREATION 13 14 Mitigation Measure 4.15-1: There is no mitigation for this impact. , 15 16 Mitigation Measure 4.15-2: Prior to issuance of building permits for construction of the tidal inlet,the 17 Applicant shall provide for an additional lifeguard and lifeguard tower for Bolsa Chica State Beach near , 18 the tidal inlet in a manner meeting the approval of the California Department of Parks and Recreation. 19 20 Mitigation Measure 4.15-3: A visitor access and interpretive program for the wetlands will be 21 developed by the County of Orange Harbors, Beaches and Parks Department in consultation with the ' 22 CDFG, which restricts public access to interpretive trails in the wetlands and to other wetlands areas to 23 the period from October 1 through March 31. Fencing and/or other means to control access shall be used 24 to reduce disruption to sensitive species. , 25 26 Mitigation Measure 4.15-4: A visitor access and interpretive program for the wetlands will be 27 developed by the County of Orange Harbors, Beaches and Parks Department in consultation with the , 28 CDFG, which restricts public access to interpretive trails in the wetlands and to other wetlands areas to 29 the period from October 1 through March 31. Fencing and/or other means to control access should be 30 used to reduce disruption to sensitive species. 31 32 Mitigation Measure 4.15-5: An interpretive program will be developed by the County Harbors,Beaches 33 and Parks Department which avoids public kayak/canoe outings during hours of potentially dangerous 34 tidal fluctuations. , 35 36 37 8.16 PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES ' 38 39 Mitigation Measure 4.16-1 (PDF): Any grading operations on the Bolsa Chica or Huntington Beach 40 Mesas shall be monitored by a qualified paleontological field observer under the direction of an Orange 41 County certified paleontologist and at the Applicant's expense. The paleontological field inspector shall 42 be able to divert equipment to avoid destruction of significant fossils that may be discovered during 43 grading. Assistance may be required for the salvage and removal of large specimens or concentrations. ' 44 It is recommended that any fossils collected during the development phase be donated to the Natural 45 History Foundation of Orange County for appropriate disposition. 8-16 l:rAm 1 2 r 3 SECTION 9 - INVENTORY OF UNAVOIDABLE SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACTS 4 5 6 9.1 LAND USE 7 8 The mitigation measures listed in Section 4.1.3.4 above will effectively reduce the significant adverse 9 impacts identified to a level of insignificance. 10 11 12 9.2 GEOLOGY AND SEISMICITY 13 14 Impact 4.2-14: Underground utilities constructed within the Alquist-Priolo Act exclusionary zone, 15 especially those traversing it, may be damaged from fault movement or rupture. 16 17 Mitigation Measure 4.2-14a: A new sewage lift station is proposed on Warner Avenue to pump sewage 18 collected from gravity lines from the Bolsa Chica Mesa residential neighborhood. The force main from 19 the pump station will run eastward along Warner Avenue and cross the active fault zone. To prevent 20 discharge of sewage should the force main be sheared the following design measures are recommended: 21 (1) a backflow preventer could be installed immediately east of the potential area of breakage, (2) the lift 22 station(wet well)could be oversized to accommodate extra capacity until the broken main ca be repaired, 23 and (3) an automatic breaker installed in the pump circuit to shut off the system in the even to severe 24 seismic movement. 25 26 Mitigation Measure 4.2-14b: Other utilities that are expected to cross the fault would be natural gas 27 for residential use, water, telephone, electrical power, and storm drains. When possible these should be 28 routed to prevent traversing the fault. Otherwise, the natural gas line(s) could have automatic shutoff 29 valves installed which would actuate in the event of severe seismic movement; the water main(s) should 30 have manual valves located either side of the fault; phone and cable services could have junctions boxes 31 on opposing sides of the fault which could provide for emergency reconnection during repairs of 32 underground lines; while similar installations could be made for electrical power, sanitary sewer line 33 crossing the fault zone should be constructed of ductile iron pipe. Little can be done to prevent damage 34 , to storm drains because of their size and locations. 35 36 Though these measures will help to alleviate the impact to utilities which cross the North Branch fault, r .3 the impact is still considered significant and cannot be prevented should fault rupture and/or displacement 38 occur. 39 40 r 41 9-3 SL-RFACE A_�'D GROUNDWATER HYDROLOGY 42- 43 The measures proposed above can be feasibly implemented and will reduce the identified impacts to a 44 level of insignificance. There are no potential significant unavoidable adverse impacts. 45 46 47 9.4 WATER QUALITY 48 49 After implementation of the PDFs and mitigation measures listed above,there are no unavoidable adverse 50 impacts related to water quality. Drat rR r �:� 9-1 1 9.5 COASTAL RESOURCES 2 3 With the implementation of the proposed PDFs, no significant unavoidable adverse impacts are 4 anticipated. 5 6 7 9.6 MARINE/AQUATIC BIOLOGY 8 9 The Proposed Project will have no unavoidable adverse impacts on aquatic communities. 10 11 12 9.7 TERRESTRIAL BIOLOGY 13 14 With implementation of the stated mitigation measures, as well as the PDFs that are part of the WRP and 15 project LUP, all of the significant impacts to biological resources are reduced to insignificant levels. 16 17 ,18 9.8 'TRANSPORTATION AND TRAMC CIRCULATION 19 24 Impact 4.8-2: Traffic on Pacific Coast Highway will exceed capacity unless improvements are made to 21 Pacific Coast Highway. 22 23 None of the ATIP improvements will alleviate all traffic impacts on Pacific Coast Highway under the 24 scenario of no upsizing. Additionally, Mitigation Measure 4.9-2 will not reduce this impact to below a 25 level of significance. Consequently, this remains a significant unavoidable adverse impact for this 26 scenario. 27 28 ` 29 9.9 AIR QUALITY 30 31 The Proposed Project will result in potential air quality impacts due to both short-term construction 32 emissions and long-term mobile emissions from vehicle trips generated by the project. Implementation 33 of the above mitigation measures will reduce the air emission impacts. However, both short-term NO2 34 and ROG impacts are expected to remain significant for the construction phase, and long-term CO, NO2, 35 and ROG impacts are expected to remain significant during the subsequent occupancy phase. All other 36 - air emissions are considered adverse because they will contribute pollutants to a regional air quality basin 37 that is considered "non-attainment." , 38 39 40 9.10 NOISE 41 42 Implementation of the above mitigation measures will effectively reduce the impact to an adverse, but not 43 significant level. ' 44 45 46 9.11 CULTURAL RESOURCES 47 48 The mitigation measures described above for cultural resources are feasible and will reduce the significant 49 adverse impacts to levels of insignificance. With respect to Native American concerns, implementation 50 of the measures described above will reduce the impacts to adverse, but not significant levels. DrAA ER 9-2 1=93 1 9.12 AESTHETICS 2 - 3 Impact 4.12-1: Potential Impact to Pacific Coast Highway Viewshed: Residential development will 4 significantly alter the undeveloped appearance of the Bolsa Chica Mesa within the public viewshed as seen 5 from Pacific Coast Highway at Warner Avenue. 6 7 Landscape design, building setbacks, and other architectural elements will reduce some of the visual 8 impacts associated with the proposed residential development on the Bolsa Chica Mesa. However, no 9 effective measure is available to fully mitigate the loss of natural elements and undeveloped area within 10 the public viewshed from Pacific Coast Highway that includes the Bolsa Chica Mesa. 11 12 Impact 4.12-2: Potential Impact to Bolsa Chica State Beach Viewsheds: Construction of the proposed 13 tidal inlet will obstruct public views along the shoreline and toward the ocean. 14 15 Impact 4.12-3: Inconsistency with Policies of the Coastal Act: The inlet jetties are inconsistent with 16 Section 30251 of the Coastal Act in that public viewsheds along the shoreline will be blocked by 17 construction of the jetties. 18 19 Construction of the tidal inlet as proposed will result in unavoidable viewshed interruption along the State 20 Beach, resulting in a policy conflict with the Coastal Act. Even with implementation of the mitigation 21 measures, these visual impacts will remain unavoidable and significant. 22 23 24 9.13 SOCIOECONOMICS. 25 26 There are no significant unavoidable adverse impacts related to socioeconomics.. 27 1 28 29 9.14 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES 30 31 With implementation of the mitigation measures proposed above, no significant unavoidable adverse 32 impacts will occur to public services. 33 34 35 9.15 RECREATION 36 37 Impact 4.15-1: Potential Loss of Beach Area. The tidal inlet and its associated jetties will cause the 38 initial loss estimated at approximately 4 percent of the total beach area between Warner Avenue and the 39 Huntin,on Mesa bluffs. 40 41 42 9.16 PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 43 44 The mitigation measure described will reduce the potential significant adverse impact to a level. of 45 insignificance. DMA M �, • • Sub-Section B-2 Bolsa Chica Project Design Features and Standard Conditions Mitigation Measures Option A and Option B Source: Revised DEN No. 991 (prepared by the County of Orange Aug. 1994) 1 ' 1 2 3 CHAPT'ER 10- INVEI`'TORY OF PROTECT DESIGN FEATURES/STANDARD CONDITIONS 4 5 6 All applications to implement the Proposed Project shall reflect, where applicable, the Project Design 7 Features and/or. Standard Conditions described in this section. The Orange County Environmental 8 Management Agency shall ensure compliance through its standard procedures for the approval of permits ' 9 and applications (i.e., Mitigation Monitoring Program). 10 11 12 10.1 LAND USE AND RELATED PLANNING 13 14 The project does not incorporate any PDFs and there are no standard conditions which will be required 15 for Land Use and Related Planning. 16 17 18 10.2 GEOLOGY AND SEISMICITY 19 20 10.2.1 Project Design Features 21 22 PDF-1 Ground improvement for Lowland development consisting of dynamic deep compaction (DDC) 23 will be performed on localized areas needing stabilization, down to a depth of 25 feet below 24 ground surface (bgs). The technique induces surface settlement due to compression of loose 25 sand layers and cratering created by repeatedly dropping weights. 26 27 ► Stockpiling-of the surficial layer, which generally consists of soft fine-grained (clayey silt, 28 silty clay), will be accomplished to a depth of 1 foot above the water table at the time of 29 ground improvement to increase the efficiency of DDC work. After DDC, the stockpile . 30 material will be reused on-site for engineered fills and will be subject to erosion control as 31 specified in Section 4.3. 32 33 ► Placement of at least 1-foot-thick granular blanket to provide a stable working platform for 34 ground improvement equipment. 35 36 ► For some areas, depending on depth to groundwater, additional fill may be required to be 37 placed prior to DDC improvements. This fill thickness may vary from 1 to 3 feet. 38 .3 ► Field testin and monitoring of adjacent neighborhoods for any effect from the above- 040 prescribed ground improvement measures. 41 , 42 ► Alternatively, installations of stone columns in those areas where needed stabilization in 43 excess of 25 feet bgs is warranted, and within 100-foot zone near existing residential areas 44 to prevent possible damage from vibration. 45 46 PDF-2 Construction of a cutoff wall to reduce any potential effect from salt water, freshwater, and 47 irrigation water from the seasonal ponds into the existing residential neighborhood to an 48 insignificant level. The Proposed Project provides for a monitoring program for those homes 1 49 closer than 50 feet to the installation of the high density polyethylene(HDPE) cutoff wall. This 50 program includes notification of residents when construction activities will commence. The eon M 6117*0 10-1 I program also includes vibration measurements reviewed by the County at distances of 25 and 2 50 feet from wall installation to assure that existing improvements will not be damaged during 3 construction of the HDPE cutoff wall. 4 5 PDF-3 In order to avoid any adverse impacts to buildings or public works structures from seismically- t. 6 induced slope or bluff failure, the Applicant's geotechnical consultant shall identify and evaluate 7 all area prone to such failures on the Bolsa Chica Mesa and shall provide the information to 8 the County. The County shall review the consultant study and may utilize the information as , 9 part of its review of final maps for those areas covered by the consultant study. 10 11 ' 12 10.2.2 Standard Conditions 13 14 SC-1 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit for grading on the Bolsa Chica Mesa or the Lowland, ' 15 the Applicant shall submit a geotechnical report to the Manager, Development Services, for 16 approval. The report shall include the information and be in a form as required by the Orange 17 County Grading Manual, Section 5.4 and the Orange County Excavation and Grading Code 18 Section 7-1-819. 19 20 SC-2 The Project applicant's grading plan shall provide stabilization of manufactured slopes to the 21 satisfaction of the Manager, Development Services and may include, but is not limited to, 22 buttressing of fills,rock bolting,grouting,slope gradient laybacks, and construction of retaining 23 .'walls; and for natural slopes, use of drainage control and establishing'vegetation. 24 25 SC-3 The Applicant shall incorporate measures to mitigate expansive soil conditions, 26 compressible/collapsible soil conditions,and impacts from trenching as outlined in a site-specific 27 Tentative Tract Map Review and Rough Grading Plan Review reports prepared by the project 28 geotechnical consultant. Recommendations shall be based on surface and subsurface mapping, 29 laboratory testing and analysis. The geotechnical consultants site-specific reports shall be 30 approved by a certified engineering geologist and a registered civil engineer, and shall be 31 completed to the satisfaction of the County. 32 33 SC-4 The Project applicant shall design and construct all structures in accordance with mandated 34 current UBC requirements. 35 36 SC-5 The Proposed Project shall avoid construction of habitable structures within the Alquist-Priolo 37 Special Studies Zones. 38 39 40 103 HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES 41 42 103.1 P'roiect Design Features 43 44 PDF-1 A Remedial Action Plan (RAP) will be developed by the applicant for cleanup of contamination 45 that is found to exist on the site. The RAP may be developed in phases related to the proposed . 46 phases of the project. The RAP will be based on the results of existing environmental testing 47 at the site and future environmental testing to be conducted as oil operations are phased out. 48 The need for remediation of any existing conditions will be determined based on a Health Risk 49 Assessment (for the areas proposed for residential development) or an Ecological Risk 50 Assessment(for the areas proposed for wetlands restoration). Remedial action will be completed SOLSA EM 10-2 9117104 1 for each phasing area prior to building homes (in the case of those areas of proposed residential 2 development) or introduction of tidal influence (in the case of those areas of proposed full tidal 3 or muted tidal influence). 4 5 PDF-2 A Grading Mitigation Plan will be developed by the applicant for each area prior to initiation 6 of grading activities. The Grading Mitigation Plan will include the locations of all active, 7 inactive, and abandoned oil wells and pipelines within the area, along with measures to be taken 8 to protect these facilities from disturbance during grading and site development activities. 9 Active oil facilities will be protected by fences and/or appropriate berms during grading and site 10 development activities;inactive or abandoned pipelines will be removed prior to grading and site 11 development activities; and abandoned oil wells will be re-abandoned at greater depths if they 12 are likely to be encountered or disturbed during grading or site development activities. The 13 Grading Mitigation Plan will include the location of any known soil contamination within the 14 area. If contaminated soil will be disturbed during the grading or site development activities, 15 the Grading Mitigation Plan will include a plan for remediation of the contaminated soil. The 16 Grading Mitigation Plan will also.provide details of the steps to be taken if unexpected 17 conditions are encountered during grading or site development, such as additional pipelines, 18 abandoned wells, or soil contamination. 19 20 PDF-3 The WRP includes a plan for the installation of berms and dikes around the tidally-influenced 21 areas to protect them from possible oil spills resulting from ongoing oil production activities. 22 23 PDF-4 Homes will be set back at least 100 feet from operating oil wells and 10 feet from abandoned 24 wells. 25 26 27 10.3.2 Standard Conditions 28 29 SC-1 All oil wells will be abandoned in accordance with state and local regulations. 30 31 32 10.4 SURFACE AND GROUR'DWATER HYDROLOGY 33 34 10.4.1 Project DesiLyn Features 35 36 PDF-1 All grading activities in the lowlands (below elevation 5.0 MSL) for both residential 3.7 development and for wetland restoration will take place after completion of the Mainstem Santa 38 Ana River Project phases 1 through 6. These improvements are designed to remove the project 39 area from the Santa Ana River floodplain. These improvements are currently scheduled to be 40 completed in 1998. 41 42 PDF-2 All storm water pump stations will be constructed to include redundancy in power sources (i.e., 43 they will have an alternative power source such as natural gas, direct fuel, etc.) and pump 44 capacity. 45 46 PDF-3 The Proposed Project includes a monitoring and maintenance program for the removal of 47 sediments carried by the EGGW Channel into the full tidal area. 48 BOLSA EM 8»» 10-3 PDF-4 The Proposed Project includes a monitoring program which includes berm top elevation surveys. Z If greater than anticipated settlement occurs, fill will be placed to return the berm to its planned 3 elevation. 4 5 PDF S With implementation of Lowland Option B, the Proposed Project includes construction of a 6 subsurface cutoff wall and periodic monitoring of wells in the area will be provided under both 7 Options A and B of the Lowland Component to determine impacts to near surface ground water, ' 8 if any. 9 10 PDF-6 The Proposed Project includes a wetland restoration program which includes the relocation and 11 improvement of the tide gates at the mouth of the EGGW flood Control Channel to prevent r 12 upstream propagation of the lowland tidal influence in accordance with OCFCD criteria and 13 standards. 14 �+ 15 16 10.4.2 Standard Conditions 17 , 18 SC-1 All grading and construction activities associated with project implementation will adhere to the 19 relevant conditions established by the Orange County Grading and Excavation Code. 20 21 22 10.5 WATER QUALITY 23 24 105.1 Proiect Design Features 25 26 PDF-1 A RAP will be developed for cleanup of contamination that is found to exist on the site. The 27 RAP may be developed in phases related to the proposed phases of the project. The RAP will 28 be based on the results of existing environmental testing at the site and future environmental 29 testing to be conducted as oil operations are phased out. The need for remediation of any 30 existing conditions will be determined based on a Health Risk Assessment (for the areas , 31 proposed for residential development)or an Ecological Risk Assessment(for the areas proposed 32 for wetlands restoration). Remedial action will be completed for each phasing area prior to 33 building homes (n the case of those areas of proposed residential development) or introduction 34 of tidal influence (in the case of those areas of proposed full tidal or muted tidal influence). 35 36 PDF 2 A Grading Mitigation Plan will be developed for each planning area prior to initiation of grading 37 activities. The Grading Mitigation Plan will include the locations of all active, inactive, and 38 abandoned oil wells and pipelines within the area, along with measures to be taken to protect 39 these facilities from disturbance during grading and site development activities. Active oil 40 facilities should be protected by fences and/or appropriate berms during grading and site 41 development activities; inactive or abandoned pipelines should be removed prior to grading and 42 site development activities; and abandoned oil wells should be re-abandoned at greater depths 43 if they are likely to be encountered or disturbed during grading or site development activities. 44 The Grading Mitigation Plan will include the location of any known soil contamination within 45 the area. If contaminated soil will be disturbed during the grading or site development activities, 46 the Grading Mitigation Plan will include a plan for remediation of the contaminated soil. The 47 Grading Mitigation Plan will also provide details of the steps to be taken if unexpected 48 conditions are encountered during grading or site development, such as additional pipelines, 49 abandoned wells, or soil contamination. 50 BOLSA ER 10-4 ....�. I PDF-3 The WRP includes a plan for the installation of berms and dikes around the tidally-influenced 2 areas to protect them from possible oil spills resulting from ongoing oil production activities. 3 4 PDF-4 The WRP includes a program of maintenance dredging near the mouth of the EGGW Channel 5 to remove sediment, resulting from urban runoff, that may contain unacceptable concentrations 6 of pollutants. 7 8 PDF-5 The WRP includes the use of turbidity barriers,silt curtains or an equivalent measure to contain 9 turbidity in localized areas during dredging activities. 10 11 I 12 10.5.2 Standard Conditions 13 14 SC-1 The Project Applicant shall obtain a State General Construction Activity Stormwater Permit from 15 RWQCB before grading begins. As part of this permit, the Applicant will prepare a Stormwater 16 Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), which establishes Best Management Practices (BMPs) for 1T proper storage, handling, use, and disposal of fuels and other toxic materials, as well as 18 establishing fuel and maintenance areas away from drainage ways. 19 20 SC-2 The Project applicant shall submit a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) to the County 21 of Orange for approval prior to issuance of building permits. The WQMP may include the use 22 of trash racks and grease and oil separators or equivalent measures to improve the quality of 23 urban runoff, and other BMPs to improve the quality of runoff from the residential development. 24 25 SC-3 The oil operator's Spill Prevention, Countermeasures, and Contingency Plan (SPCCP) must be 26 reviewed and revised whenever the operations undergo a significant change or as necessary to 27 prevent oil spills from occurring and impacting the newly-constructed wetlands areas prior to ' 28 each phase of grading activities. 29 30 SC-4 The Project applicant shall prepare a workplan for well installation and operation which includes 31 well construction details and pumping schedules. The workplan will be submitted to the 32 RWQCB and the OCWD for approval prior to installation of the well. In addition,a well 33 permit will be obtained from OCHCA. 34 35 SC-5 Prior to the recordation of a*final tract/parcel map or prior to the issuance of any grading 36 permits, whichever comes first, the following drainage studies shall be submitted to and 37 approved by the Manager, Development Services: 38 39 ► A drainage study of the subdivision, including diversions, off site areas that drain onto 40 and/or through the subdivision, and justification of any diversions; and 41 42 ► When applicable, a drainage study evidencing that proposed drainage patterns will not 43 overload existing storm drains; and 44 45 ► Detailed drainage studies indicating how the tract map grading, in conjunction with the 46 drainage conveyance systems, including applicable swales, channels, street flows, catch 1 47 basins, storm drains, and flood water retarding, will allow building pads to be safe from 48 inundation from rainfall runoff which may be expected from all storms to up and including 49 the theoretical 100-year flood. 50 eouA mt 91171% 10-5 i 1 Information contained on the requisite erosion control plan shall include but not be limited to: 2 3 ► The name and 24 hour telephone number of the person responsible for performing 4 emergency erosion control work. 5 6 ► The signature of the civil engineer or other qualified individual who pfepared the grading 7 plan and who is responsible for inspection and monitoring of the erosion control work. 8 9 ► All desilting and erosion protection facilities necessary to protect adjacent property from 10 sediment deposition. 11 12 ► The streets and drainage devices that will be completed and paved by October 15. 13 14 ► The placement of sandbags or gravelbags,slope planting or other measures to control erosion 15 from all slopes above and adjacent to roads open to the public. Use of gravelbags are 16 encouraged over sandbags. 17 18 ► The plan shall indicate how access will be provided to maintain desilting facilities during wet 19 weather. 20 21 22 10.6 COASTAL HYDRAULICS 23 24 10.6.1 Project Desien Features 25 26 PDF-1 Outer Bolsa Bay will be widened under the Warner Avenue Bridge and immediately to the east 27 to reduce flow velocities. •� 28 29 PDF-2 The Warner Avenue Bridge will be lengthened to reduce flow velocities. 30 31 PDF-3 The channel under Anaheim Bay Bridge will be reinforced with rip-rap. as needed to prevent 32 scouring. 33 34 PDF-4 Shore protection (i.e., rip-rap)will be installed along both banks at Outer Bolsa Bay to prevent 35 scouring from increased tidal flows. 36 37 PDF-5 A current training structure will be constructed in Huntington Harbour immediately west of 38 Warner Avenue Bridge to direct flows away from adjacent docks. 39 40 41 10.6.2 Standard Conditions 42 43 No SCs are required to address Coastal Hydraulics. 44 45 46 10-6 BO n7i" 7 TI BIOLOGY 1 10. A�ARIl�TEIAQUA C OLO r2 3 10.7.1 Project Design Features 4 5 PDF-1 A RAP will be developed for cleanup of contamination that is found to exist on the site. The 6 RAP may be developed in phases related to the proposed phases of the project. The RAP will 7 be based on the results of existing environmental testing at the site and future environmental 8 testing to be conducted as oil operations are phased out. The need for remediation of any 9 existing conditions will be determined based on a Health Risk Assessment (for the areas 10 proposed for residential development)or an Ecological Risk Assessment(for the areas proposed 11 for wetlands restoration). Remedial actions will be completed for each phasing area prior to 12 building homes (in the case of those areas of proposed residential development) or introduction 13 of tidal influence (in the case of those areas of proposed full tidal or muted tidal influence). 14 15 PDF-2 A Grading Mitigation Plan will be developed for each planning area prior to initiation of grading 16 activities. The Grading Mitigation Plan will include the locations of all active, inactive, and 17 abandoned oil wells and pipelines within the area, along with measures to be taken to protect 18 these facilities from disturbance during grading and site development activities. Active oil 19 facilities should be protected by fences and/or appropriate berms during grading and site 20 development activities; inactive or abandoned pipelines should be removed prior to grading and 21 site development activities; and abandoned oil wells should be re-abandoned at greater depths 22 if they are likely to be encountered or disturbed during grading or site development activities. 23 The Grading Mitigation Plan will include the location of any known soil contamination within M 24 the area. If contaminated soil will be disturbed during the grading of site development activities, 25 the Grading Mitigation Plan will include a plan for remediation of the contaminated*soil. The 26 grading Mitigation Plan will also provide details of the steps to be taken if unexpected conditions 27 are encountered during grading or site development, such as additional pipelines, abandoned 28 wells, or soil contaminations. 29 30 PDF-3 The WRP includes a plan for the installation of berms and dikes around the tidally influenced 31 areas to protect them from possible oil spills resulting from ongoing oil production activities. 32 33 PDF-4 The WRP includes a program:of maintenance dredging near the mouth of the EGGW Channel 34 to remove sediment, resulting from urban runoff, that may contain unacceptable concentrations 35 of pollutants. 36 37 PM-5 The WRP proposes to use turbidity barriers, silt curtains or an equivalent measure to contain 38 turbidity in localized areas during dredging activities. 39 40 PDF-b The WRP contains a Conservation Monitoring and Maintenance Plan consisting of three separate 41 plans; Construction Monitoring and Maintenance, Post Five Year Monitoring and Maintenance; 42 and a Long Term Monitoring Plan. The Conservation Monitoring and Maintenance Plans will 43 ensure protection of the habitats during construction, monitor each phase for 5 years post 44 construction and correct any deficiencies in the habitat, and finally, monitor the restored habitats 45 for the long term. 46 47 48 ' eosin M � 10-7 . I 1 10.7.2 Standard Conditions 2 3 SC-1 The project Applicant shall obtain a State General Construction Activity Stormwater Permit from 4 California RWQCB before grading begins. As part of this permit, the Applicant will prepare 5 a SWPPP which establishes BMPs for proper storage, handling, use, and disposal of fuels and 6 other toxic materials, as well as establishing fuel and maintenance areas away from drainage 7 ways. 8 9 SC-2 The Project applicant shall submit a WQMP to the County of Orange for approval prior to 10 issuance of building permits. The WQMP may include the use of trash racks and grease and 11 oil separators or equivalent measures to improve the quality of urban runoff, and other BMPs 12 to improve the quality of runoff from the residential development. 13 14 SC-3 The oil operator's SPCCP must be reviewed and revised whenever the operations undergo a 15 significant change or as necessary to prevent oil spills from occurring and impacting the newly- 16 constructed wetlands areas prior to each phase of grading activities. 17 18 19 10.8 TERRESTRIAL BIOLOGY 20 21 10.8.1 Project Design Features 22 23 PDF-1 Construction Monitoring & Maintenance (M&M), as described in the VW, requires a 24 botanist to monitor all grading activities,conduct pre-construction meetings with construction 25 contractors, provide onsite assistance to construction personnel, and stake out perimeters of 26 existing habitats. Fueling, maintenance, and spillage requirements and regular equipment 27 inspection are also required. Measures for construction noise are established. 28 29 PDF-2 Five-Year Post-Construction M&M, as described in the WRP, requires a botanist to conduct '30 a walk over survey of each habitat type each month for the first year, and annually for the 31 following 4 years at the end of the growing season. Any decline in vegetation or failure to 32 meet pre-established standards will be remediated after consultation with the proper resource 33 and regulatory agencies. Remediation includes, but is not limited to, replacing plants and 34 adjusting soil conditions. ' 35 36 PDF-3 Lorig Term M&M, as described in the WRP, provides for monitoring surveys using the same 37 methods outlined in the Five-Year Post-Construction M&M. The long-term M&M begins 38 when the 5-year post construction is complete and continues for 10 years or until the 39 managing agency has determined that the goals are achieved. 40 41 PDF-4 The WRP requires the existing OSPCCP, and an OSCP be amended to include each RPA 42 as it is completed. 43 44 PDF-5 The WRP requires 20 acres of native woodland habitat, which includes roosting poles and 45 nesting boxes, to be placed in the Regional Park on Huntington Beach Mesa to replace the 46 eucalyptus ESHA displaced on the Bolsa Chica Mesa. 47 48 PDF-b The WRP requires the revegetation of southern tarplant within the project area to replace the 49 population lost on the Bolsa Chica Mesa. 50 10-8 eouA OR I PDF-7 The WRP requires the Applicant, in conjunction with the County Animal Control and the 2 CDFG, to devise and implement a plan to control the presence of invasive and/or feral pets 3 into wildlife areas. Information on the detrimental effects of domestic cats on common and 4 sensitive species of birds shall be supplied to each original homeowner who purchases 5 property in the residential units. The plan is to be approved by OCEMA prior to issuance 6 of occupancy permits. 7 8 PDF-8 The WRP requires minimization of impacts to the spiny rush located on Rabbit Island. 9 10 PDF-9 The WRP requires a pickleweed salvage program. The retention of a minimum of 200 acres I of pickleweed onsite during all construction and restoration phases shall be achieved as 12 required by CDFG (1985) and the 1986 Certified LCP. 13 14 PDF-10 The WRP requires that,prior to the removal of two of the historic western snowy plover nesting 15 sites during wetland restoration, two new nesting sites be established. 16 17 PDF-11 The LCP provides that flood lamp shielding and sodium bulbs be used in developed areas to 18 reduce the amount-of stray lighting into the wildlife areas. 19 20 21 10.8.2 Standard Conditions 22 23 SC-1 Standard Conditions that also affect the Terrestrial Biology section can be found in Sections 24 4.4 (Surface and Groundwater Hydrology), 4.5 (Water Quality), and 4.7 (Marine/Aquatic 25 Biology). 26 27 28 10.9 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 29 30 10.9.1 Project Design Features 31 32 PDF-1 The proposed project will only partially impact the deficiencies identified within the study area. 33 The Area Traffic Improvement Program (ATIP) has been developed to provide the necessary 34 mechanism for the financing, monitoring and implementation of phased circulation 35 improvements. 36 37 The ATIP program includes two components. These components are a full construction 38 component and a fair share contribution component. 39 40 The Full Construction Component 41 42 The full construction component has been developed to provide roadway improvements on key 43 access corridors at the time development occurs and before significant project impacts are 44 realized. These routes have been selected because a significant percentage of the project traffic 45 is anticipated to use them, and they are also identified by the OCTA as key travel corridors in 46 this area. Since PCH is not targeted for improvement beyond its Master Plan of Arterial 47 Highways (MPAH) designation as a Primary (four lane) facility north of Warner Avenue, full 48 construction improvements along Bolsa Chica Street are included in the ATIP to encourage the 49 use of alternative routes to PCH. The ATIP full improvement component will provide for 50 enhanced overall mobility and coastal access from the 1-405 Freeway. ROUA MR SIM%»»• 10-9 • • 1 I The ATIP full construction improvements have been selected on the basis of level of deficiency, 2 proximity to the proposed project, importance to the overall regional transportation system, and 3 feasibility of improvement as determined through direct discussions with the local agency where 4 the proposed improvements are located. 5 �. 6 The full construction component is also designed to address key roadway corridors which are 7 particularly affected by project traffic. The corridors included in ATIP are Bolsa Cbica Street 8 and Warner Avenue for both project options. The Mesa Component and Lowland Option B 9 ATIP also includes Slater Avenue as one of the key corridors because of project impact 10 resulting from the proposed Option B. Each of these corridors directly serves the project traffic, 11 and most of the fully funded improvements are at locations within two or three miles of the 12 proposed project. In addition, both Warner Avenue and Bolsa Chica Street are Smart Street 13 corridors. This means that both of these roadways have been recognized as regionally 14 significant transportation corridors. IS 16 Regionally significant freeway interchanges are also an important component of ATIP for both 17 project options. The interchange of the San Diego Freeway (I4-05) at Warner Avenue is 18 targeted for the full construction component of the ATIP for both project options. Similarly, 19 the interchanges of the San Diego Freeway (I-405)and the Garden Grove Freeway (SR-22)with 20 Bolsa Chica Street are also included in the full construction component of the ATIP for both 21 project options. These improvements are also in furtherance of the California Coastal Act 22 policies for enhanced public access to coastzl areas. 23 24 Fair Share Contribution Component ' 25 26 The fair share contribution component of the ATIP for both project options includes all 27 remaining intersections and improvements to which the project contributes measurable traffic 28 per GMP standards, where the intersection is projected to experience deficient traffic operations 29 in the absence of further improvements. Although the fair share contributions will be made for 30 specific intersections and improvements, funds may be transferred to other locations identified 31• in the overall ATIP program, subject to the approval of the ATIP Advisory Committee. The 32 project's pro-rats share of the cost of these improvements will be funded on a phased basis in 33 accordance with the ATIP phasing plan. This funding may be secured by mechanisms such as 34 the Development Agreement,or an improvement agreement at the time of the approval of 35 tentative subdivision maps for residential development. 36 . 37 ATIP Improvements 38 39 The ATIP consists of improvements to be constructed and funded in phases extending through 40 Year 2020 and include improvements to existing off-site arterial links and intersections, as well 41 as improvements to existing freeway interchanges. The location of these improvements are 42 depicted on Figure 4.9-17 for the Mesa Component and Lowland Option A and Figure 4.9-18 43 for the Mesa Component and Lowland Option B. 44 45 ATIP Phasing Program 46 47 The ATIP phasing program is intended to alleviate the projected deficiencies for each of the 48 various future years analyzed. Table 4.9-8 and Table 4.9-9 summarize the grouping of ATIP 49 improvements into four (4) distinct phases for the Mesa Component and Lowland Option A and 50 the Mesa Component and Lowland Option B, respectively. The ATIP improvement phases have BOLSA EM 10-10 610A4 M b c well corridors 1 een priontued to address corridors Impacted by project traffic as el as needed to 2 serve the study area given the MPAH designation of PCH as a Primary (four lane)facility north 3 of Warner Avenue. 4 5 Year 2000 6 7 . The full construction improvements for Year 2000 focus primarily on the Warner Avenue and 8 Bolsa Chica Street corridors because these corridors will be directly impacted by the project 9 development. A fair share contribution is included for the improvement of PCH to its full 10 MPAH designation as a Primary (100 foot ROW) north of Warner Avenue, and a Major (120 11 foot ROW) south of Warner Avenue. Fair share contributions are also included at the following 12 intersections for the Mesa Component and Lowland Option B: 13 14 • Springdale Street (NS) at Westminster Avenue (EW) 15 a Beach Boulevard (NS) at Slater Avenue (EW) 16 17 Year 2005 18 19 In addition to the Year 2000 improvements, Year 2005 ATIP full construction improvements 20 will be provided at the intersection of Bolsa Chica Street at Edinger Avenue. Fair share 21 contributions would also be made for improvements to the following additional intersections: 22 23 • Gothard Avenue (NS) at McFadden Street (EW) 24 • Newland Street (NS) at Warner Avenue (EW) 25 26 The Year 2005 ATIP for the Mesa Component and Lowland Option B includes additional 27 improvements. In addition to the improvements already presented for the Mesa Component and ' 28 Lowland Option A, full construction improvements at the intersection of Golden West Street at 29 Slater Avenue are included. Fair share contributions would also be made for the following 30 additional intersections for the Mesa Component and Lowland Option B: 31 32 • Hoover Street(NS) at Bolsa Avenue (EW) 33 • Magnolia Street(NS) at Slater Avenue (EW) 34 35 Year 2010 36 37 The Year 2010 full construction improvements for the Mesa Component and Lowland Option 38 A include an additional westbound left turn lane at the intersection of Bolsa Chica Street at 39 Garden Grove Boulevard, an additional southbound through lane would be provided at the 40 intersection of Bolsa Chica Street at Westminster Avenue and the widening of the Warner 41 Avenue bridge over the I-405 Freeway, providing a free right turn for vehicles exiting the 42 freeway at the westbound Warner Avenue off-ramp. Widening of Warner Avenue to its ultimate 43 cross-section as a Major adjacent to the project is also included for Year 2010. The fair share 44 improvements for the Year 2010 for the Mesa Component and Lowland Option B include 45 additional intersection widening, as shown in Table 4.9-9. 46 47 Year 2020 48 49 Although the project is anticipated to be completed by Year 2010, additional improvements have 50 been identified for General Plan build-out(Year 2020)conditions. Because these improvements ao 1 10-11 1 are not directly related to project phasing, the timing of Year 2020 full construction and fair 2 share contribution components have been allocated to the Year 2010 project phase. 3 4 $ ATIP Financing Program 6 7 The ATIP financing program provides for the funding of roadway improvements is 8• commensurate with the approval and phasing of residential and commercial land uses within the 9 proposed project. The ATIP road improvements proposed for funding by this financing program ; 10 include intersection widening to accommodate additional traffic lanes, widening of arterial 11 highway links, installation of traffic signals and the installation of directly related traffic noise 12 protection as needed at the improvement locations previously shown on Figures 4.9-17 and 13 4.9-18. 14 15 Since the study area and the project ATIP includes a large portion of incorporated cities, it is 16 not possible for the County to require the cities to participate in these areas. Cities will be 17 strongly encouraged to participate in the implementation of the project ATIP improvements to 18 insure a successful financing program and to maximize opportunities for transportation funding. 19 Because the improvements are located in a number of jurisdictions, an ATIP Advisory 20 Committee should be established to manage the overall improvement program. In recognition 21 of the fact that participation is voluntary, however, substitute improvements providing 22 comparable traffic capacity may be provided subject to the approval of the ATIP Advisory 23 Committee. 24 25 In order to ensure ATIP funding before a final map is recorded for any phase of residential 26 development, a funding program satisfactory to the Director of EMA shall be established for the 27 project ATIP improvements for that phase at the time of tentative subdivision map approval. 28 Funding for ATIP improvements at each phase shall be developed in context and shall be 29 consistent with the overall ATIP funding strategy. The funding program shall identify funding 30 from a combination of sources such as Measure "M" funds, assessment district or similar 31 financing, contributions from developing property within the area of benefit of the proposed 32 improvements, and gasoline tax revenues (AHFP funds), in addition to the proposed project's 33 fair share impact fees to be imposed at the time of the issuance of building permits for the 34 proposed project. Prior to recordation of any map for said development, the applicant shall 35 obtain EM4 approval of the ATIP program. 36 j 37 To the extent that full funding is to be provided by the landowner, security for the required 38 funding or a funding vehicle such as,but not limited to, an assessment district shall be provided 39 prior to issuance of the first building permit for a residential unit within the affected phase. In 40 order to implement the funding program, a development agreement may be entered into under 41 which a phasing and funding program is agreed upon by the County and the affected landowner. 42 43 The first step in the implementation of ATIP shall be a determination of the administrative roles 44 and responsibilities of the County and the project developer. The second step is to determine 45 the overall cost of improvements which are to be funded on a fair share basis. The project share 46 of the overall cost can then be determined by multiplying the project fair share percentage by 47 the overall cost. The third step is to determine a more precise project phasing plan that is 48 consistent with the overall milestones shown in Tables 4.9-8 or 4.9-9, depending upon the 49 approved development option. 50 Bow EIR 10-12 8117M M I Full construction improvements will be undertaken by the project developer where feasible, or 2 if not feasible, by the County or other appropriate public agency, such as an agency 3 administering an assessment district as determined by the ATIP Advisory Committee. The 4 release of dwelling units within a phase for which full construction improvements are required 5 will be based upon the provision of said improvements or a funding vehicle, if determined by 6 the Director of EMA, such as an assessment district, to assure the completion of the full 7 construction improvements commensurate with that phase of development. 8 9 Residential and commercial retail development within the proposed project will be subject to the 10 ATTP financing program. Development projects exempt from the ATIP funding and phasing 11 schedule include.recreational, institutional, church and other uses which are non-residential or 12 non---ommercW retail development. These other uses will not be subject to the milestone 13 phasing schedule and are considered to be in support of the overall residential development of 14 the project. The ATIP Advisory Committee will review and approve or disapprove any other 15 requests for exemptions based upon a determination of consistency with the ATIP. 16 17 18 ATIP Advisory Committee 19 20 An Advisory Committee will be established to monitor the implementation of the ATIP. The 21 County of Orange will be the lead agency for the Advisory Committee. The committee 22 members will include representatives of the Cities of Huntington Beach, Fountain Valley and 23 Westminster along with representatives from the Orange County 'Transportation Authority 24 (OCTA), Caltrans and the proposed project. 25 26 The project developer will administer ATIP and shall periodically report on the status and 27 implementation of the ATIP to the ATIP Advisory Committee. 28 29 'The Advisory Committee will work to resolve jurisdictional issues which may occur in the 30 implementation of ATIP projects. The Advisory Committee shall also serve as a forum for 31 seeking additional funding sources for ATIP projects. 32 33 An additional function of the Advisory Committee will be to seek funding for the unfunded 34 portion of ATIP roadway improvement projects. Each member of the Advisory Committee 35 shall, through the various city and county transportation funding programs, seek to obtain 36 additional funding sources to help supplement the overall program to implement ATIP projects. 37. The Advisory Committee will periodically review the ATIP fee schedule and recommend 38 adjustments to the ATIP fees to the extent outside funding sources have been found for ATIP 39 improvements. Roles and responsibilities of the ATIP Advisory Committee will be defined and 40 established by the applicant and approved by the Director of EMA prior to recordation of any 41 map for this development. 42 43 PDF-2 The proposed project also includes a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program in 44 compliance with the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Regulation XV 45 and in accordance with the Orange County and the City of Huntington Beach Trip Reduction 46 and Travel Demand Management (TDM) Ordinances in order to increase average vehicle 47 occupancy and decrease peak hour trip generation and congestion. 48 49 A comment on the 1993 Draft noted a need to address 7SMJ7DM measures. This Project SO Design Feature addresses this need. eouA EM 8/171% 1 0-1 3 I Since the proposed project is primarily a residential development, it does not lend itself well to 2 many of the traditional work-related trip reduction strategies. The proposed project, therefore, 3 will explore alternative trip reduction strategies/design features such as; bicycle and pedestrian 4 improvements, rideshare support facilities, education and information, and telecommunications , 5 including but not limited to the following, using the SCAQMD Draft Handbook for Preparing 6 a Local Dip Ordinance as the evaluation criteria. Each trip reduction strategy will be measured 7 according to its potential effectiveness. The action/strategy will then be categorized as having; 8 either (1)standard efficiency; (2) moderate efficiency; or(3) high efficiency. A corresponding 9 estimated trip reduction rate is then used to factor the reduction of trips. In the traffic forecasts 10 and analyses for the proposed project, no credit or traffic reduction was assumed for any of the 11 trip reduction strategies. A description of each strategy is provided below. 12 13 Bicycle and Pedestrian Trails: New development shall contribute to a bicycle routs system 14 consistent with SCAG's Regional Mobility Element. With a total of more than 22 miles of 15 new trails (see Figure 4.9-19), the proposed project is likely to operate with high efficiency 16 in the reduction of non-work related trips, while operating with standard efficiency in the 17 reduction of work related trips. 18 19 Rideshare Suppon Facilities: On-site parking spaces above-and-beyond code requirements 20 shall be designated to be used as park-n-ride lots for area commuters within the specialty 21 commercial parking lot of the proposed project. This measure applies only to work-related 22 trips, and should operate at standard efficiency. Parking will also be provided through the 23 sharing of public parking for passive recreational use areas. This approach is effective 24 because of the different temporal peak parking demand characteristics of the work trip 25 compared to the recreational trip. 26 27 Education and Information: A centrally-located commuter information area that offers 28 information on available transportation alternatives, route schedules and maps, available 29 employee incentives, and rideshare promotional material shall be provided. While this 30 measure is more applicable to local employers with less than 100 employees, it can also be 31 applied to the proposed project. This shall consist of information centers in the community 32 clubhouse and commercial area. 33 34 Telecommunications: New housing projects on the Bolsa Mesa shall include a 35 telecommunications center or contribute to the development of a center. This center could 36 be located within the community clubhouse and include Automatic Teller Machines (ATM), 37 Modem/Fax stations, Teleservice facilities and other related communication facilities. This 38 measure applies to work related trips, and is estimated to operate at high efficiency. 39. Teleservice uses would include the use of private business, social service or government 40 information and/or transaction machines to deliver information,transactions of other services 41 at a selected site within a community recreation center that minimizes or eliminates the 42 necessity of clients to physically travel to the organization's regular business location to 43 receive the service. The information and/or transaction machine at a selected site would be 44 connected to the facilities of participating organizations at other sites. 45 46 Bicycle Parking: Bicycle commuting can be encouraged through the inclusion of amenities 47 that address unique aspects of the bicycle commuter. For example, the provision of safe and 48 secure bicycle racks with the specialty commercial and community park areas of the 49 proposed project. Landscaping at key entrance points should not present safety hazards 50 where bicycles and vehicles converge. eotsw EIR 10-14 611864 1 10.9.2 Standard Conditions 2 3 SC-1 Prior to the start of construction for each phase of development, the project developer shall 4 submit a Construction Traffic Control Plan, to be prepared by a registered traffic engineer and 5 submitted to the County of Orange for approval. Approval shall be required prior to issuance 6 of grading permits. All traffic control work for construction shall conform to the latest editions 7 of the State of California Department of Transportation Manual of Traffic Controls, Standard 8 Plans, Standard Specifications, and Special Provisions. 10 SC-2 Notes indicating the need to obtain County approval of a construction traffic routing 11 plan/construction access plan will be placed on the grading plan and included in the construction 12 bid package. If determined necessary by the Manager, Development Services, OCEMA, that 13 a construction/grading haul road must be established, the project developer shall indicate this 14 on all grading plans. Further, the construction bid package shall also include the need for a 15 construction/grading haul road. 16 17 SC-3 Without the upsizing of PCH beyond its MPAH designation, it will be necessary to develop a 18 Deficiency Plan per the requirements of the Congestion Management Program (CMP). The 19 CMP recognizes that not all projected roadway system deficiencies are avoidable through local 20 actions and decisions. When a deficiency is identified, however, a jurisdiction must undertake 21 specific actions if it is to comply with the CMP. In the case of state highways, the California 22 Department of Transportation (Caltrans) has primary responsibility for preparing deficiency 23 plans. The plan must identify the need for isolated location or an areawide deficiency plan, with 24 areawide deficiency plans being the preferred approach. The applicant shall pay its pro-rats fair 25 share of preparing the deficiency plan. 26 ' 27 28 10.10 AIR QUALITY 29 30 10.10.1 Proiect Desien Features 31 32 PDF-1 All required actions necessary to comply with SCAQMD Rule 402, which requires that there 33 be no dust impacts off-site sufficient to cause a nuisance, and SCAQMD Rule 403, which 34 restricts visible emissions from construction, shall be implemented as a part of the Proposed 35 Project. Prior to the approval of a grading permit, the applicant shall demonstrate to the 36 Manager, EMA Development Services, that such compliance will be achieved and that all such 37 actions shall be listed on each grading plan under the General Notes Section. 38 39 PDF-2 The following supplemental measures are incorporated into the Proposed Project in order to 40 reduce fugitive dust emissions to the extent feasible during construction operations. The County 41 shall verify that these measures have been implemented in conjunction with normal site 42 inspections. ' 43 44 ► spread soil binders on the site, unpaved roads, and in parking areas; 45 46 ► water the site and equipment in the morning and evening; 47 48 ► reestablish ground cover on the construction site through seeding and watering, except in 49 wetlands restoration areas; 50 ' eou►mM 6»» 10-15 1 ► pave on-site haul roads; 2 3 ► phase grading to prevent the susceptibility of large areas to erosion over extended periods 4 of time; 5 1 1 6 ► schedule activities to minimize the amounts of exposed excavated soil during and after the 7 end of work periods; 8 '• I 9 ► dispose of surplus excavated material in accordance with local ordinances and use sound 10 engineering practices; 11 , 12 ► restore-landscaping and irrigation that are removed during construction in coordination with 13 local public agencies; 14 15 ► sweep streets on a daily basis ifsilt is carried over to adjacent public thoroughfares or occurs 16 as a result of hauling; 17 18 ► suspend grading operations during high winds in accordance with Rule 403 requirements; 19 20 ► wash off trucks leaving site; 21 22 ► maintain a minimum 12-inch freeboard ratio on haul trucks; and 23 24 ► cover payloads on haul trucks using s or other suitable means. P Y �P 25 26 Implementation of these measures is expected to reduce the impact in excess of 50 percent. :,- 27 28 PDF-3 The Proposed Project shall include pedestrian pathways, bus stops and bikeways in order to 29 encourage alternate forms of transportation. The Proposed Project shall also incorporate 30 measures to improve traffic flow, specifically the ATIP and lane and intersection improvements. 31 32 ► Measures to reduce traffic congestion and its associated air emissions consistent with the 33 design of the AQMP will be incorporated into the project. These measures include methods 34 of improving traffic flow (i.e., ATIP and lane and intersection improvements) and methods 35 of stimulating alternative forms of transportation(i.e., bicycle routes and bus turnout lanes). 36 37 38 10.10.2 Standard Conditions 39 40 No SCs are required to address Air Quality. 41 42 43 10.11 NOISE 44 _ 45 10.11.1 Project Design Features 46 47 PDF-1 All construction vehicles or equipment,fixed or mobile,operated within 1,000 feet of a dwelling , 48 unit shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers. 49 _. 10-16 eeu�M I PDF-2 Stockpiling and/or vehicle staging areas shall be located as far as practicable from dwelling ' 3 units. 4 PDF-3 All new residential lots and dwelling units shall be sound attenuated against present and 5 projected noise so as not to exceed an exterior standard of 60 dBA Ldn in outdoor living areas 6 and an interior standard of 45 dBA Ldn in all habitable rooms. Evidence prepared by a County- 7 certified acoustical consultant, that these standards will be satisfied in a manner consistent with 8 applicable zoning regulations, shall be submitted to the County. An acoustical analysis will be 9 prepared and submitted, which will be followed by a report describing the acoustical design 10 features of the structures proposed by the applicant. ' 11 12 PDF-4 An acoustical study shall be prepared once site plans are finalized to ensure that any commercial 13 activity noise is not intrusive because of the time of day, noise character or overall exterior level 14 into the adjacent or nearby residential community. An acoustical analysis will be prepared and 15 submitted prior to issuance of building permits, which will be followed by a report describing 16 the acoustical design features of the structures proposed by the applicant of the commercial uses. 17 18 10.11.2 Standard Conditions 19 20 SC-1 All operations shall comply with Orange County Codified Ordinance, Division 6 (Noise 21 Control). 22 23 SC-2 All construction shall comply with Title 24 Field Sound Transmission Class (FSTC) and Field 24 Impact Insulation Class (FHQ standards. 25 26 27 10.12. CULTURAL RESOURCES 28 29 10.12.1 Project Design Features 30 r 31 PDF-1 The research design for recovered material analysis for the Bolsa Chita Region currently in 32 preparation shall be completed. The research design shall contain a discussion of important 33 research topics for recovered.material analysis that can be addressed employing data from the 34 Bolsa Chita sites. The research design shall be reviewed by at least three qualified 35 archaeologists, as required by CCC guidelines. 36 37 PDF-2 A data recovery program shall be implemented and completed for important or unique 38 archaeological resources in areas proposed for urban development on Bolsa Chita Mesa and for 39 proposed urban development and wetlands restoration under Lowland Option B. The scope of 40 work for the data recovery excavations shall be determined by the project arcbaeologist and 41 reviewed and approved by the three qualified peer reviewer archaeologists established pursuant 42 to CCC permit conditions. The data recovery excavations shall be completed prior to issuance 43 of a grading permit and shall be monitored by a qualified Native American. The data recovery 44 program shall be considered complete when the peer review group concludes that the data 45 recovery excavations have been completed in accordance with its approved scope of work. Once 46 data recovery excavations have been completed, a report of the data recovery program shall be 47 prepared by the project archaeologist and reviewed by the peer review team, and submitted to 48 appropriate governmental and academic institutions. Data recovery investigations, testing, 49 analysis, and reports shall be completed at the Applicant's expense. 50 BOLD M Will" 10-17 I PDF-3 For ORA-83/144, prior to any grading activity at this site, a controlled grading program shall 2 be conducted by the project archaeologist in the field area to recover any cogged stones or other 3 important artifacts which may remain in this disturbed portion of the site. The controlled 4 grading program shall be monitored by a qualified Native American. , 5 6 PDF-4 In addition to compliance with the standard condition set forth below which requires that a 7 County-certified archaeologist be retained to establish procedures for archaeological resource 8 surveillance prior to grading and to monitor grading within 500 feet of all recorded 9 archaeological sites, the Project Applicant shall also retain a qualified Native American to 10 monitor all grading activities monitored by the County-certified archaeologist on Bolsa Chica 11 Mesa and for implementation of Lowland Option B. , 12 13 PDF-5 The historic components of ORA-78 as well as all other facilities, structures and features more 14 than 45 years old within the County LCP Area shall be evaluated for significance by a qualified 15 historical archaeologist and/or architectural historian. This evaluation shall be conducted at the 16 Applicant's expense and the Applicant shall implement the recommendations of the historical 17 archaeologist and/or architectural historian regarding significant historical cultural resources. ' 18 Significance criteria to be employed should be the eligibility criteria for the NRHP and 19 Appendix K to the CEQA Guidelines. 20 21 PDF-6 The Project Applicant for Lowland Option B will have the two potential archaeological sites in 22 the Lowland, ORA-1308 and -1309, and the Lowland component of ORA-86, tested by a 23 County-certified archaeologist to determine whether they represent unique or important cultural 24 deposits. If they are determined to be unique or important deposits, the County-certified ' 25 archaeologist will recommend appropriate measures to be implemented by the Project Applicant 26 which shall be implemented at the expense of the Project Applicant. If a data recovery program , 27 is required, it shall be completed prior to issuance of a grading permit for Lowland wetlands 28 restorations activities or Lowland urban development activities for these sites. The test program 29 and the data recovery program shall be monitored by a qualified Native American. Reports on 30 both the test program and the data recovery program, if one is required, will be prepared by a 31• County- rc fied archaeologist documenting the testing and excavations that were performed, the 32 cultural materials, if any, discovered, and analyzing the significance of the site. The report will 33 be submitted to the UCLA Archaeological Information Center where they will be kept on file 34 for reference by other archaeologists. 35 36 PDF-7 The Project Applicant for Lowland Option B shall have a systematic cultural resources survey , 37 of the Lowland carried out by a qualified, County-certified archaeologist to determine if there 38 are any unrecorded prehistoric or historic cultural resources present and, if so, to evaluate their 39 significance. The Lowland survey shall also include testing of areas determined by the County- 40 certified archaeologist to have a high likelihood of containing buried prehistoric or historic 41 deposits. If found to be significant, appropriate archaeological measures consisting of t2 preservation in open space or data recovery using a data recovery plan shall be implemented at , the expense of the Option B Lowland Project Applicant. All data recovery excavations shall be completed prior to issuance of a grading permit for Lowland wetlands restoration or urban ' development activities that may impact any sites discovered. ' PDF-8 A reburial agreement has been executed between the Project Applicant and the Juaneno Band of Mission Indians regarding the treatment and disposition of prehistoric Native American human remains discovered at ORA-83, and recommendations on the treatment and disposition of the human remains have been obtained from the other most likely descendants. If any eotsw M ' 10-18 cn;,w r • . • 1 additional remains are discovered on the Bolsa Chica Mesa this agreement shall be extended 2 to cover the treatment and disposition of those remains. ' 3 4 10.12.2 ,Standard Conditions 5 6 SC-1 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Project Applicant shall provide written evidence 7 to the Chief, EMA/Regulation/Grading Section, that a County-certified archaeologist has been 8 retained, shall be present the pre-grading conference, shall establish procedures for 9 archaeological resource surveillance, and shall establish, in cooperation with the project 10 developer, procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit the sampling, 11 identification, and evaluation of the artifacts as appropriate. If additional or unexpected 12 archaeological features are discovered, the archaeologist shall report such findings to the project 13 developer and to the Manager, Harbors, Beaches and Parks/Program Planning Division. If the 14 archaeological resources are found to be significant,the archaeological observer shall determine 15 appropriate actions, in cooperation with the project developer, for exploration and/or salvage. 16 Prior to the issuance of a precise grading permit, the archaeologist shall submit a follow-up 17 report to the Manager, Harbors, Beaches and Parks/Program Planning Division, which shall 18 include the period of inspection,an analysis of any artifacts found and the present repository of 19 the artifacts. Excavated finds shall be offered to the County of Orange, or designee, on a first 20 refusal basis. The Applicant may retain said finds if written assurance is provided that they will ' 21 be properly preserved in Orange County, unless said finds are of special significance, or a 22 museum in Orange County indicates a desire to study'and/or display them at the time, in which 23 case items shall be donated to the County, or designee. These actions, as well as final 24 mitigation and disposition of the resources, shall be subject to the approval of the Manager, 25 Harbors, Beaches and Parks/Program Planning Division. 26 ' 27 SC-2 If Native American remains are discovered within the Bolsa Chica lowlands area, the Project 28 Applicant for Lowland Options A or B shall comply with the procedures set forth in Section 29 5097.98 of the California Public Resources Code and shall consult with the most likely 30 descendants designated by the Native American Heritage Commission to obtain recommendations r31 on the treatment and disposition with appropriate dignity of the human remains and associated 32 grave goods. 33 ' 34 SC-3 A County-certified archaeologist shall be retained by the applicant to complete literature and 35 records searches for recorded'sites and previous surveys. In addition, a field survey shall be 36 conducted by a County-certified archaeologist unless the entire proposed project site has been 37 documented as previously surveyed in a manner which meets the approval of the Manager, 38 Harbors, Beaches and Parks/Program Planning Division. A report of the literature and records 39 search and the field survey shall be submitted to and approved by the Manager, Harbors, ' 40 Beaches and Parks/Program Planning Division. Mitigation measures may be required, 41 depending on the recommendations of this report. 42 ' 43 SC-4 A County-certified archaeologist shall be retained by the applicant to perform a subsurface test 44 level investigation and surface collection as appropriate. The test level report evaluating the site 45 shall include discussion of significance (depth, nature, condition and extent of the resources), ' 46 final mitigation recommendations and cost estimates. Excavated finds shall be offered to the 47 County of Orange, or designee, on a first refusal basis. Applicant may retain said finds if 48 written assurance is provided that they will be properly preserved in Orange County, unless said 49 finds are of special significance, or a museum in Orange County indicates a desire to study 50 and/or display them at the time, in which case items shall be donated to the County, or ' eots,,EUt �»�• l 0-l 9 • • 1 I designee. Final mitigation shall be carried out based upon the report recommendations and a ' 2 determination as to the site's disposition by the Manager, Harbors, Beaches and Parks/Program 3 Planning Division. Possible determinations include, but are not limited to, preservation, 4 salvage, partial salvage or no mitigation necessary. 5 6 SC-5 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant shall provide written evidence to the 7 Chief,EMA/Regulation/Grading Section,that a County-certified archaeologist has been retained 8 to conduct salvage excavation of the archaeological resources in the permit area. Excavated , 9 finds shall be offered to the County of Orange, or designee, on a first refusal basis. The 10 applicant may retain said finds if written assurance is provided that they will be properly 11 preserved in Orange County, unless said finds are of special significance, or a museum in 12 Orange county indicates a desire to study and/or display them at the time, in which case items 13 shall be donated to the County, or designee. A final report of the salvage operation shall be 14 submitted to and approved by the Manager, Harbors, Beaches and Parks/Program Planning 15 Division, prior to any grading in the archaeological site areas. 16 17 18 10.13 PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 19 20 10.13.1 Project Design Features 21 22 No PDFs are proposed to address Paleontological Resources. 23 24 25 10.13.2 Standard Conditions 26 27 SC-1 A County-certified paleontologist shall be retained by the applicant to complete literature and 28 records searches for recorded sites and previous surveys. In addition, a field survey shall be 29 conducted by a County-certified paleontologist unless the entire proposed project site has been 30 documented as previously surveyed in a manner which meets the approval of the Manager, 31 Harbors, Beaches and Parks/Program Planning Division. A report of the literature and records 32 searches and field survey shall be submitted to a approved by the Manager, Harbors, Beaches 33 and Parks/Program Planning Division. Future mitigation shall depend upon the 34 recommendations in the report. 35 36 SC-2 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant shall provide written evidence 1:. 37 to the Chief, EMA/Regulation/Grading Section, that a County-certified paleontologist has been 38 retained by the applicant to conduct pre-grading salvage and prepare a catalogue of the exposed , 39 resources. Excavated finds shall be offered to the County of Orange, or designee, on a first 40 refusal basis. The applicant may retain said finds if written assurance is provided that they will 41 be properly preserved in Orange County, unless said finds are of special significance, or a 42 museum in Orange County indicates a desire to study and/or display them at the time, in which , 43 case items shall be donated to the County, or designee. The paleontologist shall submit a 44 follow-up report for approval by the Manager, Harbors, Beaches and Parks/Program Planning 45 Division, for review and approval, which shall include methodology, an analysis of artifacts ' 46 found, a catalogue of artifacts, and their present repository. 47 48 SC-3 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant shall provide written evidence 49 to the Chief, EMA/Regulation/Grading Section, that a County-certified paleontologist has been 50 retained to observe grading activities and salvage and catalogue fossils as necessary. The eouA M 10-20 WOM I paleontologist shall be present at the pre-grading conference, shall establish procedures for 2 paleontological resource surveillance, and shall establish, in cooperation with the project 3 developer, procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit sampling, 4 identification, and evaluation of the fossils. If major paleontological resources are discovered, 5 which require long-term halting or redirecting of grading, the paleontologist shall report such 6 findings to the project developer and to the Manager, Harbors, Beaches and Parks/Program 7 Planning Division. The paleontologist shall determine appropriate actions, in cooperation with 8 the project developer, which ensure proper exploration and/or salvage. Excavated finds shall ' 9 be offered to the County of Orange, or its designee, on a first-refusal basis. The applicant may 10 retain said finds if written assurance is provided that they will be properly preserved in Orange 11 County, unless said finds are of special significance, or a museum in Orange County indicates 12 a desire to study and/or display them at the time, in which case items shall be donated to the . 13 county, or designee. These actions, as well as final mitigation and disposition of the resources, 14 shall be subject to the approval by the Manager, Harbors, Beaches and Parks/Program Planning 15 Division. Prior to the issuance of a precise grading permit, the paleontologist shall submit a 16 follow-up report for approval by the Manager, Harbors, Beaches and Parks/Program Planning 17 Division, which shall include the period of inspection, a catalogue and analysis of the fossils 18 found, and present repository of the fossils. Monthly grading observation reports shall be 19 submitted to the grading inspector on all projects which exceed 100,000 cubic yards, unless no : 20 earthwork has been done during the month. These reports shall include the period of inspection, ' 21 the list of fossils collected, and their present repository. 22 23 24 10.14 AEST>E=CS 25 26 10.14.1 Project Design Features 27 28 PDF-1 As part of the Development Agreement for the Proposed Project, the Applicant will implement 29 the Local Parks and Recreation Facilities described in this EIR in Section 3.3.8. 30 31 PDF-2 All graded slopes will be completely hydroseeded within 90 days following completion of 32 grading. 33 34 PDF-3 Views of construction activities will be shielded as feasible by measures that can include 35 placement of temporary fencing, landscaped berms, and/or landscaping. 36 37 38 10.14.1 Standard Conditions 39 40 No SCs are required to address Aesthetics. 41 42 43 10.15 SOCIOECONOMICS 44 45 No PDFs have been incorporated into the design of the proposed project and no SCs are required to 46 address socioeconomic conditions. 47 48 ' 49 1 eosin M 1 10.16 PUBLIC SERVICES AND U nLITIFS ' 2 3 10.16.1 Project Design Features 4 ,5 No PDFs have been incorporated into the design of the proposed project. 6 7 '8 10.16.2 Standard Conditions 9 10 SC-1 Water and energy conservation features will be incorporated into new residential development 11 as per Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations. These features are expected to reduce ' 12 project water demand by at least 10 percent. 13 14 SC-2 The Applicant willpay the applicable school development fees as mandated by State Law. 15 I 16 SC-3 A Fiscal Impact Report (FIR) will be prepared for the Bolsa Chica project which analyzes the j 17 fiscal impacts of the project on County funds(e.g., General Fund, Library District, Fire Fund, , 18 etc.). The FIR will be reviewed by County officials and specific conditions of approval will be 19 recommended to the Board of Supervisors to address potential funding deficiencies caused by 20 the project. If the FIR indicates that the cost of providing library services to the project exceed 21 the Library Fund revenues generated by the development, the Applicant will be required, as part 22 of the project approval,to enter into an agreement with the County to provide additional funding 23 for the expansion of library services. 24 25 26 10.17 RECREATION 27 28 10.17.1 Proiect Desizn Features 29 30 PDF-1 The Applicant will dedicate to the County of Orange 49 acres of land within the Bolsa Chica 31 Project Area required for completion of the 106-acre Bolsa Chica Regional Park as identified 32 in the County-approved 1992 GDP. 33 34 PDF-2 With the implementation of Option B of the Lowland Component, the Applicant will dedicate 35 to the County of Orange, or such entity approved by the Board of Supervisors,767 acres of land 36 with the Project Area required for the creation of a 1,006-acre Bolsa Chica Wetlands Area as 37 identified in the 1989 Bolsa Chica Planning Coalition Concept Plan. 38 39 PDF-3 With the implementation of Option A of the Lowland Component, the Applicant will dedicate r 40 approximately 2 acres of parkland beyond the dedication requirements of the County's Local 41 Park Code. 42 43 PDF-4 With the implementation of Option B of the Lowland Component, the Applicant will dedicate 44 approximately 11 acres of parkland beyond the dedication requirements of the County's Local ' 45 Park Code. 46 47 PDF-5 All recreational facilities described in this section will be implemented as part of the Proposed 48 Project. ' 49 50 BOISA EM 10-22 211,71" ' 1 10.17.2 Standand C nditio . 2 3 SC-1 If Option A of the Lowland Component is implemented, the Applicant shall dedicate to the 4 County of Orange a combination of 14.42 acres of land and local park improvements to satisfy 5 the County's Local Park Code requirements. 6 7 SC-2 If Option B of the Lowland Component is implemented, the Applicant shall dedicate to the 8 County of Orange a combination of 20.02 acres of land and local park improvements to satisfy 9 the County's Local Park Code requirements. 10 1 aouA mi 8»� 10-23 1 2 ' 3 CHAPTER 11 - Z AMMORY OF MITIGATION NCEASURES 4 5 6 11.1 LAND USE AND RELATED PLANNING 7 8 Mitigation Measure 4.1-1a: The Oil Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan (OSPCCP) and 9 Oil Spill Contingency Plan(OSCP)enacted between the oil field operators and appropriate state agencies 10 will remain in effect for the duration of the oil activities at Bolsa Chica. These plans will be amended 11 as required for each Residential Planning Area and will require the approval of the state contracting 12 agencies at that time. 13 14 Mitigation Measure 4.1-1b: All potential buyers of onsite residences shall be notified of the potential 15 hazardous conditions associated with onsite oil production activities. Such information shall be disclosed 16 in the Department of Real Estate reports prior to unit sales. 17 ' 18 19 11.2 GEOLOGY AND SEISMICITY 20 ' 21 Lowland Option A (only) 22 23 Mitigation Measure 4.2-1: The Project applicant shall comply with County grading regulations which 24 limit truck traffic for importing or exporting material to 15 trips per hour. r 25 26 27 Lowland Option B (only) 1 28 29 Mitigation Measure 4.2-2a: DDC for ground improvement shall be designed by a Registered Civil 30 Engineer and Geotechnical Consultant so that vibration levels do not damage adjacent structure or provide 31 unacceptable nuisance levels as determined and approved by the County. 32 - 33 Mitigation Measure 4.2-2b: Prior to implementation of the DDC for ground improvement, the 34 Applicant's geotechnical consultant shall also prepare and present to the County an evaluation of an 35 alternative method of compaction involving the use of a rolling surcharge and dewatering ofnear-surface 36 soils with well points. The information on both the DDC measures and the alternative rolling surcharge 37 measure shall be provided to the County, and the County shall approve the preferred technique prior to 38 issuance of grading permits for the Lowland. 39 1 4° 41 Lowland Options A and B 42 43 Mitigation Measure 4.23: Prior to issuance of a grading permit for construction of the 9-million-gallon 44 tank by the City of Huntington Beach, or other agency, a geologic investigation shall be performed to 45 determine the suitability of the site. r46 47 Mitigation Measure 4.2-4a: To prevent discharge of sewage should the force main from the new sewage 48 lift station be sheared, the following design measures are recommended: (1) a backflow preventer could 49 be installed immediately east of the potential area of breakage, (2) the lift station (wet well) could be sou,►M smro. 11-1 I oversized to accommodate extra capacity until the broken main can be repaired, and (3) an automatic ' 2 breaker installed in the pump circuit to shut off the system in the even to severe seismic movement. 3 4 Mitigation Measure 4.2-4b: Utilities that are expected to cross the fault could include natural gas for , 5 residential use, water, telephone, electrical power, and storm drains. Whenever possible, utility lines 6 should be routed to prevent traversing the fault. If utility lines must traverse the fault, the following 7 safety measures shall be implemented: the natural gas line(s) should have automatic shutoff valves 8 installed which would actuate in the event of severe seismic movement; the water main(s) should have . 9 manual valves located on either side of the fault; telephone and cable services should bave junction boxes 10 on opposing sides of the fault which could provide for emergency reconnection during repairs of 11 underground lines. Sanitary sewer lines crossing the fault zone should be constructed of ductile iron pipe. ' 12 13 14 113 HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES 15 16 Mitigation Measure 4.3-1: Prior to grading in residential areas, all abandoned oil wells shall be 17 relocated and tested for release of gases. Wells shall be reabandoned as necessary in accordance with 18 current CDOG regulations. 19 20 Astibation Measure 4.3-2: Department of Real Estate disclosure shall be provided to future landowners 21 concerning the location of any abandoned wells or other appurtenances. 22 23 Mitigation Measure 43-3: The pressurized gas line shall be relocated so that it is a minimum of 20 feet 24 away from habitable structures. 25 26 Mitigation Measure 43-4: The pressurized gas line shall be relocated so that it does not cross the 27 Newport-Inglewood Fault zone in a residential planning area and automatic shutoff valves shall be 28 installed which activate in the event of severe seismic movement. 29 30 31 11.4 SURFACE AND GROUNDWATER HYDROLOGY 32 33 Mesa Component 34 35 Mitigation Measure 4.4-6: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit for the Regional Park, the Park 36 developer shall incorporate design measures, in a manner meeting the approval of the County, that 37 prevent additional runoff caused by new Park development from further erosion to the Huntington bluff 38 and impacting the seasonal ponds in the Lowland. 39 40 Lowland Option A 41 '42 Mitigation Measure 4.41: Prior to issuance of a grading permit for RPAs 1D, 4A, SA, and 5C, the 43 Applicant's geotechnical consultant shall develop.detailed studies to evaluate the potential occurrence of 44 natural near-surface groundwater and artificially induced groundwater to determine the potential of 45 shallow groundwater recharge to the adjacent area caused by the wetlands restoration. Studies shall ' 46 include, but shall not be limited to, subdrains, impermeable soil caps on finish grade, subsurface barriers 47 such as cutoff walls or interceptor drains, or French Drains with dewatering wells. The preferred 48 mitigation shall be approved by the County and implemented by the Applicant. ' 49 Boun M 11-2 SIM94 ' ation its ure 4.4-2: To prevent degradation of groundwater due to tidal inundation the I Ming eas p tg , 2 Applicant's geotechnical consultant shall provide a detailed study that evaluates the impact of saltwater 3 intrusion into the upper Pleistocene Alpha and Beta Aquifers, and provide recommendations to prevent 4 this if either a full tidal or muted tidal area is constructed in the Bolsa Pocket. The report shall include, 5 but not be limited to, impermeable soil caps and subsurface barriers. The report and design 6 recommendations shall be reviewed by the County and this mitigation shall be implemented through the 7 WRP. 8 9 Mitigation Measure 4.4-3: To prevent adverse hydrological impacts in the Edwards Thumb area, the 10 Applicant's geotechnical consultant, prior to wetlands restoration, shall evaluate transmissivity and other 11 hydrogeologic characteristics in the Edwards Thumb area and the Lowland near the existing residential 12 neighborhood in order to evaluate the impacts of irrigation and impounded water on groundwater levels 13 in the existing residential neighborhood. Such an investigation would, at a minimum, be expected to 14 require the installation of monitoring wells and the performance of pump test for data collection. This 15 detailed study shall include but not be limited to the following mitigation measures: subsurface cutoff 16 wall, subsurface drains, and French Drains. Through this process, it is important that a definitive 17 geotechnical design be approved by the County which would assure that no significant adverse impacts ' 18 would result from changes in groundwater level. The specific mitigation will be approved by the County 19 and implemented by the Applicant. 2a 21 Lowland Option B 22 23 Mitigation Measure 4.4-4: The Applicant's civil engineer shall provide a design and construction 24 schedule to reroute the Bolsa Chica pump station discharge water without disruption. The County shall 25 review and approve this design prior to issuance of grading permits for Planning Areas 10 and 11. 26 27 Mitigation Measure 4.4-5: Prior to issuance of a grading permit for RPAs ID, 4A, 5A, and 5C, the 28 Applicant's geotechnical consultant shall develop detailed studies to evaluate the potential occurrence of 29 natural near-surface groundwater and artificially induced groundwater to determine the potential of M 30 shallow groundwater recharge to the adjacent area caused by the wetlands restoration. Studies shall 31 include,but shall not be limited to, subdrains, impermeable soil caps on finish grade, subsurface barriers 32 such as cutoff walls or interceptor drains, or French Drains with dewatering wells. The preferred 33 mitigation shall be approved by the County and implemented by the Applicant. 34 35 Mitigation Measure 4.4-7: Same as Mitigation Measure 4.4-4. 36 ' 37 Mitigation Measure 4.4-8: 38 39 ► Santa Ana River Floodplain 1 40 41 If the Santa Ana River floodplain within the project limits is not removed by the joint Orange 42 County/Federal Government funded Santa Ana River Project (SARP).at the time of grading for 43 proposed buildings, structures, and residential developments within the existing Santa Ana River 44 floodplain, appropriate additional mitigation measures, including the filing of FEMA Elevation 45 Certificate shall be required for each building, residence, or structure within the existing Santa Ana 46 River floodplain, which demonstrates that the as-built lowest floor is at least 1 foot above the 100- 47 year flood elevation. This shall be accomplished prior to receiving Use and Occupancy 48 Certification, in a manner meeting the approval of the appropriate local jurisdiction. To the extent 49 required by CEQA, these mitigation measures will be developed through a supplemental and 50 focused environmental review under CEQA. BOLA M snow 11-3 ► Residual Floodplains - EGGW Channel and Others ' Additionally,as appropriate,mitigation against flooding of any proposed buildings,structures, and residential development from any known residual floodplain (i.e., other than the Santa Ana River) 5 shall be provided in a manner meeting the approval of the appropriate local jurisdiction before , 6 grading permits are issued for the proposed buildings, structures, and residences within the 7 delineated residual floodplain. Furthermore, if these residual floodplains are shown on FEMA's 8 Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIR),4) when the Santa Ana River floodplain map is revised as a 9 consequence of SARP, then a certified elevation certificate which demonstrates that the as built 10 lowest floor is at least 1 foot above the 100-year flood elevation of the FIRM in effect shall be 11 submitted or a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) from FEMA for revising the FIRM shall be , 12 obtained, then the LOMR shall be processed through FEMA in a manner meeting the approval of 13 the appropriate local jurisdiction prior to receiving Use and Occupancy Certifications for these I 14 buildings, structures, and residences. To the extent required by CEQA, these mitigation measures ' 15 will be developed through a supplemental and focused environmental review. 16 •17 Mitigation Measure 4.4-9: Before grading permits are issued for Lowland parcels which are adjacent ' 18 to or are impacted by the existing EGGW Channel, the Applicant shall design and construct the EGGW 19 Channel within the Project Area (upstream limit is the Graham Avenue Bridge) in accordance with 20 OCFCD criteria and standards. The EGGW Channel shall be capable of conveying the discharge 21 resulting from a 100-year, 50 percent confidence level storm over the EGGW Channel's fully developed 22 tributary watershed as stated in Orange County EMA's C05/C06 Project Report. 23 ,24 25 11.5 WATER QUALITY � 26 ' 27 No mitigation measures are necessary. 28 29 ,3 30 11.6 COASTAL EIYDRAULICS 31 s 32 AEfigation Measure 4.6-1: The applicant shall implement a monitoring program to assess the existing '. 33 baseline bathymetric condition throughout Huntington Harbour and to record any changes to that 34 condition as the result of project implementation. if the program reveals increased channel bed scouring 35 caused by the Proposed Project which worsens the existing scour at the footings of bulkheads in 36 Huntington Harbour, the applicant shall contribute funds on a pro rata basis for remedial action required , 37 to mitigate the incremental scouring. The monitoring program shall include the following items: 38 '39 Pre-Construction Monitoring 40 41 1. Establish baseline bathymetry, sediment properties, tidal elevations, and current ' 42 velocities throughout Huntington Harbor through two complete surveys. The 43 first survey shall occur a minimum of 3 to 4 years prior to tidal inundation of 44 RPA 1C of the WRP and the second survey shall occur 1 week prior to . 45 construction of tidal-inundated areas. The surveys shall include measurements ' 46 of bathymetry along all bulkhead footings and sediment sampling and testing for 47 areas with observed scour. Tidal gages and current meters shall record tidal 48 elevations and current velocities at a maximum of four representative locations ' 49 in the Harbour during the bathymetry survey. 50 1 11-4 eo�u,M sn;/?. 1 2. Annual monitoring of bathymetry immediately after high flow events such as 2 spring tides and/or storm flows (determination of survey dates to be at the 3 discretion of a registered engineer specializing in hydraulic processes) at scour 4 areas identified in the first complete survey. Annual surveys shall begin a 5 minimum of 3 to 4 years prior to tidal inundation of RPA 1B of the WRP and ' 6 continue until RPA I is complete. 7 8 3. One tide gage and one current meter shall continuously monitor tidal elevations 9 and current velocities at one location from a minimum of 3 to 4 years prior to 10 tidal inundation of RPA 1B of the WRP until construction of RPA 1B is 11 complete. 12 13 Post-Construction Monitoring 14 15 Post-construction monitoring shall apply to implementation of.Phases.l.and 3 which are 16 full and muted areas. Phasing areas 2, 4, 5, and 6 are either non-tidal or possess 17 relatively small tidal prisms and will not significantly affect scouring in Huntington 18 . Harbour. 19 20 1. One bathymetric and tidal survey shall be completed within one week following 21 construction and flooding of new tidal areas. The survey shall include 22 measurements of bathymetry,tidal elevations and current velocities in scour areas 23 identified from earlier complete surveys. 24 ' 25 2. Monthly bathymetric and tidal monitoring during the first quarter after 26 completion of tidal restoration areas RPAs 1B-ID, 3A and 3D. 27 28 3. Annual bathymetric and tidal monitoring for five years after completion of Phases 29 1 and 3. Each survey shall occur immediately after a spring tide, or a storm 30 with a recurrence interval of greater than or equal to 1 year. Monitoring may 31 be reduced to a biannual basis 1 year after completion of RPAs 1B-11), 3A, and 32 3D, if increased scouring is not recorded. 33 34 4. If the results of post-construction monitoring indicate exacerbation of the existing. 35 scouring condition in the Harbour, a complete survey of Huntington Harbour 36 shall be completed 5 years after construction of Phase 3 is complete. A 37 complete survey shall not be required if records indicate that increased scouring 38 has not occurred. 39 ' 40 5. One tide gage and one current meter shall continuously monitor tidal elevations 41 and current velocities at one location from the beginning of construction of the 42 WRP until 5 years after construction of Phase 3D is complete. 43 44 45 11.7 MARENVAQUATIC BIOLOGY 46 47 Mitigation Measure 4.7-1: The dredging of Outer Bolsa Bay shall be accomplished during the spring 48 and summer months only. 49 50 Bois.ER �m,4. 11-5 • 11.8 7M3UUESTRL&L BIOLOGY , Mesa Component Mitigation Measure 4.8-1: A program shall be implemented by the Applicant in consultation wits 6 CDFG and USFWS to determine the effectiveness of the coyote as a control agent for the red fox at Bolsa 7 Chica. If the coyote's effectiveness is found to be significant, a plan shall be developed and implementecM 8 which will encourage the continued presence of the coyote as a control agent for the red fox at Bols 9 Chica. The plan shall include specific measures designed to create and/or maintain adequate habitat for 10 the coyote in the undeveloped portions of the project site so that the coyote may maintain its ongoing rol 11 as a control agent for the red fox. OCEMA shall approve this program before restoration of th� 12 Lowland. 13 14 Mitigation Measure 4.8-2: If raptors begin to prey upon nesting sensitive target species or othet� 15 sensitive species, the Applicant shall consult with CDFG and USFWS and prepare a relocation program 16 for these raptors. 17 18 Lowland Option B 19 20 Mitigation Measure 4.8-3: A management plan shall be developed and incorporated into the LCP that 21 specifies how public visitation of the natural areas will be controlled or managed. The plan shall include, 22 at minimum: i K 23 24 ► methods for public education on sensitive habitats and plants, 1 25 26 ► identification of the group or agency which will enforce access restrictions and the 27 restrictions to be employed in the various habitats, and 28 29 W. restriction of people from internal trails during the nesting season (i.e., March 15 to 30 August 15) of Federal and State listed Endangered and Threatened bird species. 31 32 Mitigation Measure 4.&4: A management plan shall be developed that specifies how habitats shall be 33 maintained and managed over the long term. This plan shall be included in the WRP Long-Term M&M 34 Plan. The plan shall include,-at a minimum: } 35 36 ► Methods for ongoing weed eradication. It is unlikely that the landscaping practices of 37 private homeowners can be controlled,and therefore an ongoing program of monitoring and 38 weed eradication shall be essential for long-term preservation of native habitats. 39 ' 40 ► Methods for public education, including information regarding invasive exotics that . 41 homeowners could avoid planting in their yards. 42 43 ► An erosion control and storm runoff plan shall be prepared prior to construction (see 44 Section 4.5.3). If straw bales are used for erosion control, rice straw or equivalent weed-free 45 straw shall be used to prevent additional introduction of exotic species into native habitat. ' 46 47 48 11-b eotsA EM f/1910. ' 1 11.9 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 2 ' 3 No feasible mitigation measures are available in addition to the Project Design Features and Standard 4 Conditions. 5 6 7 11.10 AIR QUALITY 8 9 Mitigation Measure 4.10-1: Mitigation for both heavy equipment and vehicle travel is limited. 10 However, to the extent feasible by the Applicant's contractor, exhaust emissions from construction 11 equipment shall be controlled in a manner that is consistent with standard mitigation measures dictated 12 by the SCAQMD. The measures to be implemented.are as follows: 13 14 ► use low emission on-site mobile construction equipment; 15 16 ► maintain equipment in tune per manufacturer's specifications; 17 I8 ► use catalytic converters on gasoline-powered equipment; 19 20 ► retard diesel engine injection timing by 4 degrees; 21 22 ► use reformulated, low-emission diesel fuel; 23 24 ► substitute electric and gasoline-powered, and, where applicable, methanol- and propane- 25 powered equipment for diesel-powered equipment where feasible; i 26 27 ► where applicable, equipment will not be left idling for prolonged periods (i.e., more than 28 2 minutes); and . 29 30 ► curtail(cease or reduce)construction during periods of high ambient pollutant concentrations 31 (i.e., Stage 2 smog alerts). 32 33 The County shall verify use of the above measures during normal construction site inspections. 34 35 Mitigation Measure 4.10-2: In addition to P.DF-1 and PDF-2, water trucks will be on-site at all times 36 during grading operations and will regularly water the site to keep the soil moist and prevent fugitive 37 dust. These impacts are, therefore, reduced to a level of insignificance. 38 39 Mitigation Measure 4.10-3a and b: The Applicant shall specify the use of emulsified asphalt or 40 asphaltic cement, neither of which produce significant quantities of VOC emissions thereby reducing this 41 impact to a level that is less than significant. 42 43 Mitigation Measure 4.10-4a and b: The Applicant shall specify the use of high-volume, low-pressure 44 or manual application of paints and coatings on structures. Where applicable, pre-finished or pre-primed 45 and sanded wood molding and trim products and pre-primed wallboard shall be used. Additionally, 46 where applicable, the Applicant shall specify the use of non-polluting powder-coated metal products. ' 47 48 Mitigation Measure 4.10-5a and b: The Applicant shall assist the County in implementing 49 Transportation Demand Management measures related to the Proposed Project (ref: "A Reference Guide ' 50 to Transportation Demand Management")published by SCAG. Such measures shall include coordinating eotsA M ' e117/% 11-7 i transit service to the development through provision of bus stops, transit stops, shuttle stops, bus shelters 2 and turnouts, and bicycleltransit interface. 3 4 Mitigation Measure 4.10-6a and b: The Applicant shall provide mitigation for secondary source 5 emissions (i.e., emissions associated with stationary sources within the development) through the ' 6 measures listed below. During design review and prior to issuance of building permits, the County will 7 assure confirmation that the measures have been incorporated to the maximum extent feasible. As stated 8 previously,the project will comply with Title 24 energy-efficient design regulations and shall incorporate 9 to the maximum extent feasible, the following design measures: 10 11 P. include energy costs in the capital expenditure analyses; ' 12 . 13 ► incorporate appropriate passive solar design; 14 15 P. minimize electricity distribution losses; 16 17 ► limit installed lighting loads; 18 r 19 ► install lamps that give the highest light output per watt of electricity consumed; 20 21 ► control mechanical systems or equipment with time clocks or computer system; 22 23 P. recycle lighting system-or process-heat for space heating during cool weather, and exhaust 24 this heat via ceiling plenums during warm weather; 25 26 ► cascade ventilation air from high-priority(occupied spaces) areas to low-priority(corridors, 27 equipment, and mechanical spaces) areas before being exhausted; ' 28 29 ► facilitate the use of electric yard maintenance equipment through the placement of exterior 30 outlets both front and rear for all single-family dwellings; ' 31 32 ► provide shade trees to reduce building heating/cooling needs; and 33 34 ► reduce the production of particulate matter by installing fireplaces designed to burn natural 35 gas to the exclusion of wood where applicable. 36 37 38 11.11 NOISE 39 '40 Mitigation Measure 4.11-1: Prior to extending the segment of Bolsa Chica Street from its current 41 terminus at Warner Avenue to the Bolsa Chica Mesa, the Applicant shall conduct an acoustical analysis 42 to confirm noise impacts and determine the extent of specific noise reduction measures necessary to 43 achieve the 45• dBA interior noise level in residences adjacent to Bolsa Chica Street between Warner 44 Avenue and the Mesa Connector. 45 '46 Mitigation Measure 4.11-2: Prior to the issuance of building permits for residential development in the 47 Lowland under Option B, the Applicant shall conduct an acoustical analysis to confirm noise impacts and 49 determine the extent of specific noise reduction measures necessary to achieve the 45 dBA interior noise 49 level in residences adjacent to Graham Street, Springdale Street and Talbert Avenue. 50 eon ER , 11-8 9117194 � • i ' 1 11.12 CULTURAL RESOURCES 2 3 Mitigation Measure 4.12-1: The two potential archaeological sites in the Lowland, ORA-1309 and 4 -1309, and the Lowland component of ORA-86, shall be tested by a County-certified archaeologist to 5 determine whether they represent unique or important cultural deposits. If they are determined to be ' 6 unique or important deposits, the County-certified archaeologist will recommend appropriate mitigation 7 . measures to be implemented by the Lowland applicant which could include the implementation of a data 8 recovery program or the "capping" of the site which shall be implemented at the expense of the Lowland . 9 applicant. All data recovery excavations shall be completed prior to issuance of a grading permit for ' 10 Lowland wetlands restorations activities or Lowland urban development activities for these sites. 11 12 Mitigation Measure 4.12-2a: A systematic cultural resources survey of the Lowland shall be carried 13 out by a qualified, County-certified archaeologist to determine if cultural resources are present and, if 14 so, to evaluate their significance. If found to be significant, mitigation measures consisting of 15 preservation in open space or data recovery using a data recovery plan shall be implemented at the ' 16 expense of the Lowland applicant. All data recovery excavations shall be completed prior to issuance 17 of a grading permit for Lowland wetlands restoration activities that may impact any sites discovered. 18 19 Mitigation Measure 4.12-2b: Areas of the Lowland that have the potential to contain buried 20 archaeological sites shall be monitored by a County-certified archaeologist and should include areas within 21 the Lowland adjacent to the Bolsa Chica Mesa and Huntington Beach Mesa bluffs. ' 22 . 23 Mitigation Measure 4.12-3: A Native American monitor shall be present during all grading activity 24 monitored by a County-certified archaeologist. 25 . 26 Mitigation Measure 4.12-4a: Sites on the Huntington Beach Mesa that will be affected by construction 27 of the Bolsa Chica Regional Park shall be tested under a coordinated program that evaluates each site as 28 a whole using the regional research design to assess significance. The development of Bolsa Chico 29 Regional Park will be the County of Orange's responsibility. The impacts of Park development have 30 been considered in a separate EM which identified mitigation measures. These measures will be 31 implemented by the County. 32 33 Mitigation Measure 4.12-4b: For archaeological sites located in the area of.the Linear Regional Park, 34 the County shall consider in situ preservation or the "capping" of these sites to prevent disturbance by .35 placing a layer of soil over the site thai protects the site once the site boundaries have been determined 36 through a test excavation. Capping avoids the need to conduct data recovery excavations on a site 37 unnecessarily. If "capping" is determined by a County-certified archaeologist to be infeasible, other 38 mitigation measures shall be recommended to mitigate the impacts of park development on the site. 39 40 Mitigation Measure 4.12-5: The County shall evaluate all historic components of ORA-88 and -365, 41 as well as all other facilities, structures and features more than 45 years old with the County LCP Area. 42 A qualified historical archaeologist and/or architectural historian shall be engaged to conduct this 43 evaluation. This evaluation shall be conducted at the County's expense and the County shall implement 44 the recommendations of the historical archaeologist and/or architectural historian regarding significant 45 historical cultural resources. Significance criteria to be employed should be the eligibility criteria for the 46 NRHP and Appendix K to the CEQA Guidelines. ' 47 48 49 aouU mt a1»re. 11-9 � s 1 . r 1 11.13 PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 2 r 3 No mitigation measures are required. 4 5 ,6 11.14 AESTHETICS 7 8 Mitigation Measure 4.14-1a: Landscaping, including use of native vegetation, and setbacks from 9 Warner Avenue and Los Patos Avenue shall be used to break up long linear views of houses from offsite. r 10 11 Mitigation Measure 4.14-1b: Prior to issuance of any building permit, the Applicant shall demonstrate 12 that all exterior lighting has been designated and located so that all direct rays are confined to the 13 property in a manner meeting the approval of the Manager, Building Permits. 14 15 Mitigation Measure 4.14-1c: Prior to issuance of any grading permit or recordation of any applicable , 16 tract/parcel map, the Applicant shall submit, subject to the approval of the County Manager HBP 17 Program Planning Division, an urban edge treatment plan which includes but is not limited to: building 18 height and setback limits; landscape and fuel modification treatments; provisions for walls, fences or r 4 19 berms; slope gradients and ratios (i.e., 2:1 - 4:1) proposed; slope drainage structures, and architectural 1 20 or landscape design themes. 21 _t 22 23 11.15 SOCIOECONOMICS 24 25 No mitigation measures are required. 26 27 '28 11.16 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES 29 30 Mitigation Measure 4.16-1: The Applicant shall be required to enter into a secured agreement with the 31 County to provide Sheriff law enforcement services such as facilities, equipment, or other infrastructure 32 necessary for adequate law enforcement services to the Proposed Project. 33 34 Mitigation Measure 4.16-2: The Applicant shall be required to enter into a secured fire protection r 35 agreement with the County or its successor fire protection agency. The agreement shall include the 36 following. 37 38 ► Provision for dedication of an adequate site within the project area for construction of a fully 39 equipped and furnished fire station, subject to the approval of the OCFD or successor ' 40 agency; 41 42 ► Provision for funding of land acquisition,construction,equipping and furnishing the new fire 43 station and adequate fire access, water distribution, and other supporting infrastructure by 44 the Applicant; and 45 46 ► Provision for commencement of fire station operation in accordance with development , 47 phasing. 48 49 t BOLSA M t 11-10 amsa ' I Mitigation Measure 4.16-3: The Project Applicant will pay the statutory school fee, as applicable to 2 the project, or enter into an agreement with the affected school district to provide those measures deemed 3 necessary to address the impact of the project, which may include the construction of new schools, the 4 payment of additional fee for the use of temporary facilities. But in no event shall the applicant be 5 required to provide more than that required by CEQA and the then applicable statutory provisions relating 6 to school facilities. 7 8 9 11.17 RECREATION 10 . 11 No mitigation measures are required. 12 1 1 . 1 Bois►mt � Apnendis C � Bolsa Chica Coalition Plan 1 1 1 l 1 1 1 BOLSA CHICA COALITION PLAN ALTERNATIVE RESIDENTIAL DENSITIES 5/22/89 ( LINEAR PARK/ESH! UP TO 6.5 UNITS PER ACRE -FLOOD CONTROL CHANNEL UP TO 12.5 UNITS PER ACRE +� UP TO 18.0 UNITS PER ACRE MWD GAP A.CR GE SSIMMARY ACRES LAND USE TYPE 412.3 RESIDENTIAL 1104.9 WETLANDS/ESHA/OPEN SPACE • MESA � - _ ._�-- _ - _ �:=��:'-'`�'=�� _ ..••:'�...;:: 50.9 LINEAR PARK/ESHA ROADWAYS V:= �v -• fi.-: _ . :•: .= _ _ . 1U FLOOD QQNTROL CHANNEL ? _ =:r�- -_ :� . _ - _ - mac'• 1635.0 TOTAL �J�: `:,,�z�ite _- _y : _ __ WETLANDS/ES"OPEN SPACE �-.—sc_. �.ate* � •'•A _ �:i♦ .� • . •�•: •'_ '�..r-��.� .;-- -••: w -L... •^ `S tt y �= ...� :e _ . _ .a �� .y '.ram .. _.:i•.. _ _ �•._ ,;�. �; .-= . =, _ ►'; _ LINEAR PARKIES — ^- Vim- - __`-_ _ �.�j•=r�;`'� .. 1- • _r��. � ie?.. .'.�•=•i..•:' �e.: ' - J - PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY POTENTIAL NON-NAVIGABLE EXISTING RESTORED WETLANDS OCEAN CONNECTION BOLSA CNICA PLANNING COALITION ExEcunw MEMBERS AMIGOS de BOLSA CHICA C4LIFORNL4 STATE LANDS COMMISSION CI7Y OF HUNTINGTON BEACH COUNTY OF ORANGE SIGNAL LANDMARK SU PPORT PORT MEMBERS CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION CALIFORNIA COASTAL CONSERVANCY CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISHAND GAME C4LIFORNL4 DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION 1 CITIZENS AGAINST RE-ROUTING PCH CARP CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH FIELDSTONE COMPANY NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE ORANGE COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENTAGENCY SENATOR MA.RLAN BERGESON'S OFFICE SHELL WESTERN E&P, INC SUNSET BEACH LCP REVIEW BOARD U.S-ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS U.S-ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECY70NAGENCY U.S. FISH& WILDLIFE SERVICE BOLSA CHICA PLANNING COALITION The concept plan set forth in this document is intended to provide a viable alternative plan to the 1986 Certified Local Coastal Program/Land Use Plan for Bolsa Chica. The 1986 Plan includes a public marina, navigable ocean entrance,915 acres of wetlands and various residential and commercial development. Since the adoption of the 1986 Plan by the Orange County Board of Supervisors and California Coastal Commission, there has been growing public concern as to potential significant adverse impacts related to the proposed public marina and navigable ocean entrance. There exists also a growing desire to maximize restoration of degraded wetlands at Bolsa Chica. In response to these concerns, the Bolsa Chica Planning Coalition was formed in November 1988, to develop an alternative land use plan for the Bolsa Chica area. The Coalition is composed of five executive or core members, including: the County of Orange, the City of Huntington Beach, the California State Lands Commission, the Amigos de Bolsa Chica and Signal Landmark. The core members rely on input and support from numerous other public and private interests, wildlife agencies, environmental groups, land owners, neighboring homeowners, on-site oil operators and numerous federal, state and local public agencies. Following six months of intense meetings and discussion, the Coalition, on May 22, 1989, unanimously adopted the alternative land use concept plan presented in this document. The concept plan alternative excludes the proposed marina and navigable ocean entrance and provides for a minimum 1000 acres of restored wetlands at Bolsa Chica. The wetlands are balanced with less intense residential development in the lowlands. The concept plan is now proceeding through public hearing and permitting processes before local, state and federal agencies. BOLSA CHICA PLANNING COALITION CONCEPT PLAN • 1. PLAN COMPONENTS -Each Component is an integral part of the plan,and is not to be considered separately from the others. A. PLAN MAP-The Coalition Concept Plan is as shown on the map dated 5/22/89. B. ACREAGE DETERMINATION- The number of acres for each land use category is as follows: Wetlands/ESHAs/Open Space 1104.9 ac. Residential 4123 ac. Linear Park/ESHAs 50.9 ac. Designated Road R/W as shown on map 53.7 ac. Flood Control Channel 13.2 ac. TOTAL 1635.0 ac. C. RESIDENTIAL DENSITIES -Three (3) areas arc shown on the map for residential development. The exact number of units within each area will be determined through ordinary City and County Planning procedures. Traffic studies and other infrastructure requirements such as sewers will also determine the number of housing units allowed at Bolsa Chica. The residential density ranges reflect City and County acceptable standards for those areas and will show a range of up to 6.5 units per acre in the area behind the cross gap connector, up to 12.5 on the MWD property and up to 18 maximum reflecting a mix of densities on the Mesa. All final decisions on the type and densities in each geographic area will be determined by County and City through the usual public hearing process. Lowland development will require federal permitting. D. WETLANDS RESTORATION PLAN AND IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM A Wetlands Restoration Plan and Implementation Program for the entire Bolsa Chica area will be developed as part of the Local Coastal Program. It will provide for wetlands, ESHAs, and open space arees, and will indicate 1) the type and extent of various habitats, 2) phasing of wetlands restoration as petroleum production diminishes,3) funding sources,4)ownership and management of restored areas, and 5) regulatory requirements for plan implementation. The 1986 Certified Local Coastal Program/Land Use Plan(LCP/LUP Policies,or where not directly applicable,concepts,will apply to the Wetlands Restoration PIan.The Wetlands Restoration Plan will also determine whether additional non-navigable sources of ocean water are needed to accommodate the habitat to be restored, and if so,how to design and provide for them. * This concept plan Is a replacement plan prepared by the Bolsa Chica Planning Coalition as an alternative plan to the 1986 Certited Local Coastal Program/Land Use Plan. This plan will also delineate areas to be available for mitigation. Areas at Bolsa Chica may be made available for restoration as mitigation of other off-site development projects beyond those required for development at Bolsa Chica,subject to property owners' receipt of fair market value or other equitable compensation. I E. MESA DEVELOPMENT- Upon approval of the Wetlands Restoration Plan and Implementation Program by the County and-the Coastal Commission,mesa development will be allowed to proceed. For this provision to take effect,the Implementation Program must contain assurance of wetland restoration through financing mechanisms such as bonding, trusts,etc. F. TRANSPORTATION ISSUES -Transportation decisions regarding the necessity and feasibility of a cross-gap connector will be made by the Huntington Beach City Council and the Orange County Board of Supervisors after results of the Transportation Land Use Base Model Studies being jointly undertaken by the City and the County are available for public review. G. PERIYIIT APPROVALS AND UNEXPECTED DEVELOPMENTS -All Coalition members agree to support adoption of the plan as it progresses through the permit approval process which is scheduled to be completed on or before 5/21/90. Should there be changes required by permitting agencies, or should other unexpected developments occur, the Coalition members will meet to discuss what to do. Ultimately,Coalition members are not bound to support the plan if it fails to meet substantial permit requirements of local,State and Federal laws. II. PROCESSING OF PLAN A. ROLE OF COUNTY EMA PLANNING-All local,State, and Federal NEPA environmental assessments and impact analyses undertaken on the plan, the Local Coastal Program, or associated documents will be coodinated by County EMA Planning to bring all interests together. B. LOCAL AND STATE APPROVALS -All local,State, and Federal laws apply to the plan and to the approval process. A revised Local Coastal Program that embodies the Coalition Land Use Plan alternative will first be submitted to the County for approval, and then to the State Coastal Commission. C. FEDERAL APROVAL PROCESS -Similarly, provisions of the revised Local Coastal Program will need Federal approval,and a pre-application review under Section 404 will be undertaken concurrently with the LCP/LUP planning process. III.DEVELOPMEN T AGREEMENT A. LAND-USE AGREEMENT-All land use entitlements will be vested under a pre-annexation development agreement among affected landowners, the County of Orange, and the City of Huntington Beach: B. PROPERTY DEDICATIONS- dedication of property for public infrastructure, road rights-of-way, the Linear Regional Park, local parks and trail systems, and wetlands restoration areas will be as ' specified within a development agreement. 1 1 1 1 1 Appendix D 1 � Cross -Gap Connector Stu dX 1 J 1 1 1 1 1 CROSS GAP CONNECTOR REPORT September 17, 1993 Department of Community Development i • INTRODUCTION Purpose This report outlines the benefits and the constraints involved in constructing the extension of Bolsa Chica Street to Garfield Avenue, also known as the Bolsa Chica Street extension or the cross gap connector(Figure 1). The City Council may use this report in addition to ' the forthcoming reports generated by the County, to formulate a recommendation regarding the roadway. ' Background The cross gap connector has been shown on the County Master Plan of Arterial Highways and the City Circulation Element for many years. The 1989 Bolsa Chica Planning Coalition Plan included a conceptual route for the cross gap connector(Figure 2) subject to ' verification of its feasibility and necessity through traffic studies and the normal public hearing process. The traffic studies were completed in 1992 as part of the Draft EIS/EIR for the Koll Company's proposed project. The Draft EIS/EIR also analyzed other potential 1 environmental impacts and benefits of the roadway. The Huntington Beach Fire Department has recently completed a separate study that details the cost and service ramifications of the cross gap connector from a fire protection standpoint. ' Contents of Report This report cites information from existing sources, such as the Bolsa Chica Draft EIS/EIR and the comment letters received, related traffic reports prepared by the City's consultants, and the Fire Department study. In addition, various City Departments have had input as to the impacts of the cross gap connector on their current functioning and future needs. Subsequent to the transfer of Lead Agency status to the County of Orange in March 1993, the Koll Company revised their proposal for the cross gap connector. In their new plan, Bolsa Chica Street would extend to the vicinity of Springdale Street as a 56 foot wide, 2- lane undivided road, ending in a cul-de-sac(Figure 3). The extension would serve project- generated traffic only, and would not connect to Graham Street, Talbert Avenue, or Springdale Street. Instead, these roads would extend slightly into the project area, and also end in cul-de-sacs. An emergency access route would be provided from the end of the Bolsa Chica Street cul-de-sac to the existing end of Garfield Avenue. There have been no studies completed to determine the impacts of this type of scenario. The County will need to complete such studies as part of their forthcoming Revised Draft EIR. fo C LEGEND BOLSA CHICA PROJECT 80UNDARY �O STREETS y� =MOW STREETADDITIONS cy/c I 1 � cl041 ro GAP CRpSs / W N O W 0 Q Q' 3 4P / MCIfIC COAST HIwIWAY Figure 1 SASMACIYA"ARNELL.WC. �r rr �■I err rr �. r� rr rr rr r rr it r man m r m BOLSA CHICA COALITION PLAN ALTERNATIVE RESIDENTIAL DENSITIES 5/22/89 LINEAR PARK/ESHA UP TO 6.5 UNITS PER ACRE FLOOD CONTROL CHANNEL 1. UP TO 12.5 UNITS PER ACRE ' UP TO 18.0 UNITS PER ACRE MWD GAP •=�!` ACREAGE SUMMARY -' AQRE$ LAND USE TYPE 412.3 RESIDENTIAL _ f 1104.9 WETLANDS/ESHA/OPEN SPACE W MESA � .- •-. ;.;.-,�: - � �• -;: - '_, - 50.9 LINEAR PARK/ESHA O �;: +. .e::;.: _ - •,. �:-. .�;� _ '� "�' ; 53.7 ROADWAYS ,�� d �• :;�,� _:_ ; += ,.';-: :. ...:;... _. -:}; - _. : ;:�- _._ 112 FLOOD CONTROL CHANNEL �' � -• ,� • ~'= •'+ + ``- '�'�..z -~-- _ - `+ '' - 1635.0 TOTAL �J :_;= �{ =' `-; WETLANDS/ESHA/OPEN SPACE J •, .f., ,..L'•�! .. .' ..� _, � .�:• :. . —mot ', .. .:�•. = 'f. , •= -' V• LINEAR .�- •A.- �^ ^•�.. i--~' • .ter-• �_;�=,�,-. •1�.-- _ _ •. • _.. •ems ;. ! � .°�.• � ���,,..:- ` - PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY POTENTIAL NON-NAVIGABLE EXISTING RESTORED WETLANDS OCEAN CONNECTION Figure 2 r �r rr rr rr rr rr r rr ■r r r� � r r r r r r 56'Right-of-Way 100,Wetlands Buffer ,Class I Bike Trail V WlM OKA fIR(�I I{tIMDM y �munw KN� \ e .� 0 AM A � MODIFIED CROSS GAP CONNECTOR CONCEPTUAL PLAN- 0 1 IIACT TO f1EFINEMEM4 D O JE As Proposed by The Koll Company Figure 3 TRAFFIC IMPACTS AND BENEFITS 1 Background The proposed cross gap connector links Bolsa Chica Street on the north with Garfield Avenue on the south. Although the City and County circulation plans differ, they include a ' similar concept of the cross gap connector as an alternate cross-town route to PCH, and the connection of Springdale Street, Talbert Avenue and Graham Street to the connector. ' The City of Huntington Beach General Plan Circulation Element currently shows Bolsa Chica Street as a 6-lane major arterial. Bolsa Chica is shown to continue as a major arterial to Los Patos Drive and then southeasterly across the lowlands parallel to PCH. Before reaching the Huntington Mesa bluffs, the road would arc westward to intersect with PCH. Garfield Ave., Springdale St., Talbert Ave., and Graham St. would then be extended to connect with Bolsa Chica Street (Figure 4). ' The Coun 's Master Plan of Arterial Highways shows a northerly realignment of tY �� Y g PCH in the vicinity of the Bolsa Chica Mesa, and the extension of Bolsa Chica St. in a southwesterly arc to connect to PCH. Warner Ave. would also be realigned to make a perpendicular connection to the new PCH. Garfield Ave. would extend across the lowland ' as a secondary arterial to connect with Bolsa Chica St., similar to the proposed cross gap. Springdale St., Talbert Ave., and Graham St. would be extended to connect with the Garfield St. extension(Figure 5). ' The 1989 Bolsa Chica Planning Coalition Plan designated 53.7 acres of roadways within the Bolsa Chica study area. Transportation decisions regarding the necessity for and feasibility of the cross gap were to be made after review of modeling studies. The Coalition set forth a number of policies, as follows: ❖ It is understood that the Traffic Modeling Study will specifically review whether or not the cross gap connector is necessary and/or feasible. ' ❖ The study will also review whether existing Graham, Talbert or Springdale Streets need to be connected to the cross gap connector in order to meet local transportation needs. ' ❖ It is understood that the Traffic Modeling Study shall be completed so as to allow timely data input to the overall permit and approval process. ❖ In consideration of the potential impact to existing development and if the cross gap connector is necessary and feasible, the Coalition Plan Alternative shall specify that the ' road be no closer than 900 feet to existing homes. 5 • smi-t2ist ' Y1ENpMENTS . """"• •K CIRCULATION PLAN OF ARTERIAL ' STREETS AND HIGHWAYS ' ••- ws •'+• ADOPTED BY CITY COUFO- �.,. �. 4F« ua •w• w RESOLUTION NO 43fi8-DEC 12,1976 a', Trn LEGEND �•" w +. .R _ FREEWAY STREET CAPACITY •rTrfr q MAJOR 45DW PRIMARY MOOD SECONDARY 20= NOTE: Soto arts roirin E267r4 wart or Tp ' IW MECESSMIT ULTO&M.wart ar ro i 1 am=tw6 ocrATE An"T aftc No Iwon or TYT E7rTs \ f 1 / `-\ •t • i • /. ♦ r I ` •• �.r�r' s 71 we � 1 1` CITY OF Fq\ HUNTINGTON BEACH `- �-- ORANGE COUNTY CALIFORNIA Zn•-L R / CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Figure 4 CIRCULATION ELEMENT �ource: BDI, 1991 6 62221-12/91 ,. *, \�•, LEGEND \ ARTERIAL wi6MRATS / Ja• ;� f \\ \ ESS•ka•te fOKSnp■�S• t `\ •` ■l LrM r� =DIY'-S(= D Y+,1(q Yaacr�•+�— /� S(cl+NeARr .......... So* 04 , Cp■■u�it(R 04 04 r to 4 40 A% alp 00 • I ( \\� • aru M i '\ pit t �I�IWS M A.- •ram • •., ■�.•AAAAAw..• ORANGE COUNTY 1989 MASTER PLAN OF kip ARTERIAL HIGHWAYS Figure 5 Source: BDI, 1991 1 � � 1 ❖ The roadway right-of-way shall be limited to 90 feet as set forth in the 1986 adopted rLCP/LUP. ❖ The height or elevation of the roadway shall be minimized as necessary to balance flood ' control requirements with residential concerns for light, views, and air circulation for the existing neighborhood. ' •:• If it is determined that the cross gap connector is not necessary or feasible, the Coalition will meet to decide the relocation of that acreage. The Koll Company's original conceptual plan as analyzed in the Draft EIS/EIR called for Bolsa Chica Street to extend to Garfield Avenue as a 6 lane major arterial highway on the Bolsa Chica Mesa with a bike lane on both sides. In the lowlands, the roadway would transition to four lanes with a narrower median, a bike lane on the inland side, and an off road bike trail on the seaward side. The right-of-way width in this area would be 90 feet, r which is a modified secondary arterial (Figure 6). Springdale Street, Talbert Avenue, and Graham Street were proposed to be extended to connect with the cross gap. Levels of Service Level of Service(LOS)is a qualitative measure of traffic conditions that describes congestion and service characteristics of highways. Levels of service are usually defined as A through F. Beyond level of service E, capacity has been exceeded and arriving traffic will exceed the ability of a given street to accommodate it. A description of the meaning of the rsix Levels of Service follows: ❖ LOS A indicates no physical restriction on operating speeds. r - ❖ LOS B indicates stable flow with few restrictions on operating speed. ' ❖ LOS C indicates stable flow and more restrictions on speed and lane changing due to higher volumes of traffic. ••• LOS D indicates approaching unstable flow with little freedom to maneuver, • which may be tolerable for short periods. r •••• LOS E is the absolute capacity of the road. It is characterized by unstable flow, lower operating speeds than LOS D, and some momentary stoppages. LOS F indicates forced flow operation(more traffic demand than there is • capacity on the road)where the highway acts as a storage area and many stoppages occur. i i8 LEGEND •••• EXISTING ROADS MODERED PRIMARY ARTERIAL •.a�f 6 LANES DIVIDED ••s� i MAJOR ARTERIAL: �;• :• o00 6 LANES DIVIDED PRIM�•••• o000 4 LA DIVIDED AL: �� / ••• MODIFIED SECONDARY ARTERIAL: // : I w♦ I' ` •• �•� 4 LANES DIVIDED SECIw` • • •• • / • • \\ ••• 4 ONES ARTERIAL*UNDI VIDED M E i • • • LOCAL COLLECTOR ROAD: •••i sen ''' ""' 2 LANES UNDIVIDED(CONCEPTUAL) / • Pdm • � Avenu�� woo• •' / O••••' bT� ' O C���/ • O •/ O Pacific Coast Highway i / Tidal inlet4f Bolsa Chica Study Area Bound arL BOLSA CHICA Figure 6 CIRCULATION PLAN c.,Prifir,Plan ® I�iri:l Huntington Beach uses LOS C as the acceptable standard for links, and LOS D for intersections. A project specific traffic impact is considered to be significant if it will cause unacceptable LOS, or if it increases the traffic by more than 1%where LOS is already unacceptable. Existing Conditions The analysis of existing conditions was conducted using the County and City arterial ADT (Average Daily Trips) capacities and LOS assumptions. The focused study area extended from Edinger Ave. on the north, to Beach Blvd. on the east, to the Pacific Ocean on the southwest. Existing daily volumes were compared to the arterial roadway capacities to arrive at the existing LOS. On the basis of this analysis, the following links currently operate in excess of LOS C at peak hours(Figure 7): PCH north of Warner(F) PCH from Warner to Seapointe(E) , ' PCH from Seapointe to Golden West (E) PCH from Golden West to 17th(E) Golden West from Garfield to Ellis(F) ' Golden West from Ellis to Talbert (E) Golden West from Talbert to Slater(F) . ' Intersections were analyzed using Intersection Capacity Utilization(ICU) analysis, and all intersections in the study area are currently functioning at LOS D or better. It should be noted that the street improvements currently underway along Golden West Street will address the deficiencies noted for the links there. Future Impacts The analysis of future conditions was conducted using the HOCTAM (Huntington Beach/Orange County Traffic Analysis Model) computer model, which is a refinement of the County's OCTAM model. The model utilized the same focused study area as noted above, and also accounted for traffic interface with the surrounding region. The traffic model used traffic network assumptions similar to the Count 's MPAH,but with P Y the following exceptions: there was no northerly realignment of PCH, no extension of rTalbert Ave. to the east past its current terminus at Edwards St., and no connection of Edinger Ave. to PCH (Figure 8). The City and County agreed on this scenario for analysis because it appeared to be the most likely to be implemented. The analysis of future conditions also assumed buildout of the area's land use and traffic system per current General Plan designations in the year 2010. 10 6222I.5i92 a L �te.r.le�• f 6 4«hU M �e�e+ew • o� 4� Existing Conditions wm ► ADT exceeds LOS "C" Capacity Ps�y Figure 7 ' Source: BDI,1991 11 QN1 y Yl If^Y'7 NN 9 p y M Kw NYO g11rw.1 f01w�.D '•/ i0t N r rttl � � �j �rO � O / MM O.ua W 7 id WPM�wGw cli • V • N 60M)UM F • MYINO— a rn r-i A GA � c rr r � r r r r r ■� w r �r ■r r r r ■r r� r The following subsections address the impacts of four scenarios on the links and intersections in the study area: full buildout of the circulation system(i.e., with the cross ' gap connector), both with and without the project as proposed by the Koll Company, and no cross gap connector,both with and without the project. ' No Project, No Cross Gap Connector This is the projected scenario if no development is ever approved at Bolsa Chica, and if no cross gap connector is ever constructed. In other words, if the City is built out as currently planned, except for Bolsa Chica, the following links are projected to operate below LOS C ' (Figure 9): PCH north of Warner(F) PCH from Warner to Seapointe(F) ' PCH from Seapointe to Golden West(D) PCH from Golden West to 17th(D) Warner from Algonquin to Bolsa Chica(D) Slater from Springdale to Edwards(D) Springdale from Slater to Warner(D) ' Edwards from Ellis to Talbert (E) Edwards from Warner to Heil(D) 1 In addition, the following intersections are projected to operate below LOS D in the AM or PM peak: Springdale/Edinger(PM) Springdale/Warner(PM) Golden West/Edinger(PM) Golden West/Heil (PM) PCH/Warner(AM, PM) No Project,With Cross Gap Connector ' This scenario also assumes that no project is approved, but the City and/or County implements the MPAH and General Plan Circulation Element, and constructs the cross gap connector. Under this scenario, the cross gap is projected to carry traffic volumes of 5,500 to 10,600 trips per day. The following links would then be projected to operate below LOS C (Figure 10): ' 13 62221-12i91 1 B � r r Y i i � - C e fO..Gr• l Cb..1l+O. 4•R• 1 .....1 ' � w �f 1 �4 ,a .e." LEGEND CAM PEAK HOUR ICU EXCEEDS 0.90 0 PM PEAK HOUR ICU EXCEEDS 0.90 AM AND PM PEAK HOUR ICU'S EXCEED 0.90 ..,,,. ADT EXCEEDS LOS"C"CAPACITY Figure 9 ROADWAY SEGMENTS AND INTERSECTIONS PROJECTED TO OPERATE AT UNACCEPTABLE LEVELS NO PROJECT, NO BOLSA CHICA ROAD EXTENSION Source: BDL 1991 14 62221-12091 v 1 Qna i ,o ,o ' u••wae 3 i b.M LEGEND ® AM PEAK HOUR ICU EXCEEDS 0.90 0 PM PEAK HOUR ICU EXCEEDS 0.90 ` AM AND PM PEAK HOUR ICU'S EXCEED 0.90 ADT EXCEEDS LOS"C CAPACITY ' Figure 10 ROADWAY SEGMENTS AND INTERSECTIONS ' PROJECTED TO OPERATE AT UNACCEPTABLE LEVELS NO PROJECT, FULL MPAH Source: BDL 1991 15 • • PCH north of Warner(F) PCH from Warner to Seapointe (E) PCH from Golden West to 17th (D) Warner from'Algonquin to Bolsa Chica(D) ' Garfield from Golden West to Gothard(D) Edwards from Warner to Heil (D) ' In addition, the following intersections would operate below LOS D in the AM or PM peak: Springdale/Edinger(PM) Golden West/Edinger(PM) PCH/Warner(AM,PM) With Project,With Cross Gap Connector rThis scenario would include the cross gap connector, and 4,884 dwelling units in the Bolsa Chica area as originally proposed by Koll. This would add 2,900 to 5,400 additional trips per day to the cross gap as compared to No Project with the cross gap, for a maximum of 10,900 to 14,200 trips per day on various segments of the cross gap. The following links are projected to operate below level of service C (Figure 11): PCH north of Warner(F) PCH from Warner to Seapointe(E) ' PCH from Golden West to 17th (D) Edwards from Warner to Heil(D) Garfield from Golden West to Gothard (D) 1 Warner from Algonquin to Bolsa Chica(D) Slater from Springdale to Edwards(D) Graham from Warner to Heil (D) ' In addition the followingintersections are projected t operate below LOS D in the AM or p t o ' PM peak: Edinger/Springdale(PM) Edinger/Golden West (PM) Heil/Golden West (PM) Warner/PCH (AM, PM) Warner/Bolsa Chica (PM) 16 62221-12/91 ilk I . i I • ...... sue O Ilt•1 u••�ce i O� LEGEND '• ' .e..a ® AM PEAK HOUR ICU EXCEEDS 0.90 ' PM PEAK HOUR ICU EXCEEDS 0.90 AM AND PM PEAK HOUR ICU'S EXCEED 0.90 .+ e ' ® INTERSECTION WORSENS AS A RESULT OF THIS ALTERNATIVE ,r`~ ••..-•• ADT EXCEEDS LOS"C"CAPACITY stutter ROADWAY SEGMENT WORSENS AS A RESULT OF THIS ALTERNATIVE ' Figure 11 ROADWAY SEGMENTS AND INTERSECTIONS PROJECTED TO OPERATE AT UNACCEPTABLE LEVELS ALTERNATIVE 1: 4,884 DU FULL CROSS GAP CONNECTOR �ource: BD1,1991 17 r • � ' With Project, No Cross Gap This scenario would be somewhat similar to the proposal that the Koll Co. is now presenting to the County, because their modified "cross gap" would not directly ' interconnect with Garfield, Springdale, Graham, or Talbert. The Koll Company's modification may tend to direct more project-generated traffic toward the Bolsa Chica/Wamer intersection than the model predicted for this scenario, because the model showed Bolsa Chica Street ending at the mesa rather than continuing to the lowlands to serve lowland project traffic. The County needs to conduct further traffic studies to determine the impacts of the modified roadway. ' Under the With Project,No Cross Gap scenario analyzed for the Draft EIS/E the J P Y >� following links are projected to operate below LOS C (Figure 12): PCH north of Warner(F) PCH from Warner to Seapointe(F) PCH from Seapointe to Golden West(D) PCH from Golden West to 17th(D) ' Warner from Algonquin to Bolsa Chica(D) Warner from Bolsa Chica to Graham(D) Slater from Springdale to Edwards(E) ' Slater from Edwards to Golden West (D) Talbert from Springdale to Edwards(D) Springdale from Slater to Warner(E) Edwards from Ellis to Talbert (F) Edwards from Warner to Heil (D) ' In addition, the following intersections are projected to operate below LOS D during the AM or PM peak: ' Springdale/Warner(PM) Edwards/Ellis(PM) Golden West/Edinger(PM) Golden West/Heil (PM) PCH/Warner(AM, PM) PCH/Golden West(PM) Analysis r As can be seen from the above lists and figures, the presence or absence of the cross gap � , connector, either with or without the project, results in different impacts on different links ' and intersections. Overall, the cross gap increases the total number of links and r 18 r _ 62221-12 I r . tIc _ y _ [ V r l F rb..af. 1 �f. lfJ�IC+O. h•^� 1 ..IfIN a t fll�l 1 6h +� a. �a LEGEND ® AM PEAK HOUR ICU EXCEEDS 0.90 ' ® PM PEAK HOUR ICU EXCEEDS 0.90 ® AM AND PM PEAK HOUR ICU'S EXCEED 0.90 INTERSECTION WORSENS AS A RESULT OF THIS ALTERNATIVE �+ .•1..•. ADT EXCEEDS LOS"C"CAPACITY ROADWAY SEGMENT WORSENS AS A •l„n RESULT OF THIS ALTERNATIVE ' Figure 12 ' ROADWAY SEGMENTS AND INTERSECTIONS PROJECTED TO OPERATE AT UNACCEPTABLE LEVELS ALTERNATIVE 1: 4,884 DU NO BOLSA CIRCA ROAD EXTENSION Source: BDI,1991 I19 ' intersections operating at acceptable levels of service. Table 1 provides a matrix comparing different links and intersections under various conditions. In general, the cross gap connector improves traffic on PCH between Warner and Golden West, because it provides an alternative means of cross town travel. It also tends to ' improve traffic conditions immediately northeast of the project boundaries (in the Bolsa lowlands area), because it provides alternate access to many existing single family neighborhoods. The cross gap also tends to improve traffic at several intersections ' surrounding the Bolsa Chica area by providing alternative routes to the surrounding residential areas and redistributing traffic. ' These results are reflected in the Draft EIS/EIR, which concludes that while the cross gap connector does not specifically serve the Bolsa Chica development, it could result in improved traffic circulation in the surrounding area. It alleviates congestion along several ' area roadway segments, provides a shorter alternative route for local traffic that currently must use PCH, and completes cross town circulation in Huntington Beach. ' The Huntington Beach Department of Public Works believes that in all scenarios, the cross gap provides superior circulation over alternative road systems without it. They also note that the Draft EIS/EIR does not fairly represent the magnitude of the impacts of widening certain links in place of the cross gap. In addition, the benefits of the cross gap to air quality and fuel consumption are not adequately quantified. It should also be noted that the ' studies performed for the Draft EIS/EIR analysis assumed that PCH was a six-lane facility in future years. Should the City Council make a policy decision that certain links should remain as four lanes, the resulting LOS values for those segments could be dramatically worse than represented here. A new model would need to be run to determine the impacts of such a policy decision. ' Although the Holly-SeaciiffMaster Plan assumed that the cross gap connector would be constructed, the Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan density caps and the Development Agreement ensure that traffic impacts will be addressed without the cross gap, if necessary. The ' developers of Holly-Seacliff are paying double traffic impact fees to cover areawide system improvements, and are responsible for mitigation of all traffic impacts related to the ' project. If the cross gap connector is not built during the term of the agreement, the developer must pay additional fees to mitigate any City-wide transportation deficiencies related to the project that would have been mitigated by the cross gap connector. The City ' may require additional traffic mitigation measures if such requirements are a direct result of project impacts. 20 1 TABLE I EXISTING LOS FUTURE LOS No Project,No No Project,with With Project, With Project, Cross Gap Cross Gap No Cross Gap With Cross Gap. LINKS PCH,NO. OF WARNER F F F F F PCH,WARNER TO SEAPOINTE E F E F PCH,SEAPOINTE TO GOLDENWEST E D D PCH,GOLDENWEST TO 17TH E D D D D GOLDENWEST, GARFIELD TO ELLIS F • GOLDEN WEST,ELLIS TO TALBERT E GOLDEN WEST,TALBERT TO SLATER F WARNER,ALGONQUIN TO BOLSA CHICA D D D D SLATER,SPRINGDALE TO EDWARDS D D D SPRINGDALE,SLATER TO WARNER D E EDWARDS,ELLIS TO TALBERT E F ED-WARDS,WARNER TO HEIL D D D D GARFIELD, GOLDEN WEST TO GOTHARD D D GRAHAM, WARNER TO HEIL D WARNER,BOLSA CHICA TO GRAHAM D SLATER,EDWARDS TO GOLDEN WEST D TALBERT, SPRINGDALE TO EDWARDS D INTERSECTIONS • SPRINGDALE/EDINGER E(PM) E(PM) E (PM) SPRINGDALE/WARNER E(PM) F(PM) GOLDEN WEST/EDINGER F(PM) F(PM) F(PM) F(PM) GOLDEN WEST/HEIL E(PM) E (PM) E (PM) PCH/WARNER E(AM),F(PM) E(AM),F(PM) F(AM),F(PM) F(AM),F(PM) WARNER/BOLSA CHICA E(PM) EDWARDS/ELLIS E(PM) PCH/GOLDEN WEST E (PM) 21 Mitigation Measures ' The Draft EIS/EIR assumed that certain system improvements would be necessary to obtain acceptable levels of service in the future, even with no project. The Draft EIS/EIR also assumed that these "no project" improvements were the responsibility of the City and/or related to other developments, and would be in place prior to the implementation of required mitigation measures for Koll's project. The applicant would then be responsible for ' mitigating beyond those baseline improvements for the impacts resulting from the project. However, this may not be a valid assumption. The "no project" or baseline improvements may not, in fact, be in place at the time the applicant wishes to develop. The development would need to be carefully phased in order to avoid more severe impacts than are indicated in the Draft EIS/EIR. ' It should also be noted that the traffic system improvements required as mitigation measures in the Draft EIS/EIR, as well as some of the baseline improvements that would be needed to obtain acceptable service levels even without the project, are beyond those called ' for in the City Circulation Element of the General Plan, and the County MPAH. The feasibility of obtaining necessary right-of-way for additional lanes, the implications of condemnation of property, the desirability of greatly increasing the capacity of some streets and intersections, and the need for State approval and funding for PCH improvements were not adequately covered in the Draft EIS/EIR. Therefore, it is questionable whether traffic impacts can be mitigated to a level of insignificance. Summary ' In general, the cross gap connector improves traffic circulation on several area links and intersections, either with or without a project at Bolsa Chica. In most cases, the primary benefit is seen along PCH south of Warner Avenue, and in the residential areas to the north and northeast of the project area. The cross gap may also reduce vehicle miles traveled within the City, thereby contributing to air quality and fuel savings benefits. If the cross ' gap connector is not built, it may be possible to improve other area links and intersections to compensate. However, the desirability and feasibility of acquiring additional right-of-way and improving facilities beyond their proposed General Plan capacities, and the potential ' sources of funding for such areawide improvements, have not been analyzed. 22 1 _ ' FIRE SERVICE The City of Huntington Beach Fire Department uses the following criteria for acceptable ' service standards, as adopted by the City Council: ' ❖ First fire engine to arrive for fire/rescue and medical aid within 5 minutes-80%o of the time and in all cases within 10 minutes ❖ First ladder truck to arrive within 10 minutes-90% of the time and in all cases ' within 15 minutes. ❖ First paramedic unit to arrive within 5 minutes-80% of the time and in all cases within 10 minutes. ' Currently, the City cannot meet the fire engine response time standards in six areas of the City. These areas are generally located in the northwest portion of the City, the southeast ' portion of the City, the Warner/Newland area, north Huntington Harbour,the Bolsa lowland, and the Seacliff area. The City's paramedic units cannot meet the response time standard City-wide 49%of the time. However, the City has automatic aid agreements with ' several neighboring jurisdictions, which allows the closest fire unit to respond, regardless of community boundaries. Huntington Beach has such automatic aid agreements with Costa ' Mesa, Fountain Valley, Newport Beach, Westminster, and the County of Orange, which allows for the provision of acceptable response times in the northwest, southeast, and Warner/Newland areas. This reduces the City operating costs by at least 2 fire stations, ' thereby saving the City a total of approximately $1.7 million to $3 million per year. Response area deficiencies still remain, however, in Huntington Harbour, the Bolsa lowlands area, and the Seacliff area(Figure 13). In order to address these problems, the Fire Department recently commissioned a Fire Hazard/Fire Protection Study. The City's last Fire Protection Plan was adopted in 1974, and includes eight fire stations and the cross gap connector at buildout. There are currently seven fire stations within the City(Figure 14), which require a total of ' 48 people on duty 24 hours per day. They are as follows: Station 1-Gothard ' Station 2-Murdy Station 3-Bushard Station 4-Magnolia Station 5-Lake Station 7-Warner ' Station 8-Heil 23 Service Area Defic iencies Addressed by Others ' Re maining Service Area Deficiencies •K j 1 •' •� '• g I . : �... I • j P, rCITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ORANGE COUNTY CALIFORNIA 5. Figure 13 ' 24 Existinp- Fire Station Locations Station 1-Gothard Station 2-Murdy Station 3-Bushard Station 4-Magnolia Station 5-Lake '"a - - Station 7-Warner A " ' Station 8-HeilA-T. "1 I s \ I — \ f 1 A 5 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ``• "- �' ORANGE COUNTY CALIFORNIA / 7: Figure 14 ' 25 If the cross gap connector is built as envisioned by the 1974 Fire Protection Plan and the 1 current City of Huntington Beach Circulation Plan, the Fire Department can implement complete coverage with the originally anticipated eight fire stations. Station 6 would be added in the vicinity of Springdale Street and the cross gap connector, and Station 8 would be relocated from Heil Avenue to Graham Street (Figure 15). This arrangement would eliminate all existing service deficiencies, improve the second, third, and additional fire and medical units' response times, provide a vital link to major dead end streets, and provide ' better emergency and citizen access and egress. It should be noted that these eight stations are necessary to correct existing service problems, and would still be necessary even if no project is ever built at Bolsa Chica. If the cross a connector is not built it will be necessary to construct two new stations in gap rY ' the City instead of one, for a total of nine stations instead of eight. This would be required even if nc project were ever built at Bolsa Chica, in order to address existing service deficiencies. Station 6 would be added in the vicinity of Graham Street and Kenilworth Drive, and Station 9 would be added in the vicinity of Garfield Avenue and Edwards Street (Figure 16). Station 8 would still be relocated from Heil Avenue to Graham Street. Without the cross gap, there will still be continued second and third unit resource delays,' ' and additional staffing needed in fire stations. The estimated ongoing cost of adding the ninth fire station ranges from $1.7 million to$3 million per year(unadjusted for inflation). Summary In summary, the cross gap connector allows the three remaining service deficient areas of the City to be adequately served by the addition of one fire station, and improves the response time of additional units in these and other areas. Without the cross gap, two new stations are needed to meet minimum requirements. The cross gap also provides an ralternative route for the Fire Department, Police Department, or evacuees to bypass PCH if it is flooded, destroyed by an earthquake, or blocked by heavy traffic. Less overall traffic congestion with the cross gap also translates to improved response times, especially during the rush hour commute. 26 • Fire Station Locations with the Cross Gap Connector Y 8 i •i Station 1-Gothard Station 2-Murdy Station 3-Bushard `� �. - Station 4-Magnolia Station 5-Lake _ Station 6-Springdale (proposed) y , Station 7-Warner Station 8-Heil (proposed to be relocated to Graham/Production) Figure 15 27 Fire Station Locations without the Cross Gap Connector ts r, Y I 1 n \ 1 if K Station 1-Gothard Station 2-Murdy Station 3-Bushard o� s`,=. ,IM ' d ' Station 4-Magnolia 9�.. � _ .104 �.. Station 5-Lake Station 6-Graham/Kenilworth (proposed) �. Staion 7-Warner Station 8-Heil (proposed to be relocated to Graham/Production) j Station 9-Garfield/Edwards (proposed) 1 Figure 16 28 POLICE SERVICE The site is currently within the jurisdiction of the Orange County Sheriffs Department. One deputy at Sunset Beach serves Bolsa Chica. However, the.City has mutual aid agreements similar to the Fire Department, and currently can respond.to calls at Bolsa Chica. Should the area be developed, the City Police Department would be likely to respond to many calls for service and would therefore be affected even without annexation. The Huntington Beach Police Department has expressed support for the completion of the cross gap connector because it will allow for faster cross town access, and thus reduce response times City wide. As noted in the Fire Service section of this report, the cross gap will also provide a link to major dead end streets, and an alternative route for police personnel or evacuees to bypass PCH if it is flooded, destroyed by an earthquake, or blocked by heavy traffic. 1 29 ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS The following subsections summarize major conclusions found in the Draft EIS/EIR. Hazardous Materials ' Construction of the cross gap connector could result in the exposure of wildlife and the human population to hazardous materials from several sources. There is slight potential for fire and exposure to toxic materials from existing and abandoned oil wells, especially during construction. Oil contamination is likely in the soils around the wells due to previous improper pump maintenance, worn seals, leaking joints, etc. There may also be contamination from pipelines, valves, and previous spills. If not mitigated, this waste oil could cause significant effects on human health and safety and wildlife habitat as a result of soil disturbance during grading. There could also be impacts from the potential release of methane from abandoned wells, which would need to be carefully monitored. It should be noted that grading required for a wetlands restoration project and/or development could also create these exposures. Any construction in the lowland which displaces oil wells -could facilitate clean-up of existing problems on the site, since oil wells are required to be cleaned up at the time oil operations cease. Toxic materials could be introduced to the surrounding wetlands as a result of traffic on the roadway. The presence of automobile emissions and street runoff from the cross gap connector into the wetlands could contaminate soils and water if not contained or diverted. Biology The cross gap connector will increase the potential for disturbance of wildlife in the wetlands by in the access opportunities for domestic animals and humans to the wetlands, increasing ambient noise levels, and introducing pollutants. Pollutants may consist of auto-generated airborne emissions, or water borne contaminants from storm runoff. Such water borne pollutants may adversely impact aquatic plants and animals. The cross gap may also interfere with animal movement and migration routes. Therefore, it is important that the design of the road include buffers, adequate fencing, and provisions for safe animal movement from one side to the other. The cross gap also poses an increased risk to birds from car strikes. The Draft EIS/EIR recommended that a substantial, highly visible fence or vegetation screen should be provided on the side(s) of the cross gap facing the wetlands to decrease the incidence of car strikes. A fence, however, may conflict with the desire to provide scenic views of and across the wetlands. 1 30 i • Seismic/Toaograuhic The Newport Inglewood Fault Zone crosses the site just south of the cross gap in the lowlands. An earthquake along the fault could result in surface rupture, liquefaction, and subsidence damage, affecting the road as well as any utilities located in the roadbed. In addition, exposure to hazardous materials could occur if an earthquake disrupts nearby oil operations. The presence of shallow groundwater in the lowlands could affect the road by soil saturation and moisture penetration. The road would also have to be designed for compressible, expansive, and corrosive soils that are found along the proposed route. I The cross gap will change the basic topography on the site as it crosses from the top of the Bolsa Chica mesa to the 10 foot high flood control levee, and then down into the lowlands. If development occurs, however, major topographic changes will occur on the Bolsa Chica mesa even without construction of the cross gap. The road will also result in topographic changes along the Huntington Beach bluffs as it transitions up from the lowlands to connect with the existing Garfield Avenue. The existing Garfield Avenue extension within the City limits has already modified the topography in this area, and the future Linear Park will also impact the bluff line,even if no cross gap connector is built. Cutting of the bluffs for the road could remove support from natural slopes, resulting in instability along existing tfault areas, ancient landslide slip surfaces, or other zones of weakness. Man-made cut and fill slopes may become unstable if not properly constructed and maintained, and could result in slope failure or erosion. Flood No fill for construction of the cross gap connector, wetlands restoration, or residential development may be permitted until completion of the Seven Oaks Dam project on the Santa Ana River in approximately 1998. This is due to the necessity of retaining the flood holding capacity of the lowlands in the event of a major flood. If the lowland area is eventually restored to tidal functioning, the cross gap would serve as a seawall to prevent tidal encroachment into the residential areas during high tides. If the cross gap is not constructed, a berm would still need to be constructed in the same approximate location to serve as a seawall. During construction, there could be minor flooding and sedimentation in the surrounding ' areas if pump stations are not properly phased. Erosion control measures can reduce the incidence of surface water degradation and sedimentation. Water Ouality Dredging and filling for roadway construction can increase turbidity, nutrient loading, dissolved and suspended metals, and organic contaminants in surrounding waters. It can decrease dissolved oxygen, and release toxic materials that are contained in bottom 1 31 sediments. These effects can adversely impact aquatic plants and animals, and adversely affect birds by reducing the visibility of food sources. Once constructed, the cross gap could increase urban runoff into the wetlands. However, the primary source of water at Bolsa Chica at this time is already urban runoff, which comes from the Springdale pump station, the Wintersberg flood control channel, and the Seacliff golf course and developments. The cross gap may also increase the amount of street debris, heavy metals, oil, grease, and biological oxygen demand(from fertilizer)in the wetlands. However, compared to existing pollutant loads that enter the wetland system, the relative contribution as a result of the roadway will be small. Archaeology The proposed ground disturbance on the Bolsa Chica Mesa for the cross gap connector will impact known cultural resources. Dredging and filling for construction of the roadway in the lowlands could also affect potential archaeological sites. During grading, a qualified expert should monitor all areas suspected of containing resources. If resources cannot be avoided, mitigation should consist of implementation of approved data recovery and excavation plans. It should be noted that any lowlands grading required for wetlands restoration would also have the same impacts to potential archaeological sites, even if the cross gap connector is not built. Noise Traffic noise is considered significant if it increases ambient noise adjacent to the roadway to a level of 60 dBA for residential outdoor areas, or 75 or 80 dBA for office and commercial, respectively. If levels already exceed these thresholds, the noise is significant if it increases ambient levels by 3 dBA. The Draft EIS/EIR identifies construction noise as a significant adverse impact to surrounding land uses, but short term in nature. Construction may also disturb on-site birds, especially during courtship, egg laying, and nesting periods. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service cites 70 dBA as the significance criteria for disturbance of wildlife. Therefore, birds may be adversely affected within approximately 445 feet of the roadway, at which point the sound would attenuate to 70 dBA. Mitigation measures to reduce construction noise impacts for existing homes and wildlife could include limited construction hours, proper tuning of equipment engines, erection of noise curtains within 500 feet of residences during construction, and prohibition of construction within 500 feet of wetlands during critical nesting, courting and egg-laying periods. Upon operation, the cross gap is anticipated to generate unattenuated noise levels of 60-89 dBA, which is considered significant. Any new structures that are constructed along the route can be designed, through a combination of building setbacks, sound walls, and construction standards, to reduce the noise to acceptable levels. With regard to existing homes, those located along the segment south of Warner Ave. to Los Patos Drive will be subject to significant noise. The existing homes that abut the lowlands could be adversely 32 I • • affected by noise if no new homes are constructed in the lowlands as part of the project, because the sound from the cross gap would only attenuate to 63 dBA at 1000 feet. Although this is very close to an acceptable level, it may be possible to provide additional protection through construction of sound walls or other mitigation measures, such as reduction of vehicle speed and elimination of truck traffic on the cross gap. Recreation The cross gap connector provides a logical and convenient location for off-road bicycle and pedestrian trails, bike lanes, scenic overlooks, and a scenic driving route for the public. The 1 road is designated as a scenic highway in both the City Circulation Element and the County MPAH. Perimeter trails and bicycle lanes would interconnect to existing and planned routes leading to Bolsa Chica and Huntington State Beaches, the Linear Park, Central Park and the State Ecological Reserve. However, the cross gap also divides the Linear Park into two sections(north and South of the Garfield Street extension), which would necessitate provision of an at-grade crossing of a major street for trail users in the park. Air Ouali ty Construction activity will produce combustion pollutants and fugitive dust, which will contribute to regionally degraded air duality. The impacts from production of nitrous oxides, fugitive dust, and carbon monoxide are considered to be locally significant upon operation of the roadway. It should be noted, however, that the cross gap itself may serve to reduce vehicle miles traveled within the City by providing more direct routes. This would result in more beneficial impacts on a regional scale than a project constructed without the cross gap. 1 1 1 1 � 1 33 ECONOMICS/FISCAL IMPACTS The Draft EIS/EIR included a Draft Fiscal Impact Report which analyzed five different levels of development for Bolsa Chica: 1. 4,884 dwelling units on the MWD site, mesas, and lowlands, with the cross gap ' connector 2. 3,500 dwelling units on the mesa without the cross gap connector 3. 4,800 dwelling units on the MWD site, mesas, and lowlands, 16 acres of commercial development, with the cross gap connector. 4. 1,500 dwelling units on the mesa, without the cross gap connector. 5. 500 hotel rooms and 1,400 dwelling units on the mesas without the cross gap connector. The study focused on cost and revenue aspects relative to City finances. While projections obviously were related to the type and density of development, there were also some differences related to the cross gap connector. Residential alternatives without the cross gap connector(Nos. 2, 4, and 5, above)had high early year deficits associated with additional fire protection costs. These deficits could have ' short term adverse financial impacts on the City. In addition, the cumulative fiscal deficit caused by these additional fire protection costs may have a longer term adverse financial impact on the City. With alternative 5, revenues from the transient occupancy(hotel)taxes offset a significant portion of the costs of fire protection. Alternatives with the cross gap connector(Nos. 1 and 3, above) also had some early year ' deficits, but showed favorable cost/benefit ratios at buildout and were considered to be a positive fiscal impact to the City overall. 1 Other fiscal considerations that are difficult to quantify may include costs to the City for construction of the cross gap connector(estimated-by the Koll Company to be approximately $10 million, without mitigation for wetland impacts). Alternatively, there 1 may be costs to the City for additional intersection and roadway improvements if the cross gap is not approved. It may be possible to utilize Measure M, FAU (Federal Aid Urban) and other outside funding sources for construction of facilities, however this probably would not address mitigation costs. As noted above, there would be ongoing costs resulting from the need for an additional fire station if the cross gap is not approved, and there may be a need for additional police personnel. The cross gap connector would provide a more direct route from the 405 and 22 Freeways and from Huntington Harbour to the downtown shopping area, and could indirectly contribute to the economic health of downtown, and to businesses located along Bolsa Chica St. and Garfield Ave. Again, however, these effects would be difficult to quantify. 34 1 ' REGULATORY ISSUES ' The following discussion of Federal, State, and other local issues is intended to provide perspective on the viewpoints of other decision-making agencies, as they have been expressed to City staff. These issues and concerns will, in most cases, be addressed ' subsequent to City and County decisions regarding the cross gap connector and the project, and should not be interpreted as direction to the City. The State and Federal decision- makers have somewhat narrow concerns relating to specific legislation, and may not consider broader issues of interest to the City, such as access, safety, and fiscal impacts. Federal Issues Construction of the cross a connector will require the filling of waters-of the United gap q g States, including wetlands. These areas are also referred to as jurisdictional areas. In 1989, the EPA determined that there are approximately 917 jurisdictional acres in the Bolsa Chica lowland (Figure 17). Filling of these areas requires the issuance of a permit by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Any activity in traditionally navigable waters also requires a permit from the Corps under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. The original cross gap connector scenario as proposed by ' the Koll Co. would require filling 17.4 jurisdictional acres and 3 non jurisdictional acres. By comparison, Koll's new modified version of the cross gap would fill 11.4 jurisdictional acres and 1 non jurisdictional acre. 1 The Clean Water Act includes dredged and fill materials in the definition of pollutants. The purpose of the Section 404 permits is to regulate the discharge of dredged and filled ' materials in Federal jurisdictional waters. The Corps must endeavor to avoid, minimize, and mitigate potential adverse impacts to Waters of the U.S., in that order. They are prohibited from issuing federal permits unless the discharge is certified as consistent with an approved Coastal Zone Management Plan, i.e., an approved Local Coastal Program. Nor can they issue a permit if the project would cause or contribute to a significant degradation of the aquatic environment. Several Federal agencies have indicated in their responses to the Draft EIS/EIR that they did not consider Koll Company's proposed Wetlands Restoration Program to be adequate for mitigation of impacts. Koll will be submitting a revised Wetlands Restoration Program to the County for analysis in the new Draft EIR. The issue of project purpose is also important from a Federal standpoint, because permits for discharge of dredged and fill material can only be granted for a water dependent use. The 404 Guidelines make an assumption that certain uses such as residential development and regional roadways, are not dependent upon water to function, and therefore can be accommodated in a less environmentally damaging manner somewhere else. This is a 35 _ -+�r3 i:'° :'`r•.:;. Viz. _.', ., ,,."j: sly. rt�, •_� • - __ t S /S1 f A t L NIT, +=� f!- I _ ;yy51�K_re�m5 1D�.I:�..:i Ji�'::y..} yr^n4r'. 7r_ �Q='^' 11� i t� 1 ..� •L l.0;�{��j7� _ rr•�r. f 11 1 11 11 11 similar concept to that contained in the State Coastal Act, as explained below under State ' Issues. It is possible that some aspects of development, such as housing and roadways, could be approved if the Corps finds they are an integral part of a larger Wetlands Restoration Program. However, the Corps must consider whether the applicant has attempted to avoid wetlands before allowing fill and compensatory mitigation, and the applicant must show that there are no practicable less environmentally damaging alternatives to the proposed placement of fill in the waters of the United States. Practicable ' is defined in light of the overall project purposes, including cost and technical or logistical feasibility. ' State Issues The placement of fill material in wetlands is also regulated by the California Coastal Act. In their responses to the Draft EIS/EIR, a number of State agencies, including the Coastal Commission, Coastal Conservancy, and Department of Fish and Game, indicated that the ' cross gap may be inconsistent with Section 30233 of the Coastal Act. This section includes a list of approvable uses for wetland fill which is limited, and specific. It includes port, energy, and coastal dependent industrial facilities, including commercial fishing facilities; entrance channels for new or expanded boating facilities; boating facilities in severely degraded wetlands if in conjunction with a substantial wetland restoration; incidental public service purposes; mineral extraction; restoration purposes; and nature study, ' aquaculture, or other resource dependent use. In addition, filling in wetlands must maintain or enhance functional capacity. Uses that must be on or adjacent to the water in order to function are clearly given priority. Roads and housing are not among the specific uses for which wetland fill may be approved. If, however, the cross gap connector were determined to be permittable as an integral part of a larger scale restoration effort, mitigation for fill could also be problematic. The State Department of Fish and Game requires a compensatory mitigation ratio of 3:1 for the footprint of development, including conversion of non-sensitive upland to wetland. The Department has indicated that the required restoration would be 3 times the number of acres filled for the cross gap, ( 20.4 x 3 =61.2 ), including 17.4 acres of newly created wetland. There has been no discussion thus far of who would be responsible for funding and implementation of this mitigation, should the cross gap connector be approved. County Issues County EMA believes the cross gap connector is integral to the development because it ' serves transportation needs arising from the project. Therefore,when mitigation is warranted, it should be accomplished by the applicant as part of the development. The County's practice is to ensure that new development is phased to maintain balance with the transportation system. If the circulation system will experience unacceptable service levels ' 37 ' as a result of the project, the new development should not proceed until the unacceptable level of service is eliminated via improved capacity or reduction in demand. As noted in the Traffic Section of this report, it cannot be assumed that all base condition improvements will be in place when forecasting improvements needed to attain LOS D or better, especially where the applicant makes no commitment to provide for such base condition. The Koll Company's project will aggravate traffic conditions in the area and will further the need to implement the cross gap. It is unacceptable in the County's view to add ' project traffic to the system without commitment to the cross gap and other WAH facility improvements. They also note, however, that the mitigation measures called out in the EIR may not be feasible due to right-of-way implications, so the traffic impacts should be noted as unavoidable, and unaddressed. School District Concerns The site will be served by the Ocean View School District, the Huntington Beach City School District, and the Huntington Beach Union High School District. The School Districts are concerned with traffic flows and access between schools and residential areas for school buses, private vehicles, pedestrians, and bicycles. If the cross gap connector is not constructed, indirect routes required for students to travel to school could result in increased bussing costs, and a necessity to reallocate student population between schools. They also note pedestrian and bicycle safety concerns related to increased traffic and major street crossings. 38 1 • • 1 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS There are an number of benefits and constraints involved in constructing the proposed cross gap connector that are independent of the type of project that may eventually be approved at Bolsa Chica. Some of these issues are local in nature, while others involve ' State and Federal regulatory decisions. These are summarized briefly below. Benefits ' ••• Improves the number of area links and intersections operating at acceptable levels of • service. ••• Completes cross town circulation in conformance with the Cit • P Y General Plan and County Master Plan of Arterial Highways, and eliminates dead end streets on major arterials. ❖ Reduces vehicle miles traveled, which could have positive air quality and fuel savings ' benefits. ' ❖ Eliminates the need for an additional fire station within the City, which equates to an annual savings to the City of$1.7 to 3 million. ❖ Provides an alternative route to PCH for emergency access for the Fire Department, Police Department, and residents. ' ❖ Could serve as a seawall to prevent tidal encroachment into residential areas. ❖ Serves as a logical and convenient location for the provision of a scenic driving route, bicycle and pedestrian trails, and scenic overlooks. ❖ Could contribute to the economic health of the downtown area by providing a more direct connection from the freeways and north Huntington Beach. ' ❖ Provides better access routes to schools for both future and existing residents. Constraints ' ••• The cost of constructing the cross gap is estimated to be $10 million. If the project • applicant for Bolsa Chica is not required to construct the roadway, a source of funding ' would need to be identified. 1 ' 39 ' •'• Construction of the cross gap will also necessitate mitigation for wetlands fill. The cost • of this mitigation has not yet been quantified, nor has a responsible party been ' identified. ❖ The placement of fill in the wetlands for construction of the roadway may not be ' consistent with the Federal Clean Water Act or the California Coastal Act. These determinations will be made by the State Coastal Commission and the Army Corps of Engineers subsequent to local project decisions. ' •••• Hazardous materials in the lowlands could be released as a result of road construction and operation. Mitigation will be required to reduce impacts to a level of insignificance. •'• Disturbance to birds and aquatic wildlife is likely to increase as a result of potential • q Y pollution, noise, and intrusion of people and domestic animals. Mitigation can be implemented to reduce this impact to some degree. ❖ Seismic events along the Newport-Inglewood fault could lead to road and utility damage, and earth movement along the bluffs. ❖ Topographic changes along the bluffs will impact aesthetics of the site. ❖ Flooding impacts could occur in adjacent neighborhoods during construction of the road, if not mitigated. ❖ Archaeological sites could be impacted, if not mitigated. ' •'• Noise from construction and operation of the road could impact surrounding residents • and wildlife. Mitigation measures may reduce this impact to some extent. •'• The Linear Park will be divided into two sections b the road necessitating a major • Y � g J road crossing for park users.Crosswalks will be available at the Garfield/Seapointe intersection, however. Currently, the County's approach to the Koll Company's proposed project is to resolve as many local issues as possible before moving on to State and Federal levels. This is the reason they have continued to prepare the Draft EIR without the joint EIS process. As a ' responsible agency, the City will now be required to comment on the County's Draft EIR. Using this and other information generated by the County and City staff, the City will ultimately present a position to the County Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors with regard to certification the Draft EIR, and as to which project alternative they should approve for Bolsa Chica. ' 40 ' Appendix E � Coastal Act Sections 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 EXERPTS FROM COASTAL ACT ' Sec. 30101 - Coastal dependent development or use means any development or use which requires a site on, or adjacent to, the sea to be able to function at all . Sec. 30213 - New housing in the coastal zone shall be developed in conformity with the standards, policies , and goals of local ' housing elements . Sec. 30233 4 .... - The. . . filling. . .of . . .wetlands . . .shall be permitted in accordance with other applicable provisions of this- division, where there is no feasible less environmentally damaging alternative, and where feasible mitigation measures have been provided to minimize adverse environmental effects, and shall be limited to the following : 1. port, energy and coastal-dependent industrial 2. maintaining depths of channels, etc. 3 . in wetlands : entrance channels for boating. in degraded wetlands : channels for boating if a substantial por,&Von is restored at 3 : 1 4 . boating facilities in open coastal waters 5. incidental public service purposes such as burying pipes 6 . mineral extraction 7. restoration 8. nature study, aquaculture, other resource dependant In addition, filling in wetlands shall maintain or enhance functional capacity. Any alteration of wetlands identified by DFG. . .shall be limited to very minor incidental public facilities, restoration, nature study. Sec. 30240 ESHAS shall be protected from disruption of habitat values, and only water dependent uses allowed. Development in adjacent areas shall be compatible with continuance of such habitat areas . Sec. 30250 - New development shall be located. . .contiguous with. . .existing developed areas or other areas with adequate public services and where it will not have significant adverse effects, individually or cumulatively, on coastal resources . Sec. 30251 - Permitted development shall be sited and designed to protect views, minimize alteration of natural land forms, be visually compatible with the area and enhance visual quality in degraded areas . Sec. 30252 - New development should maintain and enhance public access to the coast by 1) facilitating provision of transit service; 2) providing commercial facilities within or ' adjoining residential, 3) providing non-auto circulation 4) providing adequate parking; 5) correlating the amount of new development with local park acquisition and development plans and the provision of onsite recreation facilities . Sec. 30253 - New development shall : 1) Minimize risks to life and property; 2) neither create nor contribute significantly to—destruction of the site or surrounding area or in any way require construction of protective devices that would substantially alter natural landdforms along bluffs and Cliffs . ' Sec. 30255 - Except as provided elsewhere in this division, coastal-dependent development shall not be sited in a wetland. (1667D) �,+ra