Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Parkside Estates - Public Hearing to Consider the Adoption o
City ®f Huntington Beach " 2000 Main Street . Huntington Beach, CA 92648 s xr tao' > OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERIC JOAN L FLYNN CITY CLERK NOTICE OF ACTION June 20 2008 Teresa Henry District Manager California Coastal Commission South Coast Area Office 200 Oceangate Ste 1000 Long Beach CA 90802-4302 Re Local Coastal Program Amendment(LCPA) No 1-06 and (Parkside Estates) Dear Ms Henry At their regular meeting held Monday June 16 2008 the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach took action on the following items 1) Adopted Resolution No 2008-31 A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach California Which Acknowledges Receipt of the Coastal Commission Action and Accepts and Agrees to Local Coastal Program Amendment No 1-06 As Modified and 2) Adopted Resolution No 2008-32 A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Amending the Local Coastal Program by Amending the Coastal Element Enclosed please find a Statement of Action dated June 16 2008 and certified copies of Resolution Nos 2008 31 and 2008-32 If you have any questions regarding this matter please contact my office at (714) 536-5227 Sincerely toan4L Flynn CIVIC City Clerk Enclosures Statement of Action Certified Copies Resolution Nos 2008-31 and 2008-32 c Ron Metzler Shea Homes Scott Hess Director of Planning Mary Beth Broeren Planning Manager Sister(0AN-C9RIb0japan • Waitakere New Zealand (Telephone 714 536 5227) ATTACHMENT # lLj RESOLUTION NO 2008-31 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA WHICH ACKNOWLEDGES RECEIPT OF THE COASTAL COMMISSION ACTION AND ACCEPTS AND AGREES TO LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO 1-06 AS MODIFIED WHEREAS, the California Coastal Commission reviewed and approved Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program Amendment No 1-06 as modified at the May 7, 2008 Coastal Commission hearing, and Section 13537 of the Coastal Commission Regulations requires the local government to accept and agree to the modifications by resolution within six (6) months, or certification will expire and Upon the City Council action staff will forward Resolution No 2008-31 for final Coastal Commission certification NOW THEREFORE the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby resolve as follows SECTION I The City Council accepts and agrees to the Coastal Commission s approval of Local Coastal Program Amendment 1 06 and the Coastal Element of the certified Local Coastal Program as suggested by the Coastal Commission in the letter dated May 20 2008 attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated by this reference as though fully set forth herein Said suggested modifications shall become effective 30 days after adoption of Resolution No 2008-31 or upon final Coastal Commission certification whichever occurs latest I i I 08 1640/22937 1 it Resolution No 2008-31 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 16 t h day of June , 2008 s Mayor REVIEWED D A ROVED INITIATE AND APPROVED City Administrator PlammQDirec or APPROVED AS TO FORM c ity Attorney jl2q�od -60 U� 2 07 1095/12094 Exhibit A - Resolution No 2008 31 x t EXH"'"IBIT a 3 i Exhibit A - Resolution No 2008 31 STATF nF C AI IFt7RN1A THE RFSnI IRC FS A(;FNCY GRAY nAVIq rnvarnnr CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION South Coast Area Office 200 Oceangate Suite 1000 Long Beach CA 90802 4302 (562)590 5071 May 20 2008 city of Huntington Beach Scott Hess Planning Director MAY 2 3 2000 City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach CA 92648 Re Huntington Beach LCP Major Amendment No 1-06 (Parkside) Dear Mr Hess You are hereby notified that the California Coastal Commission at its May 7 2008 meeting in Marina del Rey adopted revised findings reflecting the Commissions action of November 14 2007 approving City of Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program Amendment No 1-06 with modifications Local Coastal Program (LCP) Amendment No 1-06 is reflected in City Council Resolution No 2002- 123 The approved amendment as modified provides land use designations and Land Use Plan text for the area known as Parkside an area that was deferred certification at the time the City s LCP was certified Please note the Implementation Plan portion of LCPA 1-06 was withdrawn by the City and thus the subject area remains an area of deferred certification The Commission approved the LCP amendment subject to the attached suggested modifications Therefore LCP Land Use Plan Amendment No 1-06 will not become effective until 1) the Huntington Beach City Council adopts the Commissions suggested modifications 2) the City Council forwards the adopted suggested modifications to the Commission by resolution and 3) the Executive Director certifies that the City has complied with the Commissions November 14 2007 action as reflected in the findings adopted on May 7 2008 On April 10 2008 the Coastal Commission extended the City Councils six month time limit to accept the suggested modifications Therefore the Coastal Act requirement that the City s adoption of the suggested modifications be completed within six months has effectively been extended until May 14 2009 Thus the City Council must act to accept the Commission s suggested modifications by May 14 2009 Thank you for your cooperation and we look forward to working with you and your staff in the future Please call Meg Vaughn or myself at (562) 590-5071 if you have any questions regarding the modifications required for effective certification of City of Huntington Beach LCP Land Use Plan Amendment No 1-06 Sincerely Teresa Henry District Manager cc Mary Beth Broeren Principal Planner HNB LCPA 1 06 parkside psthrg Itr AdptdF 5 20 08 my Exhibit A - Resolution No 2008 31 STATE OF CALIFORNIA THE RESOURCES AGENCY ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER Governor CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION South Coast Area Office 200 Oceangate Suite 1000 -� Long Beach CA 90802 4302 (562)590 5071 May 20 2008 TO Commissioners and Interested Persons FROM Shenlyn Sarb Deputy Director South Coast District Orange County Teresa Henry Manager South Coast District Karl Schwing, Supervisor, Regulation & Planning Orange County Area Meg Vaughn, Coastal Program Analyst SUBJECT ADOPTED FINDINGS for Major Amendment Request No 1-06 (Shea Homes/Parkside) to the City of Huntington Beach Certified Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan (Pursuant to Commission action at the Public Hearing on the May 7, 2008 meeting in Marina del Rey reflecting the Commission s action at the November 14 2007 hearing) SUMMARY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH LCP AMENDMENT REQUEST NO 1-06 Request by the City of Huntington Beach to amend the Land Use Plan (LUP) portion of the Local Coastal Program (LCP) The proposed Local Coastal Program (LCP) amendment is a project-specific amendment designed to make possible a low density residential development on a vacant approximately 50-acre site comprising two legal lots, most of which is currently in agricultural production Of the total project area approximately 45 acres have long been located within the City of Huntington Beach The remaining 5 acres were until 2004, located within unincorporated County of Orange Jurisdiction, within the Bolsa Chica LCP area However, with the recent annexation the entire site is within the City of Huntington Beach Of the 45 acre portion of the site, approximately 40 acres were deferred certification at the time the City s overall Local Coastal Program was certified and remains uncertified today This LCP amendment would incorporate that 40 acres and the newly annexed area into the City s existing LCP and establish land use and zoning designations for those areas The remaining five acre portion of the 45 acre area was certified at the time the City's overall LCP was certified as Open Space — Park (OS-P) The 40 acre area was originally deferred certification due in part to wetland issues The City s current amendment requests designation of approximately 38 5 acres as RL-7 (Low Density Residential — maximum 7 units per acre), approximately 8 2 acres as OS-P (Open Space — Park), and approximately 3 3 acres as OS—C (Open Space— Conservation) SUMMARY OF COMMISSION ACTION At the Commission hearing of November 14 2007 the Commission reviewed the City of Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program Amendment 1-06 The Commission approved with revised suggested modifications the City s request to amend the LCP Land Use Plan as requested At the Commission hearing of May 7 2008 the Commission adopted Revised Findings with changes to the original staff recommended revised findings The final version of the suggested modifications and findings adopted by the Commission at STATE OF CALIFORNIA THE RESOURCES AGENCY ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER Governor CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION South Coast Area Office 200 Oceangate Suite 1000 Long Beach CA 908024302 (562)590 5071 May 20, 2008 TO Commissioners and Interested Persons FROM Shenlyn Sarb Deputy Director South Coast District Orange County Teresa Henry Manager South Coast District Karl Schwing, Supervisor Regulation & Planning Orange County Area Meg Vaughn Coastal Program Analyst SUBJECT ADOPTED FINDINGS for Major Amendment Request No 1-06 (Shea Homes/Parkside) to the City of Huntington Beach Certified Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan (Pursuant to Commission action at the Public Hearing on the May 7 2008 meeting in Marina del Rey reflecting the Commission s action at the November 14, 2007 hearing) SUMMARY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH LCP AMENDMENT REQUEST NO 1-06 Request by the City of Huntington Beach to amend the Land Use Plan (LUP) portion of the Local Coastal Program (LCP) The proposed Local Coastal Program (LCP) amendment is a project-specific amendment designed to make possible a low density residential development on a vacant approximately 50-acre site comprising two legal lots most of which is currently in agricultural production Of the total project area approximately 45 acres have long been located within the City of Huntington Beach The remaining 5 acres were until 2004 located within unincorporated County of Orange Jurisdiction, within the Bolsa Chica LCP area However, with the recent annexation the entire site is within the City of Huntington Beach Of the 45 acre portion of the site, approximately 40 acres were deferred certification at the time the City's overall Local Coastal Program was certified and remains uncertified today This LCP amendment would incorporate that 40 acres and the newly annexed area into the City s existing LCP and establish land use and zoning designations for those areas The remaining five acre portion of the 45 acre area was certified at the time the City s overall LCP was certified as Open Space — Park (OS-P) The 40 acre area was originally deferred certification due in part to wetland issues The City s current amendment requests designation of approximately 38 5 acres as RL-7 (Low Density Residential — maximum 7 units per acre) approximately 8 2 acres as OS-P (Open Space — Park), and approximately 3 3 acres as OS—C (Open Space — Conservation) SUMMARY OF COMMISSION ACTION At the Commission hearing of November 14, 2007 the Commission reviewed the City of Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program Amendment 1-06 The Commission approved with revised suggested modifications the City's request to amend the LCP Land Use Plan as requested At the Commission hearing of May 7 2008 the Commission adopted Revised Findings with changes to the original staff recommended revised findings The final version of the suggested modifications and findings adopted by the Commission at x Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications) Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside) Page 2 the May 7 2008 hearing which reflect the Commission s November 14 2007 action on the LCPA are contained in these adopted findings At the November 14, 2007 hearing, public testimony and Commission discussion included concerns regarding the extent of wetland on site the appropriate distance for ESHA buffer areas and appropriate uses allowed within ESHA buffer areas The Commission found that the area referred to as the Wintersburg Pond (WP) was not wet enough to develop a preponderance of wetland vegetation or wetland sods, that the area known as the EPA wetland was wet enough to support a preponderance of wetland vegetation or soils in 1996 and that any changes in local hydrology that may have taken place since that time were unpermitted, a variable width buffer distance would be adequate to protect the eucalyptus grove ESHA and that areas referred to as `intermingled areas" found between the areas identified as wetland ESHA, and buffer areas should not be designated Open Space - Conservation The changes made by the Commission at the hearing are manifested in the staff report primarily though changes to Exhibit NN (now 4t' revised) in that the areas of the site to be designated Open Space— Conservation and the areas to be designated as the development envelope (which allows either active park or residential development) have changed In addition the changes made by the Commission at the hearing result in changes to the suggested modification regarding the width of the ESHA buffer area and uses allowed within that buffer area Also there are changes to the wetland findings supporting the Commission's determination that the WP area is not a wetland and to eliminate the discussion on the intermingled areas Finally, changes are made in the ESHA findings to support the variable width ESHA buffer rather than the 100 meter ESHA buffer, and to allow a portion of a water quality Natural Treatment System as an allowable use within a portion of the outer ESHA buffer subject to restrictions COMMISSION VOTE The Commissioners voting on the prevailing side were Burke, Clark, Hueso, Secord, Neely, Potter, Reilly, and Chair Kruer STANDARD OF REVIEW For the proposed Land Use Plan amendment, the standard of review is conformance with and satisfaction of the requirements of the Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal Act SUMMARY OF PAST ACTIONS ON THIS LCPA At the May 2007 hearing in San Pedro, after presentations by staff, the applicant and public testimony, the Commission voted to deny the subject Land Use Plan amendment as submitted A motion (i a the main motion) was made to approve the Land Use Plan amendment with modifications, but upon deliberation, the hearing was continued The LCPA was subsequently scheduled for Commission action at its July 9-13 2007 hearing Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications) Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside) Page 3 The LCP amendment originally proposed changes to both the Land Use Plan (LUP) and the Implementation Plan (IP) On July 3 2007 the City withdrew the 1P portion of the LCPA The Commission recognized the withdrawal of the IP amendment at its July 11 2007 hearing Also at its July 11 2007 hearing the Commission postponed action on suggested modifications for the LUP portion of the LCPA At the November 14 2007 hearing the Commission approved the proposed LUP amendment with suggested modifications as revised at that hearing At the May 7 2008 hearing the Commission adopted the revised findings with changes Those changes are reflected herein SUMMARY OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Section 30503 of the Coastal Act requires public input in Local Coastal Program development During the preparation approval certification and amendment of any local coastal program the public as well as all affected governmental agencies including special districts shall be provided maximum opportunities to participate Prior to submission of a local coastal program for approval local governments shall hold a public hearing or hearings on that portion of the program which has not been subjected to public hearings within four years of such submission Prior to submittal of the LCPA to the Commission the City held numerous public hearings on the proposed LCP amendment as shown on exhibit D All City staff reports were made available for public review in the Planning Department and in the Huntington Beach Public Library Public hearing notices were mailed to property owners of record for the parcels that are the subject of the amendment as well as parcels within a 1 000 foot radius (including occupants) and notice of the public hearing was published in the Huntington Beach Independent a local newspaper of general circulation ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Copies of the staff report are available online on the Coastal Commission's website at www coastal ca qov or at the South Coast District office located in the ARCO Center Towers 200 Oceangate Suite 1000 Long Beach, 90802 To obtain copies of the staff report by mail or for additional information contact Meg Vaughn in the Long Beach office at (562) 590-5071 The City of Huntington Beach contact for this LCP amendment is Scoff Hess, Director of Planning who can be reached at (714) 536-5271 Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications) Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside) Page 4 1 RESOLUTION RESOLUTION TO CERTIFY WITH SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS The Commission hereby certifies the Land Use Plan Amendment No 1-06 for the City of Huntington Beach if modified as suggested and adopts the findings set forth below on the grounds that the Land Use Plan amendment with suggested modifications will meet the requirements of and be in conformity with the policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act Certification of the land use plan amendment if modified as suggested complies with the California Environmental Quality Act because either 1) feasible mitigation measures and/or alternatives have been incorporated to substantially lessen any significant adverse effects of the plan on the environment, or 2) there are no further feasible alternatives or mitigation measures that would substantially lessen any significant adverse impacts which the Land Use Plan Amendment may have on the environment 11 SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS Certification of City of Huntington Beach LCP Amendment Request No 1-06 is subject to the following modifications The City s existing language is shown in plain text The City s proposed additions are shown in bold text The City s proposed deletions are shown in plain te)d, strike out The Commission staff's original (November 2007) suggested additions are shown in bold, otahc, underlined text The Commission staffs original (November 2007) suggested deletions are show in bGkl rtaahG,-a'rr„der4ineei str ke out text Additions to the November 2007 staff recommendation made by the Commission at the public hearing are shown in bold italic, double underlined text Deletions to the November 2007 staff recommendation made by the Commission at the public hearing are shown in Staff Note Three corrections are made where, due to typos, existing certified LUP language was left out The corrections are 1) replacing the word "residential in suggested modification No 1, 2) replacing the sub-section "Public" in the table in suggested modification No 2 and 3) inserting the hyphen in the land use category titles Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications) Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside) Page 5 Open Space - Conservation and Open Space - Parks throughout ,AND USE PLAN SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS SUGGESTED MODIFICATION NO 1 Sub-Area Descriptions and Land Use Plan The City s certified and proposed Land Use Plan (LUP) language on page IV-C-11, under the heading Zone 2 - Bolsa Chica shall be modified as follows Existing Land Uses Inland (Pacific Coast Highway and areas north to the Coastal Zone boundary ) The majority of Zone 2, the Bolsa Chica is located outside the City s corporate boundary within the County of Orange The area is in the City s Sphere of Influence A-44- 50 acre area between I 42atGs the residential development along Kenilworth ®rive and the East Garden Grove Wmtersburg Flood Control Channel is vaGant includes a small section of the Bolsa Chica bluffs Coastal (Seaward of Pacific Coast Highway) Coastal Element Land Use Plan Inland (Pacific Coast Highway and areas north to the Coastal Zone boundary ) The Coastal Element does not present a land use plan for the Bolsa Chica The land area north of the Bolsa Chica within the City s corporate and Coastal Zone boundaries is built out consistent with its Coastal Element designation of low density residential The area west of the Bolsa Chica is also developed consistent with the Coastal Element Land Use designation of low density residential and multi-family residential ne)d to the VVIRter-sburg Flood GGRtrel Channel retains its exiSt'Rg deslgRatleR as aR 'Area of Defer-red GeltifiGation " Prior to develepment of the site an amendment to the City s Coastal Element land use destanabon for the vaG-anlf d_5 ar-we aFea next to the East i Reed Contm! Channel wasFeGQ'mill A'A"0941 nd O.S. (Low lie sity 1w�e #denbal) and OS-P(linen pace— R3'rLl In '�niten +nnrevrrs +telai lwar vv�r.7 5 aGres of land was annexed from the County of Ofogtinte the City of 14unti Beaoh Th#s area rs_-�_____..Mated RL 7(Low Dens - Residential) and 0 Cnace— Coneervatien1 Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications) Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside) Page 6 The fifty(50) acre area (including the 5 acre area annexed by the City in 2004) adlacent to and►mmediately north of the East Garden Grove/Wintersbur_g Flood Control Channel and adlacent to and immediately west of Graham Street is land use des►_gnated Residential and Open Space— Conservation (See Figure C-6a) There are wetlands, a Eucalyptus Grove that is an Environmentany Sensitive Habitat Area because it provides important raptor habitat, and buffer areas at this site These areas are designated Open Space— Conservation The Wintersbur_g Channel Bikeway is identified at this site on the north levee of the flood control channel in the Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan, which is the regional bikeways plan for Orange County(See page IV C-49 and figure C-94) SUGGESTED MODIFICATION No 2 The table titled Zone 2 — Land Use Designations on page IV-C-11 shall be modified as follows Zone 2 — Land Use Designations Residential RL-7 or RM or RH Open Space OS-P OS-S OS-C Public P White HeleL Area of Deferred GeFt1fiGatH),n Zone 2 — Specific Plan Areas None Zone 2 —General Plan Overlays 4G, 4J 4K SUGGESTED MODIFICATION NO 3 Figure C-6 of the City's Land Use Plan shall be modified to reflect the change in the City's corporate boundary and to accurately reflect the correct areas of the certified land use designations (Residential and Open Space Conservation)for the area SUGGESTED MODIFICATION NO 4 New Figure C-6a shall be added to the City s Land Use Plan, which shall be a land use plan of the Parkside site and shall depict the approved land use designations on the site as shown on 4th revised exhibit NN Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications) Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside) Page 7 SUGGESTED MODIFICATION NO 5 Add new subarea 4-K to table C-2 (Community District and Subarea Schedule) as depicted below Subarea Characteristic Standards and Princ► les 4-dC 'Permitted Uses Categories Residential(R-L. or R-Nl) Open Space Conservation (OS-C) See Fi ure C-6a Density/Intensity Residential Maximum of fifteen (15) dwelling units per acre Design and See Figure C-6a Development A development plan for this area shall concentrate and cluster residential units in the n<w4heastern portion of the site and include, consistent with the land use designations and Coastal Element pohc►es, the followin_g required information (all regu►red information must be prepared or updated no more than one year prior to submittal of a coastal development perm►t application) 1 A Pubhc Access Plan, including, but not hinted to the following features Class I Bikeway(paved off road bikeway, for use by bicyclists, walkers, loggers, roller skaters, and strollers) along the north levee of the flood control channel If a waU between residential development and the Bikeway is allowed it shall include design features such as landscaped screening, non-linear footprint, decorative design elements and/or other features to soften the visual impact as viewed from the Bikeway Pubhc vista point with views toward the Bolsa Ch►ca and ocean consistent with Coastal Element pohc►es C 4 13, C 4 2 1, andC423 All streets shall be ungated, publ►c streets available to the _general pubhc for parking, vehicular pedestrian, and b►c cle access Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications) Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside) Page 8 All public entry controls (e g _gates, gate%guard houses, _-gguards, signage, etc) and restrictions on use by the _-ggeneral public (e q preferential parking districts, resident-only parking periods/permits, etc) associated with any streets or parkin_q areas shall be prohibited ❖ Pubhc access trails to the Class I BikewaV, open space and to and within the subdivision, connecting with trails to the Bolsa Chica area and beach beyond ❖ Pubhc access si_gna_ge ❖ When privacV walls associated with residential development are located adjacent to public areas they shall be placed on the private property, and visual impacts created bV the walls shall be minimized through measures such as open fencin_g/wall design, landscaped screening, use of an undulating or off-set wall footprint, or decorative wall features (such as artistic imprints, etc ), or a combination of these measures 2 Habitat Management Plan for all ESHA, wetland, and buffer areas designated®pen Space- Conservation that provides for their restoration and perpetual conservation and management Issues to be addressed include, but are not hmited to, methods to assure continuance of a water source to feed all wetland areas, enhancement of habitats and required buffer areas, restoration and enhancement of wetlands and environmentally sensitive habitats and required buffer areas, and fuel modification requirements to address fire hazard and avoid disruption of habitat values in buffers 3 Archaeological Research Design consistent with Pohcies C5 11, C5 12, C5 13, C5 14, and C5 15 of this Coastal Element 4 Water QuahtV Management Program consistent with the Water and Marine Resources policies of this Coastal Element If development of the parcel creates Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications) Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside) Page 9 significant amounts of directly connected impervious surface (more than 10%) or increases the volume and velocity of runoff from the site to adjacent coastal waters, the development shall include a treatment control BMP or suite of BMPs that will ehm►nate, or minimize to the maximum extent practicable, dry weather flow_generated by site development to adiacent coastal waters and treat runoff from at least the 85 th percentile storm event based on the des►gn criteria of the CaHforn►a Association of Stormwater Agencies (CASQA) BMP handbooks, with at least a 24 hour detention time Natural Treatment Systems such as wetland detention systems are preferred since they provide additional habitat benefits, rehab►hty and aesthetic values 5 Pest Management Plan that, at a minimum, prohibits the use of rodentic►des, and restricts the use of gestic►des, and herbicides in outdoor areas, except necessary Vector Control conducted by the City or County 6 Landscape Plan for non-Open Space Conservation areas that prohibits the planting, naturalization, or pers►stence of invasive plants, and encourages low- water use plants, and plants pr►mar►ly native to coastal ®ranee County 7 Biological Assessment of the entire site 8 lffietland delineation of the entire site 9 Domestic animal control plan that details methods to be used to prevent pets from entering the ®pen Space- Conservation areas Methods to be used include, but are not hm►ted to, appropr►ate fencing and barr►er plantings 10 Hazard Mitigation and Flood Protection Plan, including but not hm►ted to, the following features Demonstration that site hazards including flood and 1►guefacbon hazards are m►tj ated Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications) Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside) Page 10 ❖ Minimization/mitigation of flood hazard shall include the placement of a FEMA- certifiable, vegetated flood protection levee that achieves hazard mitigation _goals and is the most protective of coastal resources including wetland and ESHA, ❖ Assurance of the continuance, restoration and enhancement of the wetlands and ESHA Residential Residential development, including appurtenant development such as roads and private open space, is not allowed within any wetland, ESHA, or required buffer areas and area designated Open Space- Conservation- Uses consistent with the Open Space-Parks designation are allowed in the residential area All development shall assure the continuance of the habitat value and function of preserved and restored wetlands and environmentally sensitive habitat areas within the area designated Open Space-Conservation Open Space-Conservation A Wetlands Only those uses described in Coastal Element Policy C 6 120 shall be allowed within existing and restored wetlands All development shall assure the continuance of the habitat value and function of wetlands Wetland Buffer Area A buffer area is required along the perimeter of wetlands to provide a separation between development impacts and habitat areas and to function as transitional habitat The buffer shall be of sufficient size to ensure the biological integrity and preservation of the wetland the buffer is designed to protect Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications) Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside) Page 11 A minimum buffer width of 100 feet shall be established Uses allowed within the wetland buffer are limited to 1) those uses allowed within wetlands per Coastal Element Policy C 6 120, 2) a vegetated flood protection levee is a potential allowable use if, due to siting and design constraints, location in the wetland buffer is unavoidable, and the levee is the most protective of coastal resources including wetland and ESHA, 3) No active park uses fe _g tot lots, playing fields, picnic tables, bike paths, etc) shall be allowed within 100 feet of wetlands preserved in the Open Space Conservation area B Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas Only uses dependent on the resource shall be allowed Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHA) Buffer Areas A variable width buffer area is required along the perimeter of the ESHA and is required to be of sufficient size to ensure the biological inte_gnty and preservation of the ESHA the buffer is designed to protect A minimum buffer width of 297 to 650 feet shall be established between all residential development or active park use and raptor habitat within the eucalyptus groves Uses allowed within the ESHA buffer are limited to 1) uses dependent on the resource, 2) wetland and upland habitat restoration and management, 3) vegetated flood protection levee that is the most protective of coastal resources including wetland and ESHA Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications) Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside) Page 12 4) within the northern grove ESHA buffer only— passive park use may be allowed if of is more than 150 feet from the ESHA, but only when it is outside all wetland and wetland buffer areas, and does not include any uses that would be disruptive to the ESHA Uses allowed within the passive park areas shall be limited to a) nature trails and benches for passive recreation, education, and nature study. b) habitat enhancement, restoration creation and management 5) within the southern grove ESHA buffer only v a water guahty Natural Treatment System may be allowed so Iona as it is located to an area that is most protective of coastal resources and at least 246 feet from the ESHA 56) In addition to the reguwed ESHA buffer described above, grading shall be prohibited within 500 feet of an occupied raptor nest during the breeding season (considered to be from February 15 through Au_aust 31), ad &C Habitat Management Plan shall be prepared for all areas designated Open Space-Conservation which shall include restoration and enhancement of dehneated wetlands, wetland and habitat mtt_gation, and establishment of appropriate buffers from development Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications) Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside) Page 13 D Protective Fencing Protective fencing or barriers shall be installed along any interface with developed areas, to deter human and pet entrance into all restored and preserved wetland and ESHA buffer areas SUGGESTED MODIFICATION No 6 On page IV-C-60 and IV-C-61 under the heading Visual Resources The Bolsa Chica Mesas revise to include visual resources within Parkside area as follows The northwestern side of the Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve includes bluffs that rise to an upland area known as the Bolsa Chica Mesa These bluffs are primarily under the County s jurisdiction (only a small part of the bluff lies in the City) but are within the City s Sphere of Influence for potential future annexation The mesas constitute a significant scenic resource within the City s coastal Zone The 50 acre site (located west of and adjacent to Graham Street and north of and adjacent to the East Garden Grove Wintersburg Orange County flood Control Channel) known as the "Parkside"site affords an excellent opportunity to provide a public vista point A public vista point in this location would provide excellent public views toward the Bolsa Chica and ocean Use of the public vista point will be enhanced with construction of the Class I bike path along the flood control channel and public trails throughout the Parkside site SUGGESTED MODIFICATION NO 7 On page IV-C-70 add the following language in the first paragraph under the heading Environmentally Sensitive Habitats, to include reference to the wetland and Eucalyptus ESHA on the Parkside site The City s Coastal Element identifies Ave three`environmentally sensitive habitat areas within the City 1) the Huntington Beach wetland areas and 2) the California least tern nesting sanctuary, and 3) the wetlands and Eucalyptus ESHA on the Parkside site (See Figure C-21 for location of No 1 and 2) The Coastal Element includes policies to protect and enhance environmentally sensitive habitat areas in accordance with the Coastal Act Also on page IV-C-72 add the following new section describing the Eucalyptus ESHA and wetlands on the Parkside site after the paragraph titled California Least Tern Nesting Sanctuary Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications) Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside) Page 14 Parks►de Eucalyptus ESHA and !Wetlands (See Figure C 6a) H►stor►calls, this site was part of the extensive Bolsa Ch►ca Wetlands system and was part of the Santa Ana River/Bolsa Ch►ca complex In the late 1890s the Bolsa Ch►ca Gun Club completed a dam with tide gates, which ehm►nated tidal►nfluence, sparating fresh water from salt water In the 1930s, agricultural ditches began to hm►t fresh water on the site, and in 1959, the East Garden Grove-Wintersbur_g Flood Control Channel isolated the site hydrologically Nevertheless, wetland areas remain present at the site There are existing and previously delineated wetlands, and areas that have been filled without authorization and are capable of being restored These areas as well as their buffer areas are des►gnated Open Space- Conservation, and uses allowed within these areas are Hinted In addition, on the site's southwestern boundary, at the base of the bluff, is a line of Eucalyptus trees that continues offsite to the west These trees are used by raptors for nesting, roosting, and as a base from which to forage The trees within this "eucalyptus grove"within or adjacent to the sub►ect site's western boundary constitute an environmentally sensitive habitat area (ESHA) due to the ►mportant ecosystem functions they provide to a suite of raptor species The Eucalyptus trees along the southern edge of the Bolsa Ch►ca mesa are used for perching, roosting, or nesting by at least 12 of the 17 spec►es of raptors that are known to occur at Bolsa Ch►ca Although it is known as the "eucalyptus _-grove", it also includes several palm trees and pine trees that are also used by raptors and herons None of the trees are part of a native plant community Nevertheless, this eucalyptus grove has been recoqn►zed as ESHA by multiple agencies since the late 1970's (USFWS, 1979, CDFG 1982, 1985) not because it is part of a native ecosystem, or because the trees in and of themselves warrant protection, but because of the important ecosystem functions it provides Some of the raptors known to use the grove include the white tailed kite, sharp shinned hawk, Cooper's hawk, and osprey Many of these species are dependent on both the Bolsa Ch►ca wetlands and the nearby upland areas for their food These Eucalyptus trees were recognized as ESHA by the Coastal Commission prior to its 2006 certification of this section of this LCP, most recently in the context of the Coastal Commission's approval of the adjacent Brightwater development(coastal development permit 5-05-020) The Eucalyptus grove in the northwest corner of the site, although separated from the rest of the trees by a _gap of about 650 feet, provides the same types of ecological functions fianneos as do the rest of the trees bordering the mesa At least ten species of raptors have been observed in this grove and Cooper's hawks, a CaHforn►a Species of Special Concern, nested there in 2005 and 2006 Due to the important ecosystem functions of providing perching, roosting and nesting opportunities for a variety of raptors, these trees also constitute ESHA These areas as well as their buffer areas are des►gnated Open Space-Conservation, and uses allowed within these areas are hm►ted Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications) Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside) Page 15 The wetlands, Eucalyptus ESHA areas, and buffer areas mraefilnefin are des►_gnated Open Space-Conservation to assure they are adequately protected SUGGESTED MODIFICATION NO 8 Add the following policy to the certified Land Use Plan on page IV-C-100 as new policy C 1 1 3a C113a The provision of public access and recreation benefits associated with private development(such as but not limited to public access ways, public bike paths, habitat restoration and enhancement, etc) shall be phased such that the public benefit(s) are in place prior to or concurrent with the pr►vate development but not later than occupation of any of the private development SUGGESTED MODIFICATION NO 9 Add the following policy to the certified Land Use Plan, on page IV-C-105 as new policy C 247 C 2 4 7 The streets of new residential subdivisions between the sea and the first public road shall be constructed and maintained as open to the general public for vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian access General public parking shall be provided on all streets throughout the entire subdivision Private entrance gates and private streets shall be prohibited All public entry controls (e g gates, gate/guard houses, _guards, s►gnage, etc) and restrictions on use by the general public (e g preferential parkinq districts, resident-only Parkin_g periods/permits, etc ) associated with any streets or parking areas shall be prohibited SUGGESTED MODIFICATION NO 10 Modify the following existing LUP Water and Marine Resources policies as follows C 6 1 6 (modify third and fourth paragraph) The City shall require that new development and redevelopment as appropriate, employ nonstructural Best Management Practices (BMPs) and structural BMPs designed to Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications) Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside) Page 16 minimize the volume velocity and pollutant load of stormwater runoff prior to runoff discharge into stormwater conveyance systems receiving waters and/or other sensitive areas All development shall include effective site design and source control BMPs When the combination of site design and source control BMPs is not sufficient to protect water quality, structural treatment BMPs along with site design and source control measures shall be required BMPs should be selected based on efficacy at mitigating pollutants of concern associated with respective development types To this end the City shall continue implementation of the Municipal Alen Point SGurge Stormwater National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NDPES) egram,hermit(Santa Ana Regional Water Quahty Control Board Order No R8- 2002-0010, dated January 18, 2002, or any amendment to or re-Issuance thereof) of which the City is a co-permittee with the County of Orange through the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board Per program parameters continue to require a Water Quality Management Plan for all applicable new development and redevelopment in the Coastal Zone C 6 1 16 Encourage the Orange County Sanitation District to accept dry weather nuisance flows into the sewer treatment system prior to discharge New developments shall be designed and constructed to minimize or ehmenate dry weather nuisance flows to the maximum extent practicable C6125 Require that new development and redevelopment minimize the creation of impervious areas, especially directly connected impervious areas, and where feasible, reduce the extent of existing unnecessary impervious areas and incorporate adequate mitigation to minimize the alteration of natural streams and/or interference with surface water flow The use of permeable matena/s for roads, sidewalks and other paved areas shall be incorporated into new development to the maximum extent practicable Add new policy C 6 1 30 Natural or vegetated treatment systems (e q bio-swales, vegetative buffers, constructed or artificial wetlands) that mimic natural drainage patterns are preferred for new developments over mechanical treatment systems or BMPs (e g water quahty treatment plants, storm drain inlet filters) Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications) Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside) Page 17 SUGGESTED MODIFICATION NO 11 Add the following policy to the certified Land Use Plan on page IV-C-123 as new policy C 727 Any areas that constituted wetlands or ESHA that have been removed, altered, filled or degraded as the result of activities carved out without compliance with Coastal Act requirements shall be protected as required by the policies in this Land Use Plan III FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL OF THE LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT WITH SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS The following findings support the Commission's action of November 14, 2006 approving Land Use Plan amendment 1-06 if modified as suggested Changes to the findings contained in the staff recommendation dated November 1 2007 necessary to reflect the Commissions action are indicated as follows Language added as a result of the Commission s action as shown in bold italic, double underline Language deleted as a result of the Commission s action is shown in b efd Ftafw_ The Commission hereby finds and declares as follows A Land Use Plan Amendment Description The proposed Local Coastal Program (LCP) amendment is a project-specific amendment designed to make possible a low density residential development up to a maximum 7 dwelling units per acre (dua) on a vacant approximately 50-acre site comprising two legal lots, most of which is currently in agricultural production Most of the site is currently uncertified and the proposed LUP amendment would incorporate those areas into the City s existing LUP and establish land use designations for those areas as well as for the currently certified parts of the site The geographic area that is the subject of this proposed LUP amendment can be divided into three areas See Exhibit C4 The largest section is an area of the City that was deferred certification by the Commission at the time the City s Land Use Plan (LUP)was originally certified in 1982 and that deferral carved through to the eventual LCP certification in 1985 The area of deferred certification (ADC) is approximately 40 acres 'The staff report and Commission findings from the 1982 LUP certification are not entirely clear about how much area was deferred certification However the City has clearly depicted the area subject to this LCP amendment(through the Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications) Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside) Page 18 This amendment request proposes to certify this area by bringing it within the City s existing LUP and applying land use designations to the area Just northwest of the ADC is a 5 acre area that is currently certified (see footnote 1) and designated Open Space-Parks The City has resubmitted this area for certification with the same designations Finally there is a five acre area southwest of the ADC that was under the jurisdiction of the County of Orange until it was annexed by the City in 2004 Like the ADC the City proposed to certify that area by bringing it within the broader City LUP and land use designations are proposed for this area as well The proposed amendment would allow the majority of the site to be developed with low density residential development, and would also set aside a portion of the site for open space uses including parks and conservation The amendment does not propose to create any new land use designations that are not already used in the existing LUP Each of the land use designations proposed already exist within the certified Land Use Plan (LUP) The land use designations that are proposed to be applied at the subject site have been applied elsewhere within the City's certified LUP However, because the site is an area of deferred certification or was recently annexed no land use designation has ever been approved by the Commission at the subject site (with the exception of the 5 acre area designated and zoned Open Space- Parks) The current zoning of approximately 38 acres of the site is Residential Low Density, which has not been certified by the Commission Specifically the amendment request proposes the following land use designations (see exhibit C) Land Acres Use RL - 7 Low Density Residential-Maximum 7 units per acre 38 4 acres OS-P Open Space-Park 8 2 acres OS-C Open Space-Conservation 3 3 acres As stated the area of deferred certification is forty acres and the former County parcel is five acres In addition to the 45 acre area the City has also included in this amendment the five acre area that was not deferred certification The certified area totals approximately 5 acres and is land use designated and zoned Open Space — Parks Most of the certified five acre parcel is slope area and not usable as an active park area The proposed amendment would retain that land use and would expand that designation into the formerly deferred area for a total of 8 2 acres of Open Space — Parks This five acre segment brings the total size of the subject site to 50 acres (40 acre ADC 5 acre former County parcel 5 acre certified area) exhibit to its resolution)and clearly resubmitted any portions of that area that may currently be certified For purposes of this staff report we refer to the uncertified area as being 40 acres and the acreage of the other areas subject to this LUP amendment are calculated accordingly However if the City does not accept the Commission s certification with suggested modifications and the current status quo remains the Commission does not,by these descriptions take any position on the issue of what area is currently certified and what area is ADC Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications) Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside) Page 19 Of the approximately 5 acre former County area 1 7 acres are proposed to become low density residential and 3 3 acres are proposed to become Open Space — Conservation (these figures are included within the totals in the chart above) In addition to establishing land use designations for the subject site the amendment also proposes text changes to the LUP The certified LUP includes a section of area-by-area descriptions In this section of the LUP the acreage figure is proposed to be changed to reflect the annexation of the former County parcel (from the current 44 acre figure to the proposed 50 acre figure) In addition language describing the area as vacant and an area of deferred certification is proposed to be replaced with the following language The Coastal Element land use designation for the vacant 45 acre area next to the East Garden Grove-Wintersburg Flood Control Channel was recently certified as RL-7(Low Density Residential) and OS-P (Open Space— Park) In addition, approximately 5 acres of land was annexed from the County of Orange into the City of Huntington Beach This area is designated RL-7(Low Density Residential) and OS— C (Open Space — Conservation) The subject area is currently comprised of two parcels one 45 acre parcel (historic City parcel) and one 5 acre parcel (former County parcel) B Site Description and History The site address is 17301 Graham Street, Huntington Beach Orange County It is bounded by Graham Street to the east East Garden Grove Wintersburg Flood Control Channel (EGGWFCC)to the south unincorporated Bolsa Chica area to the west, and existing residential uses to the north (along Kenilworth Drive) The development to the north is located within the City The land to the north and to the east of the project is located outside the coastal zone The areas located east of Graham Street, south of the EGGWFCC and immediately north of the subject site along Kenrnlworth Drive are all developed with low density residential uses To the northwest, a multi-family condominium development, Cabo del Mar, exists To the west of the subject site, are undeveloped properties known as the Goodell property and Signal Landmark property To the southwest of the subject site lies the Bolsa Chica wetlands restoration area The 3 3 acre area on the subject site proposed to be land use designated Open Space-Conservation is adjacent to the wetlands restoration area West of the Goodell property is the site of the recently approved Brightwater development for 349 residential units (coastal development permit 5- 05-020) The Brightwater site, the Goodell property, and the Signal Landmark property are located on the Bolsa Chica mesa The majority of the subject site has been more or less continuously farmed since at least the 1950s The majority of the site is roughly flat with elevations ranging from about 0 5 foot below Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications) Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside) Page 20 mean sea level to approximately 2 feet above mean sea level The western portion of the site is a bluff that rises to approximately 47 feet above sea level Also generally near the mid-point of the southerly property line is a mound with a height of just under ten feet The EGGWFCC levee at the southern border is approximately 12 feet above mean sea level Historically the site was part of the extensive Bolsa Chica Wetlands system In the southwest corner of the site on the former County parcel the City property owner and Commission are in agreement that an approximately 0 45 acre wetland is present In the 1980s as part of the review of the County's proposed LUP for the Bolsa Chica, the Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) in the document titled Determination of the Status of Bolsa Chica wetlands' (as amended April 16 1982) identified this area as severely degraded historic wetland — not presently functioning as wetland and considered it within the context of the entire Bolsa Chica wetland system Also in 1989 the U S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published its delineation of an approximately 8 acre wetland area in the northwest area of the site near the base of the bluff At the time of the EPA delineation the area was being farmed The topography of the agricultural field has been significantly altered since about 1998 As a result the area delineated by EPA no longer is inundated or saturated for long periods except during exceptionally wet years Water now tends to inundate an area near the flood control channel (designated MP ) and an area at the base of the western bluff (designated "AP') both of which werehame4mtm identified as wetlands by the Commission s staff ecologist However, the Commission found at its November 14, 2007 meeting that the WP is not wet enough long enough to result in the formation of hydrrc soils and does not exhibit sufficient hydrology that would support a predominance of hydrophytes in most years The City and property owner do not contest desLgnatton of the AP as wetland In addition, on the site s western boundary, generally along the base of the bluff, are two groves of Eucalyptus trees The trees are used by raptors for nesting roosting, and as a base from which to forage At the time the City s LUP was first considered for certification, in 1981 the Commission denied certification in part because the City proposed low density residential land use designation for the site that is the subject of the present amendment request and the Commission found the site to contain wetlands The City re-submitted the LUP in 1982, but it made no change to the proposed low density residential land use designation for the subject site Once again the Coastal Commission in its action on the City s proposed Land Use Plan, denied the certification for the MWD site (as the subject site was previously known), finding that it did contain wetland resources and that the designation of this parcel was an integral part of the ultimate land use and restoration program for the Bolsa Chica The Commission findings for denial of the LUP for this area note the importance of this area in relation to the Bolsa Chica LCP Of the 3 3 acres proposed to be Open Space — Conservation none is located within the 40 acre area that was deferred certification The site was being farmed at the time of the Commission's denial of the low Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications) Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside) Page 21 density residential land use designation for the subject site A related coastal development permit application had been submitted for the subject site 5-06-327 Shea Homes but that application has since been withdrawn similar to prior applications (previously submitted and then withdrawn were application Nos 5-06-021, 5- 05-256 and 5-03-029 for the same development proposal) as well as an appeal of a City permit for the certified area (A-5-HNB-02-376) The appealed action remains pending, but the applicant waived the deadline for the Commission to act on the appeal The Commission anticipates acting on the appeal in conjunction with a future permit application The permit application and appeal request subdivision of the site to accommodate 170 single family residences, construction of the residences and associated infrastructure preservation of the wetland identified on the former County parcel and dedication and grading of active public park area C LCP History The LCP for the City of Huntington Beach, minus two geographic areas was effectively certified in March 1985 The two geographic areas that were deferred certification were the bulk of the subject site (known at that time as the MWD site— see footnote 1) and an area inland of Pacific Coast Highway between Beach Boulevard and the Santa Ana River mouth (known as the PCH ADC) The subject site is northeast of the Bolsa Chica LCP area At the time certification was deferred the subject area was owned by the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) The site has since been sold by MWD and is currently owned by Shea Homes Both of the ADCs were deferred certification due to unresolved wetland protection issues Certification of the subject site was also deferred due to concerns that it might be better utilized for coastal-dependent industrial facilities, since MWD at that time had a transmission corridor' parcel within the Bolsa Chica Lowlands that it indicated could be used to connect seawater intake facilities located offshore to facilities located on its switchyard parcel in the City of Huntington Beach through the subject parcel This is no longer a possibility since the State has taken over the lowlands and given the development of the areas surrounding the subject parcel since 1982 (and pending development that has already been approved) this site is no longer appropriate for coastal dependent industry The PCH ADC was certified by the Commission in 1995 The wetland areas of that former ADC are land use designated Open Space— Conservation and zoned Coastal Conservation No portion of the former PCH ADC is part of the current amendment request A comprehensive update to the City s LUP was certified by the Commission on June 14 2001 via Huntington Beach LCP amendment 3-99 The City also updated the Implementation Plan by replacing it with the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (while retaining existing specific plans for areas located within the Coastal Zone without changes) The updated Implementation Plan was certified by the Coastal Commission in April 1996 via LCP amendment 1-95 Both the LUP update and the IP update maintained Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications) Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside) Page 22 the subject site as an area of deferred certification This LCP amendment was originally submitted as LCPA No 2-02 LCPA 2-02 was subsequently withdrawn and re-submitted as LCPA 1-05 LCPA 1-05 was also withdrawn and re-submitted The current amendment LCPA 1-06 is the most recent submittal of the same amendment No changes have been made to the amendment proposal during any of the withdrawal and re-submittals The withdrawal and re-submittals were done in order to provide the property owner additional time to prepare and submit additional information regarding the presence of wetlands on-site and the use of the eucalyptus grove by raptors and to allow Commission staff adequate time to review the additional information LCPA 1-06 was received on April 13 2006 On June 13 2006 the Commission granted an extension of the time limit to act on LCPA No 1-06 for a period not to exceed one year t# F!E .®n n�„ aim �..�., g� ®fit On MaV 10. 2007. the Commission voted to deny the subject Land Use Plan amendment as submitted A motion (i a the main motion) was made to approve the Land Use Plan amendment with modifications, but, upon dehberation, the hearing was continued The LCPA was subsequently scheduled for Commission action at its July 9-13. 2007 hearing The LCP amendment originally proposed changes to both the Land Use Plan (LUP) and the Implementation Plan (LP) On July 3. 2007, the city withdrew the lP portion of the LCPA The Commission recognized the withdrawal of the IP amendment at its July 11. 2007 hearing Also at its July 11. 2007 heanng. the Commission postponed action on suggested modifications for the LUP portion of the LCPA At its !November 14 2007 meeting the Commission approved the LUP amendment math suggested modifications On April 10. 2008. the Commission granted an extension of the time limit for the City to act on suggested modifications to the LCPA D Land Use Plan Format The City s certified Land Use Plan includes a section of Goals, Objectives and Policies These are organized by specific resources including headings such as Land Use Shoreline and Coastal Resource Access and Recreational and Visitor Serving Facilities, among many others These are the certified policies that apply City—wide within the coastal zone Another section of the certified LUP is the Technical Synopsis The Technical Synopsis is an area-by-area description of each segment of the City s coastal zone This section includes the descriptions of the existing land use designations It also includes after a narrative description of the sub-areas Table C-2 Table C-2 is titled Community District and Sub-area Schedule and it provides greater specificity of what is allowed and encouraged within each subdistrict This greater level of specificity provides a more detailed site specific description than would be provided if the land use designation or general policies were considered alone Table C-2 provides language on how general policies and designations would apply to specific sub areas of the coastal zone Taken all together, these work well as the standard for development in the coastal zone Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications) Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside) Page 23 The format of the suggested modifications applies this same structure to the amendment site Many of the issues addressed by suggested modifications would be required by the general LUP policies but consistent with the format of the LUP the suggested modifications are intended to provide a greater level of detail that applies to the specific circumstances of the subject site For example although the City s public access policies may be adequate to require a bike path along the EGGWFCC levee, the LUP format calls the reader s attention to the fact that at this particular site, a bike path is appropriate and is therefore being required in this amendment If one were working from the policies alone some opportunities at certain sites may not be recognized The LUP's existing format significantly maximizes the protection of resources within the coastal zone The suggested modifications carry out that same format in order to assure protection of resources at the amendment site E Approval of the Land Use Plan Amendment if Modified 1 Incorporation of Findings for Denial of Land Use Plan as Submitted The findings for denial of the Land Use Plan as submitted are incorporated as if fully set forth herein The Commission denied the LUPA as submitted at the Commission's May 10 2007 hearing The findings for denial of the LUPA as submitted that were provided in the May 2007 recommendation are found in Attachment A, attached to this staff report 2 Wetland The proposed amendment includes an Open Space Conservation designation on a 3 3 acre area within the former County parcel The 3 3 acre area includes an undisputed wetland area (see 3rd revised exhibit NN) The proposed Conservation designation is appropriate for this area However additional wetland areas exist at the subject site that are not proposed to be protected with the Open Space Conservation (OSC) designation and are addressed in the following findings Wetlands often provide critical habitat nesting sites, and foraging areas for many species, some of which are threatened or endangered In addition wetlands can serve as natural filtering mechanisms to help remove pollutants from storm runoff before the runoff enters into streams and rivers leading to the ocean Further, wetlands can serve as natural flood retention areas Another critical reason for preserving expanding and enhancing Southern California's remaining wetlands is because of their scarcity As much as 75% of coastal wetlands in southern California have been lost, and statewide up to 91% of wetlands have been lost Section 30121 of the Coastal Act states Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications) Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside) Page 24 "Wetland' means lands within the coastal zone which may be covered penodically or permanently with shallow water and include saltwater marshes freshwater marshes, open or closed brackish water marshes, swamps, mudflats and fens The Commission has further specified how wetlands are to be identified through regulations and guidance documents Section 13577(b)(1) of the Commission's regulations states, in pertinent part Wetlands shall be defined as land where the water table is at, near, or above the land surface long enough to promote the formation of hydric sods or to support the growth of hydrophytes For purposes of this section the upland limit of a wetland shall be defined as (A) the boundary between land with predominantly hydrophytc cover and land with predominantly mesophytic or xerophytic cover, (8) the boundary between soil that is predominantly hydric and soil that is predominantly nonhydric, or (C)in the case of wetlands without vegetation or sods, the boundary between land that is flooded or saturated at some time during years of normal precipitation, and land that is not Section 30231 of the Coastal Act states, in pertinent part The biological productivity and the quality of wetlands appropriate to maintain optimum populations of marine organisms and for the protection of human health shall be maintained and where feasible, restored through, among other means, preventing depletion of ground water supplies and substantial interference with surface water flow, maintaining natural vegetation buffer areas that protect riparian habitats, Section 30233(a) of the Coastal Act states The diking filling, or dredging of open coastal waters, wetlands, estuanes, and lakes shall be permitted in accordance with other applicable provisions of this division where there is no feasible less environmentally damaging afternat►ve, and where feasible mitigation measures have been provided to minimize adverse environmental effects, and shall be limited to the following 1) New or expanded port, energy, and coastal-dependent industrial facilities, including commercial fishing facilities 2) Maintaining existing, or restoring previously dredged, depths in existing navigational channels, turning basins vessel berthing and mooring areas, and boat launching ramps 3) In open coastal waters other than wetlands including streams, estuaries, Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications) Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside) Page 25 and lakes new or expanded boating facilities and the placement of structural pilings for public recreational piers that provide public access and recreational opportunities 4) Incidental public service purposes, including but not limited to burying cables and pipes or inspection of piers and maintenance of existing intake and outfall lines 5) Mineral extraction including sand for restonng beaches, except in environmentally sensitive areas 6) Restoration purposes 7) Nature study aquaculture, or similar resource dependent activities Section 30250 of the Coastal Act states in pertinent part (a) New residential development shall be located where it will not have significant adverse effects, either individually or cumulatively on coastal resources In addition the City s LUP includes Policy C 6 1 20, which limits filling of wetlands to the specific activities outlined in Section 30233 of the Coastal Act And LUP policy C 7 1 4 states in pertinent part "Require that new development contiguous to wetlands or environmentally sensitive habitat areas include buffer zones ' The Coastal Commission staff ecologist has reviewed considerable amounts of information regarding the extent of wetlands at the site much of which are listed in his memorandum which is attached as Exhibit K The property owner has submitted numerous documents intended to demonstrate that there are no wetlands on site, beyond the wetlands recognized on the former County parcel (i a the CP wetlands) Local citizens have submitted documents intended to demonstrate that there are significantly more wetlands on site than that recognized in the CP wetlands These citizens are concerned by the prospect that development may be allowed to occur within wetlands at the site if the LUP amendment were approved as submitted (and as reflected in the related coastal development permit application 5-06-327 Shea Homes and appeal A-5-HNB-02-376) In addition the staff ecologist has reviewed historical information regarding the subject site and surrounding area All this information has been reviewed by the staff ecologist and is considered in his memoranda attached as Exhibits K LLL, and QQQ to this staff report and are hereby incorporated into these findings in their entirety The Commission s Mapping/GIS Program Manager has also reviewed numerous historic and more recent aerial photographs and topographical information The purpose of the Mapping/GIS Program Managers review was to identify changes due to landform alterations such as grading and filling and to attempt to delineate disturbed areas dating from the time the Coastal Commission's jurisdiction began at the project site (1/1/77) The results of his review are reflected in his memoranda dated 7/2/07 and 10/25/07 attached as exhibits MMM and RRR of this staff report and which are hereby incorporated into these findings in their entirety Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications) Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside) Page 26 In brief summary results of the review of the aerial photos and topographic maps indicates that topography has changed on site particularly in the area delineated by the EPA as wetlands in their 1989 publication (generally in the northwest area of the site) Changes are also identified in the area of the former equestrian facility (generally in the southwestern portion of the site between the CP and WP areas) However, at its November 14, 2007 hearing, the Commission found, based on evidence presented. that no wetlands exist in the WP area In the aerial photo taken on May 21 1970 the western extension of Slater Avenue is visible just north of the flood control channel embankment on the subject property The 1970 photo establishes a pre-Proposition 20 pre-Coastal Act baseline for gauging the extent of land alterations and other changes that occurred later (post Coastal Act 1/1/77) A clearly distinguishable topographic depression in the area of the EPA wetlands is depicted on topographic maps from 1970 1980 and 1996 However, by 2005 that depression was no longer present in the same configuration The lowest area had been displaced to the west abutting the base of the mesa and the historic EPA wetland area had been relatively flattened In the area of the former equestrian facility the aerial photos and topographic maps also show disturbance In the images from 1981 on fill is evident in the area that was developed as an equestrian facility It appears that fill first appears in conjunction with establishment of the equestrian facility with additional fill being placed over the life of the facility The extent of fill has migrated, primarily to the north but also, to some extent to the southwest wWP and AP Areas With regard to existing wetlands based on his review of the available data the Commission's staff ecologist determined that additional wetland areas exist at the subject site The Commissions staff ecologist considered first questions of whether additional wetland areas exist at two specific areas of the subject site The results of the staff ecologists review regarding the presence of additional wetland at the two specific sites (described below as areas AP and WP) are reflected in his Memorandum, dated 7/27/06, attached as exhibit K to this staff report For the reasons listed in that memorandum and below the Commission concurs and adopts its ecologists conclusions with regard to the area known as the Agricultural Pond (AP) Two specific areas of were evaluated for the presence of additional wetland area a" The two sites are referred to as the Wintersburg Pond or WP which is adjacent to the East Garden Grove Wintersburg Flood Control Channel (EGGWFCC) levee along the southern edge of the site, and the Agricultural Pond or AP located near the base of the bluff along the western edge of the property The proposed LUP amendment would designate these wetland areas Low Density Residential and Open Space-Parks These land use designations allow grading, and the construction of houses, roads and active parks which wcould necessitate the dredging and filling of the wetlands if wetlands are present in these areas Such uses within wetlands are inconsistent with Section 30233 of the Coastal Act and with LUP Policy C 6 1 20 which limits filling of Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications) Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside) Page 27 wetlands to the specific activities outlined in Coastal Act Section 30233 The memorandum dated July 27 2006 from the Commission s staff ecologist states `The available data suggest that portions of the agricultural field are inundated or saturated at a frequency and duration sufficient to support a preponderance of wetland plant species Such areas meet the definition of wetlands under the Coastal Act and the Commission s Regulations There are three factors or parameters that are used to determine whether or not a wetland exists the presence of hydrophytc vegetation the presence of hydric soils, and the presence of wetland hydrology The Commission finds an area to be wetland if any one of the three parameters is present Usually the presence or absence of hydrophytes or hydnc soils is sufficient to determine whether a wetland exists However those two indicators are not necessary, as they do not actually define a wetland Rather, an area is defined as a wetland based on whether it is wet enough long enough that it would support either of those two indicators Therefore the removal of vegetation by permitted activities does not change a wetland to upland Section 30121 of the Coastal Act provides the statutory definition of wetlands lands within the coastal zone which may be covered periodically or permanently with shallow water and include saltwater marshes freshwater marshes " Section 13577(b)(1) of the California Code of Regulations provides the regulatory definition of wetlands land where the water table is at, near or above the land surface long enough to promote the formation of hydric soils or to support the growth of hydrophytes Thus the Coastal Act and the Regulations provide that a determination of the presence of wetlands may be made based on whether an area demonstrates the presence of sufficient water to promote hydric soils or to support hydrophytes whether or not the soils and vegetation are present under existing conditions Because this area was historically a salt marsh and because the site has been historically farmed and continues to be farmed as of the adoption of these findings, the typically used field indicators cannot be relied upon The grading and repeated discing and plowing associated with the existing agricultural use destroys hydric soil features and prevents the development of natural vegetation _The evidence presented in the ecologist s memo and summarized below#ndicates suqqgsts that the AP and WP areas are wet enough long enough to support the growth of hydophytes T4ws If so, the WP and AP areas would meetfi the definition of wetlands contained in the Commission s regulations The WP and AP would also meets the Coastal Act definition of wetlands Fs periodically covered in shallow water " However, based on all the evidence presented(including the memoranda prepared by Commission staff, information submitted by the City, the property owner, the public, and public testtmonv) the Commission found that the area of the WP is not wet enough Iona enough or frequently enough for the development of a preponderance of hydrophytc vegetation or hydric soils Therefore, the Commission finds that the area known as WP is not a wetland Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications) Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside) Page 28 The wetland conclusion is based on two lines of evidence (1) an examination of the vegetation at a nearby location that is similar in history, physical characteristics, and hydrology to the depressions in the agricultural field 2 and (2) an informed estimate of the frequency and duration of continuous inundation Mr at various sites Areas WP and AP were matched by the Commission's staff ecologist with wetland areas on the County parcel that were similar in elevation and topography Inundation in the agricultural and AP and at the reference wetlands was similar in pattern, further suggesting that the latter is a good proxy for the former Therefore since the dominant vegetation at the reference areas is mostly comprised of wetland species it is reasonable to expect that the agricultural area AP would also support a predominance of hydrophytes in the absence of farming (i a that it is wet enough long enough and frequently enough to support such vegetation) Although prior to about 1990 inundation hadn t been apparent in the depression adjacent to the EGGWFCC (WP area) and inundation occurred there less frequently than in the area of the AP- in recent years, the Commission considered ommkwea information regarding whether the ni•f th WP is inundated for long duration following significant rainfall Weighing the conflicting information submitted the Commission found that the WP was not inundated for long duration following significant rainfaN Establishing the extent of wetlands at the site given its history of farming and disturbance is not straightforward The best approach for this site regarding WP and AP known to the Commission at this time is to base the wetland boundary on current conditions as inferred from recent topography and the available photographs of recent inundation EPA Delineated Wetland (1989) Prior to about 1990, it appears from aerial photographs that significant inundation was generally confined to the area delineated as wetland Oust east of the area of the AP) by the EPA in its 1989 publication Based on analysis of aerial photographs dating from 1958 to 1985 the property owners biological consultant concluded that inundation in that area tended to have a different footprint in different years and based on this observation, he 2 In the second to last footnote in Dr Dixon s memo he notes that the topography of the reference site is actually similar to that of WP as it existed m 2003 not at present More recently a box plough was used to fill area WP which is apparent in 2006 topographic maps The box plough fill is under investigation by Commission staff as an alleged violation Accordingly relying on the topography prior to the alleged violation yields the appropriate comparison Additionally the hydrology section of Dr Dixon s memo states that LSA biologists stated that WP didn t pond until after about 1973 However if this is due to changes in topography that occurred before 1973 it is agam appropriate to focus on the post 1973 topography as that represents current conditions Conditions prior to 1973 may be irrelevant if topographical conditions changed prior to 1973 as such changes were pre Coastal Act and therefore not Coastal Act violations Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications) Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside) Page 29 argued that no particular area should be identified as a wetland However all his estimated wetland polygons in the western portion of the agricultural field appear to fall within the area delineated by the EPA In the absence of wetland vegetation the drawing of wetland boundaries is an approximate exercise based on a small and haphazard collection of aerial photographs or ground observations and estimates of topography Given the approximate nature of such delineations it appears the consultants results are actually additional evidence that the EPA delineation was reasonable at the time it was made However it appears that the area of the EPA delineation (8 3 acres) was based on extra-normal site circumstances As described in the October 25 2007 memorandum prepared by the Commission s staff ecologist the 8 3 acre estimate of the wetland size appears to have been based largely on observations made during the period when increased runoff from off-site was temporarily directed onto the subject site This appears to have occurred during the construction of the Cabo del Mar condominiums on the adjacent property from sometime after 1978 until sometime before 1986 If one considers the area delineated by EPA under normal conditions (i a no excess off site drainage directed on-site) a more likely estimate for the wetland area can be made Based on the Bilhorn (1987) and EPA (1989) estimates of wetland area during the period of construction of the Cabo del Mar condominiums estimates of water availability during the period of interest and the estimated size of ponded areas in available photographs, a reasonable estimate of the average area that ponded is 4 0 acres The 1987 and 1989 studies by Bilhorn and EPA were based on field work done prior to 1987 The October 25 2007 memorandum is attached to this staff report as exhibit QQQ and is hereby incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein As discussed in detail below, the EPA wetland is no longer present Existing CP Wetland Substantial evidence suggests that the wetland area of the CP is larger than what has been recognized in the LCP amendment submittal The wetland area recognized by the City and property owner on what is known as the former County parcel totals 0 45 acres However additional CP area should be included in the CP wetland acreage This wetland area was filled without authorization from the Commission In a letter dated 9/7/82 from the Department of Fish and Game (DFG) to Coastal Commission staff the DFG determined the area prior to placement of the unpermitted fill, to be wetlands, and recommended removal of the fill and revegetation (see exhibit BBB) Pursuant to Coastal Development Permit No 5-82-278 the unpermitted fill was to have been removed and the area revegetated Based on comparison of topographic (1980) and vegetation maps (Vegetation Communities Exhibit 26 of the Bolsa Chica Land Use Plan dated January 1982) created before the unpermitted fill was placed with topographic maps (1986 and 1982) created subsequent to the time the fill was placed, the elevation of the subject area was increased by at least 2 feet Because of the unpermitted fill, the pickleweed within the filled area was no longer viable Development approved pursuant to Coastal Development Permit 5-82- Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications) Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside) Page 30 278 included removal of the unpermitted fill to an elevation of approximately three inches below the grade of the existing adjacent pickleweed stand [area of the recognized CP wetland] and revegetation of the area with one or more of the following species pickleweed spiny rush frankenia sea lavender and shoregrass However elevations in the fill area are not consistent with pre-fill elevations Rather topographic maps prepared subsequent to the unpermitted fill and subsequent to the issuance of Permit 5-82-278 depict the fill area at an elevation at least two feet above the adjacent CP wetland This leads to the conclusion that removal of the fill and revegetation never occurred Were it not for this unpermitted development the area would have remained wetlands area Unpermitted development cannot be used as a basis to justify development in areas where were it not for the unpermitted development, such development would not be allowed Thus consideration of appropriate land use designation must consider site conditions as if the unpermitted development had not occurred Therefore this area is considered a wetland As proposed the amendment would allow land uses like residential and related uses like roads within wetland areas Thus, the proposed land use designation is not consistent with Section 30233 of the Coastal Act Potential Unpermitted Development Unpermitted development cannot be used as a basis to justify development in areas where were it not for the unpermitted development, such development would not be consistent with the requirements of the Coastal Act The site as has been mentioned has historically been farmed Discerning changes in topography on the order of a few feet to fractions of a foot over the course of 30 years and ascertaining that such changes are not due to normal farming activities at a site where farming activities are on-going is problematic Nevertheless it is important to assure that if wetland areas have been eliminated due to unpermitted activity that those areas are considered as if the unpermitted activity had not occurred Thus if areas that would have met the Commission s definition of a wetland have been altered such that they no longer meet that definition only due to unpermitted activity, that area must be afforded the same protection as would be required had the unpermitted activity not illegally altered the wetlands It has been suggested that the land alterations in the area of the EPA delineated wetland were the result of`normal farming activity and so could not be considered unpermitted development in terms of the need for a coastal development permit However, any activities whether normal farming activities or other that would result in the fill of wetlands cannot be exempt from the need to obtain approval of a coastal development permit Regarding leveling of land as a normal farming activity a joint EPA and Department of the Army memorandum3 states `grading activities that would change any area of water of the United States including wetlands into dry land is not exempt Furthermore Section 323 4(a)(1)(iii)(D) of the Army Corps of Engineers regulations pertaining to discharge of dredged or fill material into the waters of the United States, states that the term plowing 3 Memorandum Clean Water Act Section 404 Regulatory Program and Agricultural Activities United States EPA and United States Department of the Army May 3 1990 Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications) Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside) Page 31 does not include the redistribution of soil rock sand or other surficial material in a manner which changes any area of the water of the United States to dry land ' The Commission agrees and finds that if a wetland is filled and no coastal development permit has been obtained the fill activity constitutes unpermitted development The Commission makes no determination at this time whether the fill activit.� constitutes unpermitted development regardless of the precise nature of the ton .time farming activity, because the LCPA proposes allowing non-farming uses such as the proposed residential and park uses outside of the modified wetland and buffer area, and requires restoration of a 4 0-acre modified EPA wetland, along with establishment of a 100-foot buffer adjacent. the Commission finds that the modified EPA wetlands is protected as a wetland under the Coastal Act In a letter dated July 9 2007 submitted to the Commission at its July 2007 hearing from the California Farm Bureau Federation (see exhibit XXX) raises three issues regarding the LCPA staff report 1) staff s recommendation relies on an EPA study but there may no longer be any federal jurisdiction authority based on more recent EPA guidance documents 2) the subject site s status of prior converted cropland' and 3) what constitutes normal farming activities Regarding more recent EPA guidance documents the letter states 'In light of new USEPA and USACOE memorandums and the Staff Report s reliance on these agencies' findings there may no longer be any federal jurisdictional authority over the disputed wetlands In turn this may alter key conclusions in the staff report " The documents referenced describe procedures to be followed in determining when the EPA/USACE have jurisdiction in implementing the Clean Water Act The guidance documents assist only in determining when a Section 404 permit is necessary from the EPA and have no bearing on a past wetland delineation and cannot be interpreted as negating a past delineation Furthermore one of the referenced documents (Memorandum Clean Water Act Section 404 Regulatory Programs and Agricultural Activities) states "For example, if a farmer has been plowing planting and harvesting in wetlands, he can continue to do so without the need for a Section 404 permit so long as he does not; convert the wetlands to dry land [emphasis added] ' Thus, even by the standards cited by the Farm Bureau, farming that converts a wetland to dry land is not exempt from the requirement to obtain Section 404 review Furthermore the 1989 EPA wetland delineation assessed the presence of wetlands and found that wetlands did exist at the site Commission staff have reviewed that study as well as a great deal of other information (as cited in the Commission staff memoranda) and as is outlined in the staff memoranda found the EPA wetland delineation valid (with adjustments as described elsewhere) A change in other agencies guidance documents has no bearing on the results of the earlier wetland delineation The letter also raises the question of whether the subject site should be considered prior converted cropland The Farm Bureau letter states Farm Bureau also believes that the Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications) Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside) Page 32 Coastal Commission should apply and document the site specific facts of this issue against USACOE RGL 90-7 and USEPA s applicable regulations and guidance documents regarding prior converted cropland The letter further states "However, attention should be given to the disputed area s present and recent past characteristics and use as prior converted crop land The letter refers to a November 20 1998 letter from the Natural Resource Conservation Service designating the subject site as prior converted cropland That November 20 1998 Natural Resource Conservation Service letter states that it based its determination that the site is prior converted cropland on two factors 1) the site has been farmed prior to 1985 and 2) designation of the property as 'Prior Converted Cropland by the Army Corps of Engineers in 1992 review of their designation in 1998 and an independent report from Lisa Kegarice of Tom Dodson and Associates in December of 1997 have determined that this property meets the criteria for Prior Converted Cropland " However, the Commissions staff ecologists memo dated July 27, 2006 (exhibit K) includes review of the Natural Resource Conservation Services 1998 letter (among many other documents) and addresses the issue of prior converted cropland' at length As described in greater detail in the Commission ecologists 7/27/06 memo the decision to dismiss the site from regulation under the Clean Water Act, was based on the faulty work contained in the Kegance report of 1997 and the fact that errors in that report have been perpetuated without challenge until now Furthermore designation of a site as prior converted cropland simply allows on-going farming to continue The proposed LUP amendment would not continue farming at the site so that designation even if it had been accurately applied is moot when considering allowing non-farming uses such as the proposed residential and active park uses Finally the Farm Bureau letter questions Commission staff's assessment that activities that have occurred on site are not normal farming activities On-going farming activities such as plowing and discing, that are consistent with the continuance of existing wetlands constitute normal farming activities However methods such as grading, that go beyond normal farming activities have occurred on site, resulting in the loss and/or fill of wetlands, and do not constitute normal farming activities Moreover members of the public have also presented evidence to suggest that activities that are employed at the site do not constitute normal farming activities And they have argued those activities have, over time substantially reduced the presence and extent of areas that would otherwise have met the Coastal Act definition of wetland Such activities include but may not necessarily be limited to, use of a bulldozer and a box plough to move earth in the area of the agricultural field The Commission concurs that use of such earth moving equipment particularly when it results in the fill of wetlands, is not typically associated with normal farming activities Development including earth movement on a scale that requires a bulldozer or box plough in an area of known wetland presence (I e 1989 EPA wetland delineation Commission s 1982 and 1984 actions deferring certification of the site DFG Study of Wetlands at Bolsa Chica) without an approved coastal development permit may constitufe unpermitted development Also other non-farming activities have historically occurred on the site In 1982 the Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications) Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside) Page 33 Commission approved the above mentioned coastal development permit No 5-82-278 The approved development was located near the southwest corner of the site straddling the former City/County boundary (see exhibit BBB) Fill (1 500 to 3 000 cubic yards) for an expanded parking area was explicitly approved as part of that coastal development permit Evidence shows that only the area of the expanded parking lot that was explicitly described in the approved permit was approved for placement of fill under that coastal development permit approval If so any additional fill in the area of the remaining equestrian facility !may constitute unpermitted fill The development described in the application for the coastal development permit requests the following placement of mobile home as a caretaker facility additional stable facilities [emphasis added] grading and fill of a parking facility for approximately 50 cars removal of fill and revegetation [described previously] and placement of a fence around the revegetated area The City s 1981 Conditional Use Permit for the project (CUP No 81-13) refers to a request to expand [emphasis added] an existing horse facility The City s CUP staff report states The existing [emphasis added] temporary horse stable on the site has been in operation since 1966 and According to the applicant most of the existing [emphasis added] facilities were installed prior to 1977 These characterizations of portions of development existing prior to the Commission s jurisdiction in the area (which began on 1/1/77) were carried over into the Coastal Commission staff report for 5-82-278 However review of aerial photos indicates that the equestrian facility was not present until 1978 after the Commission s jurisdiction in the area began Both the City and County of Orange planning staff have reviewed their records for permits for the stable facility that predate 1978 but have found no permits earlier than 19814 Regardless of whether or not any portion of the equestrian facility pre-dates the Coastal Act review of historic aerial photos and topographic maps indicate subsequent actions at the subject site have resulted in fill beyond the footprint and/or at higher elevations than what was approved under coastal development permit 5-82-278 Any fill placed on the site, other than that specifically approved for the 50 space parking area approved under cdp 5- 82-278 . may be unpermitted 1t should be noted that a coastal development permit application was submitted in 1993 5- 93-376 (Hole in the Wall Stable) The 1993 application requested approval of continued use of the existing equestrian facility (formerly Smokey s Stables) At that time Commission staff determined the request was exempt from the need for a coastal development permit because it simply requested continued use of an existing facility no construction or grading/fill was proposed (see exhibit DDD) It appears the request was mischaractenzed in that the equestrian facilities present in 1993 were larger still than even those requested in 1982 In addition at the direction of Commission staff the current property owner submitted a 4 The County approved CUP No 80 92 to permit the establishment of a commercial stable on the County portion of the site on 2/26/81 Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications) Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside) Page 34 coastal development permit application for discing the site in 1999 (5-99-303 Shea Homes) In response to that application staff Informed the applicant at that time that no permit was needed based on the property s prior usage for agricultural purposes (see exhibit NNN) However staff s determination that no permit was necessary was based on a 1998 letter from CDFG (Exhibit YYY) stating that based on a consultants report no wetlands were present and the likelihood of wetland restoration on site was slim But that CDFG assessment relied not on an actual wetland delineation by CDFG but rather on the flawed analysis contained in a wetlands assessment of the site conducted by Tom Dodson and Associates (Kegance 1997)5 Thus staff s determination that no permit was needed was in error, based on faulty information prepared by others Furthermore staff s determination that no permit was necessary was also based on the characterization by the applicant (Shea Homes) that the development requested was discing of the site The letter from staff indicating no permit was necessary responded only to the request to continue shallow discing of the farmed area However the site has been subjected to farming practices that may go beyond what can be considered normal farming activities and which were not described as part of the project description in the permit application Supporting this conclusion are recently documented incidents at the site that include use of a bulldozer and a box plough In addition, in his memorandum dated 7/2/07 (exhibit MMM) regarding the history of the EPA wetland area, the Commission s Mapping/GIS Program Manager concludes dramatic changes have occurred in this decade The 7/2/07 memorandum states "Although agriculture has gone on in this area since the 1930 s the elevations have consistently indicated a topographic depression here Aerial photography shows repeated instances of ponding in the area In this decade the topography has changed dramatically, with the obliteration of the depression in its original location and the creation of a smaller narrower depression at the western margin of the agricultural field However, other than permit 5-82-278 and the two circumstances mentioned above, no other permit history for the site has been discovered The question of whether development occurred without benefit of an approved coastal development permit is particularly important due to the history of wetlands on site There is evidence to suggest that areas where topography has been modified may have supported wetlands If wetlands were present at the time of past development, the Coastal Act requires that those wetlands be protected Review of historic aerial photos of the site, comparison of various historic and recent topographic maps of the site, photos of earth moving equipment not normally associated with farming activities and earth moving in the area of previously delineated wetlands (i e EPA) also raise significant questions as to whether the site has been altered in ways that would have required a coastal development permit Construction of the Cabo del Mar condominiums —outside the coastal zone, but adjacent to the subject site — appears to have included development that extended onto the subject 5 See exhibit K Memo from the Commission s staff ecologist explaining why that analysis is flawed and does not reflect actual site conditions Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications) Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside) Page 35 site and thus within the coastal zone Prior to the development of the Cabo del Mar condominiums (c 1983 — 1985), a portion of the runoff from the approximately 22-acre site drained onto the Parkside property and contributed to the hydrology of the wetland mapped by EPA At some point after the Cabo del Mar construction the drainage was directed to new dram pipes that were installed across the subject site Section 30231 of the Coastal Act requires that all wetlands be maintained by preventing substantial interference with surface water flow Construction of the drainage pipes impacted one source of water that fed the EPA wetland inconsistent with Section 30231 of the Coastal Act Such development would have required a coastal development permit from the Coastal Commission However no such permit was obtained Regarding the EPA wetland area evidence suggests that this wetland relied on surface water rather than groundwater Any loss of runoff would have a negative effect on the wetland that was historically present in the EPA area and on the wetlands that are currently present Open Space Conservation Area In summary, in order to be most protective of wetlands, the additional wetland area, beyond what is proposed to be designated Open Space-Conservation, must be recognized and appropriately designated under this LUP amendment At a minimum, that would include the APB and expanded CP areas, and portions of the wetland area identified by the EPA in a document published in 1989 Although it is very likely the area between the former equestrian facility and the WP would be considered wetland area now were it not for unpermitted development, that determination cannot be conclusively made th- ' -ago ihio 01=:2 that mg1aA /mow w7w e.s en..4w.J nww The area delineated by the EPA as wetland totaled approximately 8 3 acres However as described in the October 25, 2007 memorandum prepared by the Commission's staff ecologist, the 8 3 acre figure appears to have been based on observations dunng a period when construction activities on an adjacent property resulted in a temporary direction of excess off-site drainage onto the subject site Several Imes of evidence suggest that a reasonable estimate for the size of the wetland before and after the construction is about 4 0 acres " .. *ff'&d dim,riot Long-time farming activities resulted in the loss of the 4-acre EPA wetland area Section 30233 of the Coastal Act requires that loss of wetlands due to fill must be mitigated The Commission typically requires mitigation at a ratio of 4 1 (area of mitigation to wetland area lost) The Commission finds that the a 0-acre modified EPA wetland must be d restored However the activities that resulted in the loss of the EPA wetland area also contributed to the creation of wetlands in the area of the AP Thus it would be appropriate to Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications) Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside) Page 36 preserve the area of the AP (0 61 acres) '^ Wo ^•^'•^- 1..r.,I .h^ t^i.,' ..F,.,^"..., and mitigate the loss of the 4-acre EPA wetland area through restoration of the 4 0-acre modified EPA wetland, as delineated by the Staff Ec0/og/st44r..e. I.,e.t .. A _ 46 ijaFes of ur..tl...,.d .,r,,.._t.. h.. Armaind a Aac ., r..e. _ ■ Therefore in addition to the AP an additional 4 00 acres of restorabon on site surrounded by a 100- foot buffer would be required to address the loss of the 4-acre EPA wetland Thus area that must be preserved on site includes the AP expanded CP areas modified 4 0 acre EPA wetland ^s a n-d m ti ateddl ESHA areas wetland and ESHA buffer area and Eapt r.aK20IN M4102han amaPreservation and/or restoration of the AP, 44IR expanded CP and restored 4 0-acre EPA wetlands may require supplemental water th h A^t t., t^ d^ ..I r ..r1 t ^tt 4h ^r.MMifigant tl ^A tr►��a$n� ®�a� a$®tea�a3aa7�7�bra .. Phi=969at on : r►..,..t W e.t ..F th.. R..w9r.e...ra, h,rFF.. r 46a^ 9A/R) ..r^w ..me.e, th Clio in ihinh.,r.. pinen^rf.. I,ra.. .+d w..,..6 .. e.t ^F th., e+^w..6Gar #: I.,rFF r Fier 4h v., l��A �ea The area to be designated Open Space Conservation is depicted on —4h revised Exhibit NN A/th.. h th..r., .. .,. oketR of/.....d . r,th,« th., r.,.. th Q r,..r..assion find t t.�rrrerr. / ..r.+..•+ r.. L.... t h..i .nr..t/..nde, r., the 4Ath ..n..►,�.,.rl,e ...a. ama would ha more data wer. s.,R,/.+h/a and/or r ../I as area R r far= ® th^r^ aI/r, n 160 e... -ad these e.r.^-•F•--th,�I� .i.r.I�^mil ..6�^.r^ ^w, �v��9�®��aye® ®��-�d® a"e®r®--e'®gfdu®4® OMss ...,,,t .,F.. .+t/...../ , ..t .,,,d th., ...Cl E r ....,t,....-Mahan ee a$alr�gwe" igg®ugiate�®�� Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications) Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside) Page 37 amionodm-at nn4 nmaintricia a .eta - .,Hand r. ../•i.r. rr.e.fir.r. f•�•a ..w InIshic Onel in nn urnu nmintillel-el Thy. •wda /�w•.I w•�•�r.+rrmoil - dae.•...r.afinn r..,l .+r�r.wr. 4•�.. r,,r.�.,r..4•..r. O"'d •++d••....4•i..+ r1...,.. Cn—via r+.,a.•..,r.�atgi n / too -AM11 no _The Commission finds that only if modified consistent with the land use designations depicted on 4th revised exhibit NN, can the proposed LUP amendment be found to be consistent with Sections 30233 and 30231 of the Coastal Act which require protection of wetlands Moreover the entire area was originally deferred certification due to the historic presence of wetland on site In deferring certification originally the Commission found North Properties of the Bolsa Chica (Between Wintersburg Channel& base of Bluffs) (MIND Site #1 [virtually identical to the subject site of current LCP amendmen(]) The LUP designates this site for low density residential uses No modifications were made in the LUP from the previous denial by the Commission The Commission found in its Preliminary Wetlands Determination for the Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Plan, March 11 1980 that all available information demonstrated that the vast majority of the Bolsa Chica low lands exhibit all the characteristics set forth for the identification of wetlands pursuant to Section 30121 of the Coastal Act and concluded that the information supported a preliminary determination that areas identified on Exhibit J of the "Preliminary Determination are wetland for the purposes of the Coastal Act The Commission had also previously found in Its denial of the City's LUP that this area contained wetland resources Since that action and the previous review of the City's LUP, the Commission and staff have examined additional information concerning the Bolsa Chica wetlands system As part of the review of the Bolsa Chica LUP the Dept of Fish and Game in the document `Determination of the Status of Bolsa Chica wetlands (as amended Apn116, 1982) identified this area as `severely degraded Histonc wetland— Not Presently Functioning as Wetland and considered it within the context of the entire 6 As indicated in footnote 1 the boundaries of the MWD site at the time of the 1982 staff report were not entirely clear However the site clearly covered what is now the 40 acre ADC and may have covered the former County parcel and some of the S acre certified area as well Moreover it did not extend south of the flood control channel so the observations recounted here are definitely applicable to the site that is the subject of the current application Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications) Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside) Page 38 Bolsa Chica wetland system The DFG determined that this area is part of a 1 000 acre degraded wetland system In the area outside State ownership which is capable of being restored The DFG report noted The 440 acres of histonc wetland which no longer function viably as wetland consists of approximately 250 acres of roads, and pads 70 acres of agricultural land[Icluding the subject site], and about 120 acres of viably functioning upland habitat The roads and fill areas presently function as resting substrate for wetland-associated wildlife and form narrow ecotones which add to and enhance the diversity of habitat available to wildlife The 120 acres of upland habitat considered In union, may be considered environmentally sensitive because of their special role in the Bolsa Chica wetland ecosystem Were it not for the Involvement of dikes roads and relatively shallow fills, these 440 acres would be viably functioning wetlands The entire 1,324 acre study area, including 1 292 acres of historic wetland (in which 852 acres still function viably as wetlands [sic] constitutes a fundamentally Inseparable wetland system of exceptional value to wildlife ' The DFG also discussed potential restoration of these areas and noted that the amount of acreage and location of wetlands to be restored will be dependant on the amount of fill and existing wetlands which could be consolidated to allow some development In the lowlands Thus when the Commission originally deferred certification of the subject site, it did so based on the presence of wetlands The Commission found that the site contained wetlands, even though the wetland functions were impaired, as is the case today Moreover farming was on-gang at the time certification was deferred Thus, the area was deferred certification even though the wetlands were impaired and farming was on-gang No change to those conditions have occurred in the intervening years Thus, one cannot argue today that the site does not contain wetlands due to on-going farming activities or due to the impaired condition of the wetlands Furthermore, unpermitted activities cannot be used as a basis to say that wetlands no longer exist at the site In addition in deferring certification of the site the Commission recognized that the site was an integral part of the overall Bolsa Chica wetland system and could feasibly be restored If the site were to be restored it would be a valuable addition to the Bolsa Chica wetlands restoration project Sources to feed a restored wetland at the site would come from rainfall and possibly from the adjacent EGGWFCC as well as urban runoff And perhaps also from re-establishing the site as the location to accept runoff from the Cabo del Mar condominiums In any case, restoration of the site as a freshwater wetland would be consistent with the historic wetland system which would typically have included a freshwater component albeit significantly inland of the subject site The addition of freshwater habitat to the Bolsa Chica wetlands restoration would greatly increase the biodiversity of the overall restoration project In addition taken with the preservation of the Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications) Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside) Page 39 eucalyptus grove described below the area would provide significant habitat benefits In addition to protecting the wetland area itself it is important to establish buffer areas between the wetland and development Buffers, by separating development from wetlands, minimize the adverse effects of development on wetlands, thereby avoiding significant adverse effects to resources Buffers also provide transitional habitat and upland area necessary for survival of various animal species The Commission has typically found that a minimum 100-foot buffer, or larger is necessary to protect wetlands Without the establishment of a minimum buffer size projects could be approved with an inadequate buffer jeopardizing the continuing viability of the wetland Section 30250 of the Coastal Act requires that new development be located where it will not have significant adverse effects either individually or cumulatively, on coastal resources Wetlands constitute a coastal resource In addition, Section 30231 of the Coastal Act requires that all wetlands be maintained by providing natural vegetation buffer areas The City's certified LUP includes Policy C 7 14 which requires buffers around wetlands This policy would apply to the subject site but it allows a lesser buffer area if existing development or site configuration preclude a full 100 feet In this case, such circumstances do not apply because the site is 50 acres in size and is not constrained by the site configuration or by existing development A buffer less than 100 feet from all on-site wetlands is not adequately protective of the wetland The proposed amendment does not recognize all wetland areas present on site and does not provide any buffer requirements specific to the site Thus as proposed the amendment could result in locating development too close to the wetland threatening the survival of the resource, inconsistent with Section 30250 which requires that the location of development avoid significant adverse effects on coastal resources such as wetlands and Section 30231 which requires natural vegetation buffer areas The extent of wetlands on site over the last 30 years, and past activities on the site that may have impacted those wetlands are difficult to determine with certainty The Commission is charged with protecting wetlands, and limiting uses allowed within wetlands, as well as assuring that any allowable use is the least environmentally damaging alternative and that adequate mitigation is provided The Commission must also assure that the quality of wetlands is maintained by among other things, preventing substantial interference with surface water flow In order to achieve these requirements the Commission must review the evidence available to it, even when that evidence may conflict or be incomplete and arrive at a conclusion that is most protective of wetlands In this case, the Commission, after reviewing available evidence finds that on balance there is stronger evidence to support the conclusion that there are significantly more wetlands at the site than has been recognized in the LUPA request At a minimum, the additional wetland area includes the AP expanded CP the area delineated by the EPA in 1989 (as adjusted) and yer3,1 I.L„h, 'w„ arva near4h_ quest--an f Any wetland delineation prepared for the subject site must recognize that the site is both a difficult site to delineate' (i a an area where conditions make the use of standard field indicators of wetland parameters difficult [e g soils formed under hydric conditions Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications) Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside) Page 40 associated with tidal inundation that is no longer present]) and atypical because human activities (i a farming) have resulted in the lack of positive indicators of one or more wetland parameters The wetland delineation must account for circumstances where indicators are absent or difficult to interpret but other evidence demonstrates that the component(s) recognized by the Commission that comprise a wetland are present or would be present if not for the difficult or atypical situation For example, the wetland delineation must recognize and account for circumstances where vegetation indicators cannot be expected hydric soil indicators may be artifacts of prior conditions the soil surface is frequently disturbed which removes indicators of recent inundation, plowing may drastically alter the soil profile, irrigation might confound the interpretation of the presence of recruiting wetland plants and the presence of indicators of recent hydric conditions Because the site historically has been more or less continuously farmed, these indicators may be lacking even though the area may be `wet enough long enough' that wetland features would develop It is critical that future wetland delineations of the site recognize this protocol and that consequently even if the usual wetland indicators are not observable wetland areas must still be identified if those areas meet Coastal Commission criteria Wetland delineations must be sufficiently current to represent present site conditions As proposed the LUP amendment does not include this clarifying information Therefore a modification is suggested to specifically incorporate this standard into the site specific section of the LUP It should be noted that construction of a flood protection levee within the wetland buffer area provided it is the least environmentally damaging alternative would not be incompatible with the continuance of the wetland In order to be the least environmentally damaging alternative the flood protection levee should be placed outside the buffer wherever possible and as close to land designated for residential and/or active park uses as much as possible According to the related coastal development permit application for the subject site and the project proponent the type of flood protection levee to be constructed would be a vegetated flood protection feature (VFPF) essentially vegetated earthen berm with an internal sheet pile wall The VFPF would not be expected to adversely impact the wetland because 1) there would only be temporary construction- related impacts, 2) once constructed, the VFPF would be planted to provide upland habitat that complements the wetland vegetation, and 3) the VFPF would not require maintenance once constructed thus intrusions into the buffer would be limited only to those necessary during construction For these reasons locating a flood protection levee such as the one described above within the wetland buffer would be consistent with Sections 30233 and 30250 of the Coastal Act regarding wetland protection Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications) Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside) Page 41 imr_ _a�±4i re re ffin-v a-06-25+4a. rmumac it rive i ha ..ar4a4._ 4o a wfmaia uothath Furthermore Section 30250 of the Coastal Act requires that new development be located where it will not have adverse effects on coastal resources Wetlands constitute a coastal resource Section 30231 of the Coastal Act requires that all wetlands be maintained and where feasible restored by preventing depletion of ground water supplies and substantial interference with surface water flow and by maintaining natural vegetation buffer areas Based on information submitted with the related coastal development permit application a significant amount of earthwork would be necessary to prepare the site for residential development It is essential that any earthwork undertaken on the site not interfere with the continuance of all on-site wetlands No grading is allowed within the wetland and its buffer area under the Coastal Act (unless the grading is for the express purpose of wetland restoration) Grading, outside of the wetland ESHA and necessary buffers, could only be considered if no adverse impacts to the wetlands resulted If grading redirected groundwater and/or surface water flow such that water from the site no longer fed the wetlands it would create an adverse effect on the wetland which is a coastal resource inconsistent with Sections 30231 and 30250 of the Coastal Act The proposed amendment does not include any requirements that other site development, including earthwork assure that no adverse effect occur to the wetlands Thus, even if no grading were to occur within the wetlands and buffer areas adverse impacts to on-site wetlands might result from the LUP amendment as proposed However if the amendment is modified to include language that requires the protection of the wetlands from all development on-site the amendment could be found to be consistent with Section 30250 of the Coastal Act which requires no adverse effects to coastal resources occur In addition to the modifications suggested above, additional measures must be incorporated into the LUP amendment for the subject site to assure that future development adjacent to the wetland and buffer areas and throughout the site does not adversely impact the wetland For example if no restrictions were placed on landscaping throughout the site, invasive plants within the residential areas could invade the wetland areas potentially displacing the wetland plants In addition pets from the residential development if unrestricted may enter the wetland area causing disruption As proposed the LUP amendment does not include any site specific restrictions regarding potential impacts to continuation of the wetland inconsistent with Section 30250 of the Coastal Act However if modified to include a prohibition on invasive plants throughout the site, and a requirement for a domestic animal management plan, and fencing along the buffer/development interface, as part of the site specific LUP language, the amendment could be found consistent with Section 30250 of the Coastal Act Specific suggested modifications to accomplish this are necessary to bring the proposed amendment into conformance with the Coastal Act Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications) Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside) Page 42 Members of the public have raised concerns that unpermitted development has taken place on the property that is the subject of this amendment and that such unpermitted development has affected the extent of wetlands on the site Unpermitted development cannot be used as a basis to Justify development in areas where were it not for the unpermitted development, such development would not be allowed This is true whether there is a specific policy reflecting this in the LUP or not In this case however the Commission has established the extent of wetlands on the property and a development footprint. in Onc••ri. $/e•+$ tL.�. i.$i.n4•�./ • .�rmiiiad../..unte.r.�w ant at thq Site • •+v.r.r..r.r•..$i,l. /•• ..i.+ adff•i.at-in n of tha era i�ey r -- ude an P®i7wa®that1-7�'iW4®"glaor61 'hot79� •°9m�®i9i9i�a� if f7 that am The Commission finds that only if modified as indicated on staff exhibit NN (4th Revised) can the proposed land use plan amendment be found to be consistent with and adequate to carry out Sections 30233 and 30250 of the Coastal Act regarding wetlands 3 Eucalyptus ESHA The subject site contains environmentally sensitive habitat areas (ESHA) The trees within the eucalyptus grove within and adjacent to the subject site s western boundary are ESHA due to the important ecosystem functions they provide to a suite of raptor species Section 30240 requires that ESHA be protected from significant disruption and that only uses dependent upon the resource are allowed within ESHA In addition Section 30240 requires development adjacent to ESHA be sited and designed to prevent impacts which would significantly degrade those areas Section 30240 further requires that development be compatible with the continuance of the habitat area This policy is carried over into the City s certified LUP ESHA policies In order to assure the ESHA is not significantly degraded and is protected and remains viable, in addition to precluding non-resource dependent development within the ESHA, a buffer zone around the ESHA must be established A buffer zone would require that development adjacent to the ESHA be set back an appropriate distance from the ESHA The setback is intended to move the development far enough away from the ESHA so as to reduce any impacts that may otherwise accrue from the development upon the ESHA and that would significantly degrade the ESHA or be incompatible with its continuance The distance between the ESHA and development, the buffer zone, must be wide enough to assure that the development would not degrade the ESHA and also would be compatible with the continuance of the ESHA Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications) Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside) Page 43 The property owner has suggested a variable width buffer as a means of protecting the ESHA see Attachment C, exhibits 1 and 2) A variable width buffer would be appropriate The variable width buffer proposed by the property owner would establish a minimum distance of 297 feet between the ESHA and residential or active park development(note 100 meters is 328 feet) The variable width buffer proposed by the property owner would establish a maximum buffer distance of at least 650 feet between the ESHA and residential or active park development In some areas of the site. the effective width of the buffer area would substantmally exceed 100 meters due to the relative location of the EPA wetland area and buffer and the AP wetland and buffer The area occupied by EPA and AP wetlands and their buffers would provide appropriate ESHA buffer in that development with the related noise and activities would not occur within them and also those areas would remain viable as raptor foraging area The property owner's proposed variable width ESHA buffer includes a water guahty Natural Treatment System tNTS) as an allowable use within the ESHA buffer near the southern grove (see Attachment C. exhibits 1 and 2) The NTS as proposed by the property owner is setback a minimum of 246 feet from the ESHA Portions of a Natural Treatment System (NTS) would be appropriate within the ESHA buffer as long as it is located as shown on Attachment C. exhibits 1 and 2 An NTS within the ESHA buffer, subject to the setback described above, would be acceptable because it would occupy only a very small portion of the overall buffer area Furthermore. the NTS itself will provide some habitat value The shallow water habitat will increase the variety of habitats within the buffer area For these reasons, allowing an NTS type system within the outer ESHA buffer as shown on Attachment C, exhibits 1 and 2 would not be expected to degrade the ESHA and would be compatible with its continuance As proposed by the property owner, the variable width ESHA buffer would prevent development that is not compatible with the continuance of the ESHA from occurring in a location where it would disrupt the ESHA and disrupt it Therefore. Me Commission finds the variable width buffer proposed by the property owner will adequately protect the entire ESHA The buffer should not be measured from myoporum It is important to note. however, that the "eucalyptus"ESHA is an area that includes several species of non-native trees that provide important habitat for a large suite of raptors These trees are predominantly eucalyptus, but also include pines and palms Using aerial photographs, staff has drawn the boundaries of the ESHA by connecting the apparent drip hoes of the outmost trees It has been suggested that this has resulted in including a clump of myoporum, an inmiye exotic that probably is not important to raptors Although, it is appropriate to ignore the myoporum when drawing the boundar6 if other nearby trees are species that provide habitat for raptors, the latter should be included within the ESHA boundary even if that results in some myoporum being present within the ESHA Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications) Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside) Page 44 2111171 A a el—enr-hic J r arm= [-cc fhan •1013 r.�.wfiare� nd^ ..fa in ref As proposed, ESHA area would be land use designated Open Space Parks, which would allow active park uses within the ESHA In order to assure the ESHA is protected, in addition to precluding development within the ESHA a buffer zone around the ESHA must be established As proposed the LUP amendment designates necessary buffer area Open Space Parks and Low Density Residential The proposed designations would allow residential and park uses within the required buffer areas Residential and park uses within ESHA and its buffer are inconsistent with Section 30240 of the Coastal Act The land use designation that protects ESHA by limiting uses within ESHA to those allowed under Section 30240 and that prevents disruption of the habitat is Open Space Conservation In order to assure that development adjacent to the ESHA does not significantly degrade or impair the continuance of the ESHA, the appropriate land use designation for both the ESHA and its buffer area is Open Space Conservation Uses allowed within the ESHA buffer for the southern grove are limited to resource dependent uses, habitat restoration. and VFPF(described below) In addition. within the northern grove ESHA buffer passive park use maybe allowed sf t-tis located more than 150 feet from the ESHA but the uses within the passive park are limited to nature trails, benches for passive use, and habitat enhancement, restoration, creatjon and management Such uses are acceptable within the ESHA buffer because they are compatible with the continuance of the ESHA It is also worth noting that California gnatcatchers (Polioptda californica californica), a species listed as threatened' under the Endangered Species Act, are known to frequent the subject site, especially the western portion Also, Southern tarplant (Centromedia parryi ssp Australis), a California Native Plant Society "1b 1" species (seriously endangered in California), also exists at the site However, the Southern tarplant exists in scattered areas on the site A focused survey documented the presence of 42 individuals distributed in 6 locations The Commission's staff ecologist, in a memo dated 12/19/06 (see exhibit N), concludes that neither the seasonal gnatcatcher foraging habitat nor the Southern tarplant on the subject site meet the Coastal Act definition of ESHA Nevertheless, regarding gnatcatcher habitat on-site, the staff ecologist's memo states it is worth noting that the areas of marginal habitat where gnatcatchers have been observed f Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications) Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside) Page 45 are not proposed for development Regarding the Southern tarplant, the memo states In contrast to the habitats on the Bolsa Chica mesa the scattered areas containing southern tarplant on the Parkside property do not appear to be significant habitat for this species and it is my opinion that these areas do not meet the definition of ESHA under the Coastal Act In any case if the amendment is modified as suggested the gnatcatcher's habitat and the southern tarplant on site will be retained within the Open Space- Conservation designation The land use designations within the ESHA must be limited to the designation that allows only those uses dependent upon the ESHA In addition, the land use designation within the buffer zone must be the designation that allows only those uses compatible with the continuance of the ESHA, and that will not degrade the ESHA Furthermore it is important to assure the continuance of the raptor community by reserving adequate foraging area In fact, the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) provided statements to this effect in a letter to the City dated June 15, 1998 commenting on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Parkside project (see Exhibit ZZZ) In that letter, CDFG states that if [a]gricultural areas grasslands and wetlands are of seasonal importance to several species of raptors in Orange County by providing important if not vital, staging and wintering habitat These habitats also provide foraging areas for resident breeding raptors " CDFG goes on the express concern about the loss of raptor foraging areas within the project site and vicinity and the impacts such loss may have on the adjacent Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve However CDFG didn't suggest any specific mitigation for this loss in this letter The wetland areas, their buffers as well as the ESHA buffers will provide some raptor foraging area nve» Inci1 Id om ¢hie. raign .. nignel at fhn airths,00i Clio ohnsd 17 --mc: Af iba ch As proposed, the LUP amendment would not preserve all ESHA areas or provide required buffers and thus is not consistent with Section 30240 of the Coastal Act In addition because the proposed land use designations within and adjacent to ESHA do not limit the uses to those consistent with Section 30240 of the Coastal Act, the proposed LUPA is inconsistent with this Coastal Act requirement to protect ESHA Therefore the amendment must be denied as proposed However, if the proposed amendment were modified to land use designate all ESHA and necessary buffer area Open Space-Conservation as depicted on 3'42 revised exhibit NN, the amendment would be consistent with Section 30240 of the Coastal Act The above referenced exhibit depicts all areas on site that are recommended for designation as Open Space-Conservation (OS-C) The recommended OSC area encompasses all known wetland areas on site and necessary buffer area all ESHA on site and the required buffers, By retaining adequate area on site as OS-C a Residential designation on the remainder of the site could be found compatible with continuance of the ESHA Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications) Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside) Page 46 ..rea that ... r�...�.Ar.rr.�.rn�J�..J tin {�o ili.e..ivr...$..iJ /l c/� 6...$ $h.�$ edi.a.. n i.$ onr •llgi./.A...$land r-RUA nr measmael 8.uffor nr m.$.ren$.aw ..r.+.. ...$ter iv..nl.$ i noti.rwl t"atsre ant A..ic.$awA /mr ai......,=too nA .A.A..ld ho n,nn o 4 .A. thi . 1.........A. .$.A.....1.+1 o ..da hal..$n$ 10:21.... IndmiNgdon.. It should be noted that construction of a flood protection levee within the ESHA buffer provided it is the least environmentally damaging alternative, would not significantly degrade the ESHA Alternatives that minimize encroachment into buffer area are preferred According to the related coastal development permit application for the subject site and the project proponent the type of flood protection levee to be constructed would be a vegetated flood protection feature (VFPF), essentially a vegetated earthen berm with an internal sheet pile wall The VFPF would not be expected to degrade the ESHA because 1) there would only be temporary construction-related impacts 2) once constructed the VFPF would be planted thus providing habitat and 3) the VFPF would not require maintenance once constructed thus intrusions into the ESHA buffer due to the VFPF would be limited only to those necessary during construction For these reasons locating a flood protection levee such as the vegetated flood protection levee described above within the ESHA buffer would be consistent with Section 30240 of the Coastal Act regarding protection of ESHA The actual design and construction of the flood protection levee would depend on its location In addition to land use designating all ESHA area and necessary buffer and mitigation areas Open Space-Conservation, additional measures must be incorporated into the LUP amendment for the subject site to assure that future development does not adversely impact the ESHA For example fuel modification requirements necessary to protect future development from fire hazard must be addressed to assure habitat values within the ESHA and required buffer areas are not adversely affected In addition, if no restrictions were placed on landscaping throughout the site invasive plants within the residential areas could invade the ESHA areas, potentially displacing the ESHA plants in addition pets from the residential development, if unrestricted may enter the ESHA area causing disruption As proposed, the LUP amendment does not include any site development restrictions intended to eliminate the site development's potential disruptions to the ESHA, inconsistent with Section 30240 of the Coastal Act However if modified to include a prohibition on invasive plants throughout the site, and a requirement for a domestic animal management plan, and fencing as part of the site specific LUP language, the amendment can be found consistent with Section 30240 of the Coastal Act Specific suggested modifications to accomplish this are necessary to find the proposed amendment consistent with the Coastal Act Therefore, the Commission finds that only as modified can the proposed amendment be found to be consistent with Section 30240 of the Coastal Act Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications) Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside) Page 47 4 Density As proposed the amendment would allow a density of up to 7 dwelling units per acre on approximately 38 acres of the 50 acre site which would yield a maximum of 266 units on the area proposed to be designated residential However, the related coastal development permit application contemplates just 170 detached single family homes on relatively large lots The City has proposed a residential land use designation of RL (Residential Low maximum of 7 units per net acre) However the City s certified LUP includes a residential land use designation of RM (Residential Medium from 7 to a maximum of 15 units per net acre) The Commission's suggested modifications necessary to protect coastal resources would reduce the allowable development footprint from the proposed approximately 38 acres to approximately 26 5 acres if developed at the maximum allowed under RL, a total of 119 units would be the maximum number possible This would still provide a viable use of the site However density consistent with the RM designation would also be acceptable within the allowable development footprint If the RM designation were applied to the site, the maximum total number of units possible would be 255 units, significantly more than the number currently contemplated by the property owner's development plan Although 255 units are not guaranteed under the RM designation, the ability to establish more units under RM leaves the property owner with greater flexibility in determining the best use of its property It is worth noting that although the project site abuts a low density, single family detached residential development to the north (along Kenilworth Drive and Greenleaf Avenue), there are also higher density multi family residential developments adjacent to and nearby the project site The previously described Cabo del Mar condominium complex is adjacent to the subject site Immediately to the north and west of Cabo del Mar are additional multi family residential developments Thus developing at a higher density at the subject site would not be out of the scale or character of the surrounding development In addition Section 30250 of the Coastal Act encourages residential development to be concentrated in areas able to accommodate it The higher residential density allowed under the RM designation would allow development at the site to be concentrated in the northeast portion of the site, consistent with this Coastal Act requirement Thus a modification is suggested which would allow the City, at the time it considers accepting the suggested modifications recommended herein, to apply either the RL or the RM designation 5 Water Quality Section 30230 of the Coastal Act requires that marine resources be maintained, enhanced, and where feasible, restored Section 30231 of the Coastal Act requires that the biological productivity and quality of coastal waters be protected The City's certified LUP includes policies that reflect the requirements of 30230 and 30231 of the Coastal Act Development has the potential to adversely impact coastal water quality through the Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications) Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside) Page 48 removal of native vegetation increase of impervious surfaces increase of runoff erosion and sedimentation introduction of pollutants such as petroleum sediments metals, cleaning products pesticides and other pollutant sources The 50 acre project site is currently undeveloped with the exception of farming activities Under existing conditions no runoff leaves the site during most rainfall events However installation of impervious surfaces and activities associated with residential development and related hardscape represent a potentially significant impact to water quality downstream of the project, which include the Inner and Outer Bolsa Bay, Muted Tidal Pocket wetlands Huntington Harbour and Anaheim Bay Wildlife Refuge These downstream areas are likely to suffer increases in water quality impairment when site development produces greater volumes and velocities of runoff as well as introducing increased pollutant loads It is important that LUP language for the subject site clearly address potential adverse impacts arising due to post development runoff into the channel and significant water bodies downstream This is especially true because little or no runoff currently leaves the site during most rainfall events However the proposed amendment does not include such language Without such language the LUP amendment is not consistent with the water quality policies of the Coastal Act The subject site represents an excellent opportunity to incorporate a natural treatment system such as a wetland detention system There are multiple benefits from natural treatment systems such as pollutant removal, groundwater recharge habitat creation and aesthetics Furthermore maintenance needs are typically more apparent and less frequent with natural/vegetative treatment systems and thus are more likely to remain effective than mechanical systems such as storm drain inserts and the like which can become clogged and otherwise suffer mechanical difficulties If mechanical treatment control BMPs are not continually maintained they will cease to be effective and consequently water quality protection would not be maximized Incorporating a natural treatment system, such as wetland detention pond system is feasible at the site The site is an appropriate candidate for a natural treatment system because it is a large site unconstrained by existing development limited lot size or limited by topography There is plenty of space on the site to accommodate a wetland detention or similar type system while still allowing a reasonable development footprint Moreover because little or no drainage currently leaves the site, it is important that development of the site not result in creation of new adverse water quality impacts such as would result from increased runoff leaving the site In order to achieve the goal of not creating new adverse water quality impacts, all dry weather flow would need to be retained on site to the maximum extent practicable The best way to accomplish retention of dry weather flow on site typically is some type of natural treatment system Furthermore in order to protect water quality year round it is appropriate to impose a standard that any runoff that leaves the site must meet The generally accepted standard for stormwater runoff is a requirement to treat at least the 85th percentile storm event with at least a 24-hour Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications) Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside) Page 49 detention time If dry weather runoff cannot be retained on site it should be treated (e g , detained for at least 48 hours and where practicable for seven days in a natural treatment system) The current LUP amendment does not require these site-specific water quality measures and standards Therefore there is no assurance that water quality will be protected Consequently the amendment is not consistent with the water quality policies of the Coastal Act and must be denied In addition although the existing LUP includes policies that require projects to incorporate water quality BMPs none of the existing LUP policies express a preference for types of treatment control BMPs The preferred option for treatment control BMPs is first, a natural treatment system (e g bio-swales vegetative buffers, constructed or artificial wetlands) then, second, a combination of natural treatment and mechanical systems or BMPs, and last use of mechanical treatment systems or BMPs alone (e g site-specific water quality treatment plants, storm drain filters and inserts) In addition application of appropriate site design and source control BMPs reduces the amount of runoff that would need treatment control measures Thus site design and source control BMPs should be considered first in order to adequately size any necessary treatment control BMPs In addition the LUP does not contain any policy citing a hierarchy of preference for different types of BMPs Without such an LUP policy there is no guarantee they will be incorporated into projects when it is feasible to do so Natural treatment systems for the reasons described above provide better water quality protection among other benefits Consequently the amendment is not consistent with the water quality policies of the Coastal Act and must be denied However if the amendment is modified as suggested to include this in LUP policy language, it would be consistent with the water quality policies of the Coastal Act The use of permeable materials for paved areas in new developments is a site design and source control measure which can reduce the rate and volume of the first flush of stormwater runoff and can help to minimize or eliminate dry weather flow The proposed amendment does not include any discussion on the benefits of incorporating permeable materials into the design of future projects However if the amendment is modified as suggested to include this in LUP policy language it would be consistent with the water quality policies of the Coastal Act In addition as proposed the amendment does not include any requirements to minimize or eliminate dry weather flows through the use of site design and source control BMPs Consequently, adverse water quality impacts due to dry weather flows are not minimized However if the amendment were modified as suggested to incorporate policy language addressing this measure the amendment would be consistent with the water quality policies of the Coastal Act The current City of Huntington Beach LCP Policy 6 1 6 (paragraph 4) states that the City shall continue implementation of the Municipal Non-Point [sic] Source National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards program which is required by an order Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications) Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside) Page 50 of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board The policy also states that the City will continue to require a Water Quality Management Plan for all applicable new development and redevelopment in the Coastal Zone The Commission finds this policy should be modified to include the correct name and date of the permit and to incorporate this permit by reference into the Local Coastal Program Updates to the NPDES permit (such as the update expected in 2007) should be submitted to the Executive Director for an LCP amendment While the Commission recognizes that the City s existing policies address water quality protection and improvement within the City it also recognizes that there are additional, more specific steps that could be taken to further protect restore and/or enhance the water quality of downstream sites (EGGW flood control channel Bolsa Chica wetlands restoration area, Huntington Harbour, and Anaheim Bay Wildlife Refuge) that will be effected by runoff generated by development of the site The proposed amendment could not be found consistent with Sections 30230 and 30231 of the Coastal Act if feasible measures known to positively impact water quality were not included in language specific to the subject site as part of the current amendment proposal The Commission's standard of review which requires the preservation, protection and enhancement of coastal resources including water quality necessitates that the additional measures, outlined above, be imposed Thus the Commission finds that only if modified as suggested is the proposed amendment consistent with Sections 30230 and 30231 of the Coastal Act regarding water quality 6 Public Access and Recreation Section 30210 of the Coastal Act states In carrying out the requirement of Section 4 of Article X of the California Constitution maximum access, which shall be conspicuously posted and recreational opportunities shall be provided for all the people consistent with public safety needs and the need to protect public rights, rights of private property owners, and natural resource areas from overuse Section 30252 of the Coastal Act states in pertinent part The location and amount of new development should maintain and enhance public access to the coast by (3)providing nonautomobile circulation within the development (4) providing adequate parking facilities or providing substitute means of serving the development with public transportation, (6) assuring that the recreational needs of new residents will not overload nearby coastal recreation areas by correlating the amount of development with local park acquisition and development plans with the provision of onsite recreational facilities to serve the new development Coastal Act Section 30212 5 states STATEMENT OF ACTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ""Indicates Portions of the Meeting not Included in the Statement of Action 4 00 P M — Room B-8 6 00 P M - Council Chambers Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach California 92648 Monday June 16 2008 The regular meeting of the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach was called to order at 4 05 p m City Council/Redevelopment Agency Roll Call Present Hansen Hardy Bohr Cook Coerper Green Carchio 6 01 P M — Reconvene City Council/Redevelopment Agency Meeting City Council/Redevelopment Agency Roll Call Present Hansen Hardy Bohr Cook Coerper Green Carchio D-2 (City Council) Public Hearing to Consider the Adoption of Resolution No 2008-31 Acknowledging Receipt of the California Coastal Commission Action and Accepting and Agreeing to Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA) No 1-06 As Modified (Parkside Estates), and, the Adoption of Resolution No 2008-32 Amending the Local Coastal Program by Amending the Coastal Element G NOATCPA 1 06 Motion to 1 Adopt Resolution No 2008-31, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Califomia Which Acknowledges Receipt of the Coastal Commission Action and Accepts and Agrees to Local Coastal Program Amendment No 1-06 As Modified and forward to the California Coastal Commission 2 Adopt Resolution No 2008-32, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Amending the Local Coastal Program by Amending the Coastal Element Approved 5-2(Hardy, Cook, No) Adjournment — City Council/Redevelopment Agency Mayor Cook adjourned the regular meetings of the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach to Monday June 20 2008 at 9 00 a m at the Hyatt Hotel the Golden West Room 21500 Pacific Coast Highway Huntington Beach California C Clerk and ex officio Vrk of thtf City Council of the City of Huntington Beach and Clerk of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach California ATTEST ity Clerk Mayor G NOA\LCPA 1 06 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) County of Orange ) ss City of Huntington Beach ) i Joan L Flynn the duly elected City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach California do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true and correct Statement of Action of the City Council of said City at their regular meeting held on June 16 2008 Witness my hand and seal of the said City of Huntington Beach this 20th day of June 2008 49� Cit Jerk and ex-officio CIA of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach and Clerk of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach California B Senior Deput ty Cle G NOA\LCPA 1 06 r- Council/Agency Meeting Held Deferred/Continued to Approved ❑ onditiona ly roved ❑ Denied �St.�r�°Cl t lerk ignatu e Council Meeting Date 6/16/2008 Department ID Number PL08-07 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION SUBMITTED TO HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCI E ERS SUBMITTED BY PAUL EMERY Interim City Administrator PREPARED BY SCOTT HESS Director of Plann(3l°"_ SUBJECT APPROVE RESOLUTIONS TO ACCEPT MODIFICATIONS TO LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO 1-06 APPROVED BY THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION AND AMEND THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM ACCORDINGLY (PARKSIDE ESTATES) Statement of Issue Funding Source Recommended Action Alternative Action(s) Analysis Environmental Status Attachment(s) Statement of Issue Transmitted for your consideration are two resolutions relative to Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA) 1-06 for the purpose of 1) accepting California Coastal Commissions approved modifications to the LCPA and 2) approving revisions to the Local Coastal Program Coastal Element The latter action is required to formally adopt the changes suggested by the Coastal Commission for the LCPA LCPA 1-06 pertains to the Land Use Plan for Parkside Estates a proposed residential project on an approximate 50 acre site in approving the Land Use Plan, Coastal Commission also approved changes to the policy section of the Coastal Element which have applicability to any property in the Coastal Zone Staff recommends the City Council approve the request because the modifications meet the intent of the goals and policies of the General Plan and the Certified Local Coastal Program are consistent with the intent of the City s approval of the LCPA in 2002 and still allow for the viable development of the Parkside Estates project Funding Source Not Applicable Recommended Action Motion to 1 Approve Resolution No 2008-31 (ATTACHMENT NO 1) a resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach California, which acknowledges receipt of the Coastal Commission action and accepts and agrees to Local Coastal Program Amendment No 1-06 as modified and forward to the California Coastal Commission and REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE 6/16/2008 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER PL08-07 2 Approve Resolution No 2008-32 (ATTACHMENT NO 2) a resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach amending the Local Coastal Program by amending the Coastal Element Alternative Action(s) The City Council may take the following alternative action(s) Continue the Modifications to Local Coastal Program Amendment No 1-06 and direct staff accordingly Analysis A PROJECT PROPOSAL Applicant Ron Metzler Shea Homes 603 S Valencia Ave Brea CA 92823 Location 17301 Graham St (west side of Graham south of Kenilworth adjacent to the East Garden Grove-Wintersburg Channel) and the remainder of the coastal zone Local Coastal Program Amendment No 1-06 is being brought to the City Council for acceptance of the California Coastal Commission s suggested modifications to the Local Coastal Program as they pertain to the Land Use Plan (LUP) for the Parkside Estates project In approving the LUP for the project the Coastal Commission also approved modifications to the City s Coastal Element with respect to policy changes that affect any property located in the Coastal Zone All of the modifications are presented in the approval letter from the Coastal Commission (Attachment No 3) The process for approving the modifications involves two resolutions in order to 1) accept and agree to the California Coastal Commissions suggested modifications and 2) to approve and incorporate the Coastal Commissions modifications into our Local Coastal Program (Coastal Element) Upon transmittal of Attachments No 1 and 2 to the Coastal Commission the Executive Director of the Commission will determine if the City has complied with the Commission s action The LCPA for the Coastal Element is not effectively certified until such determination is made B BACKGROUND The City Council approved General Plan Amendment No 98-1 Zoning Map Amendment No 96-5A & 5B and Local Coastal Program Amendment No 96-4 as well as other project related entitlements on October 21, 2002 These were applications submitted by Shea Homes to allow for the development of single family homes and a park on an approximately 50 acre site 2 6/2/2008 1 52 PM REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE 6/16/2008 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER PL08-07 The LCPA submittal was forwarded to the California Coastal Commission as Local Coastal Program Amendment 2-02 for review and approval in December 2002 Due to various factors including Coastal Commission processing timelines and resubmittals by the City the LCPA was renumbered to 1-06, and on November 14 2007 the California Coastal Commission approved Local Coastal Program No 1-06 with suggested modifications On May 7 2008 the Coastal Commission adopted revised findings reflecting the Commissions November action (Attachment No 3) Section 13537 of the California Code of Regulations states that the local government must accept and agree to the modifications by resolution within six months of Commission action or the Coastal Commission s approval expires Recognizing that the six month period which ended May 14 2008 would elapse before Coastal Commission staff would even bring the revised findings to the Commission for approval on April 10 2008 the Coastal Commission extended the City Councils six month time limit to accept the suggested modifications for a period of one year to May 14 2009 C STAFF ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION The City s Coastal Element consists of a Technical Synopsis which includes a description of the various areas or zones within the Coastal Zone, and Goals Objectives and Policies that govern development within the Coastal Zone The 11 suggested modifications approved by the Coastal Commission include changes to both components of the Coastal Element Suggested Modifications Nos 1-7 are specific to the Parkside Estates property and modify the Technical Synopsis to 1) include an updated description of the subject property 2) establish a land use plan for the property, discussed further below 3) establish a subarea for the property that includes detailed development standards and principles to govern its use and 4) include an updated description of wetlands and Eucalyptus Environmentally Sensitive Habitat (ESHA) The land use plan approved by the Coastal Commission (Attachment No 4) decreases the amount of developable land on the Parkside Estates site by 29 percent compared with the plan approved by the City Council in 2002 (Attachment No 5) A comparison of the acreage changes is provided in the table below Land Use Acres Approved by Acres Approved by Difference Designation City Council Coastal Commission' Residential 374 265 -10 9 Open Space-Park 84 00 -8 4 Open Space-Conservation 37 230 +19 3 Total 495 495 The acres shown here are derived by the City from the Land Use exhibit in the Coastal Commission staff report (4th revised exhibit NN) however specific acreages have not been enumerated by Coastal Commission staff 3 6/2/2008 1 52 PM REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE 6/16/2008 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER PL08-07 In approving the land use plan for the site the Coastal Commission determined that there were additional wetland areas and Eucalyptus ESHA beyond those identified at the time the Parkside Estates project was approved by the City of Huntington Beach The additional wetlands and ESHA along with their buffer areas increases the amount of area that must be designated as Open Space-Conservation in order to protect these areas As a consequence the amount of area that may be developed with homes or active park area has decreased Of note although the land use plan approved by the Coastal Commission does not include any Open Space-Park designation neighborhood parks are a permitted use within the Residential land use designation Therefore it is the property owners intention to develop a small active park in the northwest corner of the site where one was previously planned In terms of incorporating the land use plan approved by the Coastal Commission and presented in Attachment No 4 into the City s Coastal Element staff has worked with Shea Homes to develop a land use exhibit for the document (ATTACHMENT NO 6) The exhibit identifies the two land use designations approved by the Coastal Commission the boundaries of which are consistent with 4th revised exhibit NN It is staff s intent that this exhibit with modifications for formatting consistency will ultimately be included in the Coastal Element pursuant to the Coastal Commission s action Suggested Modifications Nos 8-11 implement changes to Coastal Element policies that affect all Coastal Zone property, i e are not specific to Parkside Estates In approving the LCPA the Coastal Commission adopted four new polices and modified three The new policies require • provision of public access and recreation benefits concurrent with the private development • streets of new subdivisions between the sea and the first public road to be open to the public and not gated • the preference of natural treatment systems over mechanical systems (BMPs) and • the protection of wetlands or ESHA that have been altered filled or degraded as the result of activities carried out without compliance with the Coastal Act The three policies that have been modified all pertain to water quality and the design of BMP systems for the purpose of tightening or strengthening the City s Coastal Element language to be more consistent with the most recent actions by the Coastal Commission When the City completed a comprehensive update of its Coastal Element in 2001 this section of the Element was significantly augmented by Commission staff at that time However in the intervening years Commission staff thought some additional changes were needed City staff and the developer of the Parkside Estates project have evaluated the suggested modifications as they pertain to their property as approved by the Coastal Commission and are in agreement with them City staff has also evaluated the modifications that affect Coastal Element policies and think they are appropriate and implementable Staff recommends the City Council approve the suggested modifications from the Coastal Commission because the modifications will meet the intent of the goals and policies of the General Plan and the Certified Local Coastal Program -4 6/2/2008 1 52 PM REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE 6/16/2008 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER PL08-07 Strategic Plan Goal L-1 Establish the vision and create a land use plan for reuse of critical parcels so that the next phase of the community investment and improvement can begin The LCPA establishes a land use plan for an approximately 50 acre site that provides an almost equal amount of open space and developable land in a manner that allows the property owner to move forward with a project that will provide needed housing and public infrastructure Environmental Status The preparation and approval of Local Coastal Program Amendment No 1-06 is exempt from the requirements of CEQA pursuant to Section 21080 9 of CEQA and Sections 15251(f) and 15265 of Title 14 Californa Code of Regualtions In any event Local Coastal Program Amendment No 1-06 is covered by Environmental Impact Report No 97-2 certified by the City Council on October 21, 2002 in accordance with CEQA requirements as well as the California Coastal Commissions approval of the Local Coastal Program Coastal Element on November 14 2007, pursuant to Section 21080 5 of CEQA Attachment(s) Dettription 1 Resolution No 2008-31 a resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach City California which acknowledges receipt of the Coastal Commission action and accepts and agrees to Local Coastal Program Amendment No 1-06 as modified 2 Resolution No 2008-32 a resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach amending the Local Coastal Program by amending the Coastal Element 3 California Coastal Commission letter received and dated May 23 2008 4 4th revised exhibit NN — Coastal Commission Approved Land Uses for the Parkside Estates property— 2007/2008 5 City Council Approved Land Use Designations for the Parkside Estates ro ert - 2002 6 Land Use Designation Exhibit reflecting Coastal Commission action and 4th revised exhibit NN 7 1 Powerpoint Presentation 5 6/2/2008 1 52 PM Exhibit A - Resolution No 2008 31 Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications) Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside) Page 2 the May 7 2008 hearing which reflect the Commission s November 14 2007 action on the LCPA are contained in these adopted findings At the November 14 2007 hearing public testimony and Commission discussion included concerns regarding the extent of wetland on site the appropriate distance for ESHA buffer areas and appropriate uses allowed within ESHA buffer areas The Commission found that the area referred to as the Wintersburg Pond (WP) was not wet enough to develop a preponderance of wetland vegetation or wetland soils that the area known as the EPA wetland was wet enough to support a preponderance of wetland vegetation or soils in 1996 and that any changes in local hydrology that may have taken place since that time were unpermitted a variable width buffer distance would be adequate to protect the eucalyptus grove ESHA and that areas referred to as intermingled areas found between the areas identified as wetland, ESHA, and buffer areas should not be designated Open Space - Conservation The changes made by the Commission at the hearing are manifested in the staff report primarily though changes to Exhibit NN (now 4th revised) in that the areas of the site to be designated Open Space— Conservation and the areas to be designated as the development envelope (which allows either active park or residential development) have changed In addition the changes made by the Commission at the hearing result in changes to the suggested modification regarding the width of the ESHA buffer area and uses allowed within that buffer area Also, there are changes to the wetland findings supporting the Commission s determination that the WP area is not a wetland and to eliminate the discussion on the intermingled areas Finally changes are made in the ESHA findings to support the variable width ESHA buffer rather than the 100 meter ESHA buffer and to allow a portion of a water quality Natural Treatment System as an allowable use within a portion of the outer ESHA buffer subject to restrictions COMMISSION VOTE The Commissioners voting on the prevailing side were Burke, Clark, Hueso, Secord, Neely, Potter, Reilly, and Chair Kruer STANDARD OF REVIEW For the proposed Land Use Plan amendment, the standard of review is conformance with and satisfaction of the requirements of the Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal Act SUMMARY OF PAST ACTIONS ON THIS LCPA At the May 2007 hearing in San Pedro after presentations by staff the applicant and public testimony, the Commission voted to deny the subject Land Use Plan amendment as submitted A motion (i a the main motion) was made to approve the Land Use Plan amendment with modifications, but upon deliberation, the hearing was continued The LCPA was subsequently scheduled for Commission action at its July 9-13 2007 hearing Exhibit A - Resolution No 2008 31 Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications) Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside) Page 3 The LCP amendment originally proposed changes to both the Land Use Plan (LUP) and the Implementation Plan (1P) On July 3 2007 the City withdrew the IP portion of the LCPA The Commission recognized the withdrawal of the IP amendment at its July 11, 2007 hearing Also at its July 11 2007 hearing the Commission postponed action on suggested modifications for the LUP portion of the LCPA At the November 14 2007 hearing the Commission approved the proposed LUP amendment with suggested modifications as revised at that hearing At the May 7 2008 hearing the Commission adopted the revised findings with changes Those changes are reflected herein SUMMARY OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Section 30503 of the Coastal Act requires public input in Local Coastal Program development During the preparation, approval certification and amendment of any local coastal program, the public as well as all affected governmental agencies including special districts shall be provided maximum opportunities to participate Prior to submission of a local coastal program for approval, local governments shall hold a public hearing or hearings on that portion of the program which has not been subjected to public hearings within four years of such submission Prior to submittal of the LCPA to the Commission the City held numerous public hearings on the proposed LCP amendment as shown on exhibit D All City staff reports were made available for public review in the Planning Department and in the Huntington Beach Public Library Public hearing notices were mailed to property owners of record for the parcels that are the subject of the amendment as well as parcels within a 1 000 foot radius (including occupants) and notice of the public hearing was published in the Huntington Beach Independent a local newspaper of general circulation ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Copies of the staff report are available online on the Coastal Commission s website at www coastal ca gov or at the South Coast District office located in the ARCO Center Towers 200 Oceangate Suite 1000 Long Beach 90802 To obtain copies of the staff report by mail, or for additional information, contact Meg Vaughn in the Long Beach office at (562) 590-5071 The City of Huntington Beach contact for this LCP amendment is Scott Hess Director of Planning who can be reached at (714) 536-5271 Exhibit A - Resolution No 2008 31 Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications) Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside) Page 4 1 RESOLUTION RESOLUTION TO CERTIFY WITH SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS The Commission hereby certifies the Land Use Plan Amendment No 1-06 for the City of Huntington Beach if modified as suggested and adopts the findings set forth below on the grounds that the Land Use Plan amendment with suggested modifications will meet the requirements of and be in conformity with the policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act Certification of the land use plan amendment if modified as suggested complies with the California Environmental Quality Act because either 1) feasible mitigation measures and/or alternatives have been incorporated to substantially lessen any significant adverse effects of the plan on the environment or 2) there are no further feasible alternatives or mitigation measures that would substantially lessen any significant adverse impacts which the Land Use Plan Amendment may have on the environment 11 SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS Certification of City of Huntington Beach LCP Amendment Request No 1-06 is subject to the following modifications The City's existing language is shown in plain text The City s proposed additions are shown in bold text The City s proposed deletions are shown 1nplaIR te)d stFike eut The Commission staffs original (November 2007) suggested additions are shown in bold, italic, underlined text The Commission ; „eGk str4ke out text on staffs original (November 2007) suggested deletions are show in bell ,� Additions to the November 2007 staff recommendation made by the Commission at the public hearing are shown in bold italic, double underlined text Deletions to the November 2007 staff recommendation made by the Commission at the public hearing are shown in , , Staff Note Three corrections are made where due to typos, existing certified LUP language was left out The corrections are 1) replacing the word `residential' in suggested modification No 1 2) replacing the sub-section 'Public in the table in suggested modification No 2 and 3) inserting the hyphen in the land use category titles Exhibit A - Resolution No 2008 31 Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications) Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside) Page 5 Open Space —Conservation and Open Space — Parks throughout LAN® USE PLAN SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS SUGGESTED MODIFICATION NO 1 Sub-Area Descriptions and Land Use Plan The City's certified and proposed Land Use Plan (LUP) language on page IV-C-11, under the heading Zone 2 — Bolsa Chica shall be modified as follows Existing Land Uses Inland (Pacific Coast Highway and areas north to the Coastal Zone boundary ) The majority of Zone 2 the Bolsa Chica is located outside the City s corporate boundary, within the County of Orange The area is in the City s Sphere of Influence A-44- 50 acre area between Lp ate the residential development along Kenilworth Drive and the East Garden Grove Wintersburg Flood Control Channel is vagant includes a small section of the Bolsa Chica bluffs Coastal (Seaward of Pacific Coast Highway) Coastal Element Land Use Plan Inland (Pacific Coast Highway and areas north to the Coastal Zone boundary ) The Coastal Element does not present a land use plan for the Bolsa Chica The land area north of the Bolsa Chica within the City's corporate and Coastal Zone boundaries, 1s built out consistent with its Coastal Element designation of low density residential The area west of the Bolsa Chica is also developed consistent with the Coastal Element Land Use designation of low density residential and multi-family residential aMeRdment would take effeGt UPGA GornMISSIOR G8Ft1fiGatioR PoFtiGns ef this zone are Coastal Efement land use desic h. ___ (Low en;ty Re Wentiall -nd OS-P (Open pace- P..s 0 On addition •.nnr�vatn•.felei Beach Thm area is desic pace- GogSen.x_atien1 Exhibit A - Resolution No 2008 31 Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications) Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside) Page 6 The fifty(50) acre area (including the 5 acre area annexed by the C►ty in 2004) adjacent to and►mmedtately north of the East Garden GroveMintersbur_g Flood Control Channel and adjacent to and►mmedtately west of Graham Street is land use des►gnated Residential and Open Space— Conservation (See Figure C-6a) There are wetlands, a Eucalyptus Grove that is an Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area because it provides important raptor habitat, and buffer areas at this site These areas are designated Open Space— Conservation The W►ntersburg Channel B►keway is identified at this site on the north levee of the flood control channel in the Commuter Bikeways Strate_g►c Plan, which is the regional bikeways plan for Orange County(See page 1V C-49 and figure C-14) SUGGESTED MODIFICATION No 2 The table titled Zone 2 — Land Use Designations on page IV-C-11, shall be modified as follows Zone 2 — Land Use Designations Residential RL-T or RM or RH Open Space OS-P OS-S OS-C Public P Wt,i+o u„W Area of DefeFred GeFtIfiGatiGn - Zone 2 — Specific Plan Areas None Zone 2 —General Plan Overlays 4G 4J 4K SUGGESTED MODIFICATION NO 3 Figure C-6 of the City s Land Use Plan shall be modified to reflect the change in the City s corporate boundary and to accurately reflect the correct areas of the certified land use designations (Residential and Open Space Conservation)for the area SUGGESTED MODIFICATION NO 4 New Figure C-6a shall be added to the City s Land Use Plan which shall be a land use plan of the Parkside site and shall depict the approved land use designations on the site as shown on e 4! revised exhibit NN Exhibit A - Resolution No 2008 31 Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications) Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside) Page 7 SUGGESTED MODIFICATION NO 5 Add new subarea 4-K to table C-2 (Community District and Subarea Schedule) as depicted below Subarea Characteristic Standards and Prins les 4-K Permitted Uses Categories Residential(R-L or R-M) Open Space Conservation (OS-C) See Figure C-6a Density/Intensity Residential Maximum of fifteen (15) dwelling units per acre Design and See Figure C-6a Development A development plan for this area shall concentrate and cluster residential units in the a9ptheastem portion of the site and include, consistent with the land use designations and Coastal Element policies, the following required information (all required information must be prepared or updated no more than one year prior to submittal of a coastal development permit application) 1 A Public Access Plan, including, but not limited to the following features ❖ Class I Bikeway(paved off-road bikeway, for use by bicyclists, walkers,loggers, roller skaters, and strollers) along the north levee of the flood control channel If a wall between residential development and the Bikeway is allowed it shall include design features such as landscaped screenin_q, non-linear footpnnt, decorative design elements and/or other features to soften the visual impact as viewed from the Bikeway ❖ Public vista point with views toward the Bolsa Chica and ocean consistent with Coastal Element policies C 4 13, C 4 2 1, and C 4 2 3 •e• All streets shall be un_gated, public streets available to the _general public for parking, vehicular i2edestrian, and bicycle access Exhibit A - Resolution No 2008 31 Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications) Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside) Page 8 All public entry controls (e _q -gates, -gatel_guard houses, -guards, st_gna-ge, etc) and restrictions on use by the -general public (e-g preferential parking districts, resident--only parking periods/permits, etc ) associated with any streets or parkin_q areas shall be prohibited ❖ Public access trails to the Class I Bikeway, open space and to and within the subdivision, connecting with trails to the Bolsa Chica area and beach beyond ❖ Public access si_gna_ge •:- When privacy walls associated with residential development are located adjacent to public areas they shall be placed on the private property, and visual impacts created by the walls shall be minimized through measures such as open fencing/wall design, landscaped screening, use of an undulating or off-set wall footprint, or decorative wall features (such as artistic imprints, etc ), or a combination of these measures 2 Habitat Management Plan for all ESHA, wetland, and buffer areas deso_gnated®pen Space- Conservation that provides for their restoration and perpetual conservation and manaqement Issues to be addressed include, but are not limited to, methods to assure continuance of a water source to feed all wetland areas, enhancement of habitats and required buffer areas, restoration and enhancement of wetlands and environmentally sensitive habitats and required buffer areas, and fuel modification requirements to address fire hazard and avoid disruption of habitat values in buffers 3 Archaeological Research Design consistent with Pohctes C51 1, C5 12, C51 3, C514, and C5 15 of this Coastal Element 4 Water Quality Management Program consistent with the Water and Marine Resources pohcses of this Coastal Element if development of the i2arcel creates Exhibit A - Resolution No 2008 31 Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications) Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside) Page 9 significant amounts of directly connected impervious surface (more than 10%) or increases the volume and velocity of runoff from the site to adjacent coastal waters, the development shall include a treatment control BMP or suite of BMPs that will ehminate, or minimize to the maximum extent practicable, dry weather flow_generated by site development to adjacent coastal waters and treat runoff from at least the 85 tn percentile storm event based on the dest_gn cntena of the California Association of Stormwater Agencies (CASQA) BMP handbooks, with at least a 24 hour detention time Natural Treatment Systems such as wetland detention systems are preferred since they provide additional habitat benefits, rehabihty and aesthetic values 5 Pest Management Plan that, at a minimum, prohibits the use of rodenticides, and restricts the use of pesticides, and herbicides in outdoor areas, except necessary Vector Control conducted by the City or County 6 Landscape Plan for non-Open Space Conservation areas that prohibits the planting, naturalization, or persistence of invasive plants, and encourages low- water use plants, and plants primarily native to coastal Orange County 7 Biolooical Assessment of the entire site 8 Wetland dehneation of the entire site 9 Domestic animal control plan that details methods to be used to prevent pets from entering the Open Space- Conservation areas Methods to be used include, but are not hmited to, appropriate fencing and barrier plantings 10 Hazard Mitigation and Flood Protection Plan, including but not hmited to, the following features ❖ Demonstration that site hazards including flood and hguefact►on hazards are mite ated Exhibit A - Resolution No 2008 31 Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications) Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside) Page 10 •:- Mm►m►zation/m►tt_gation of flood hazard shall include the placement of a FEMA- cert►f►able, vegetated flood protection levee that achieves hazard m►ttgation _-ggoals and is the most protective of coastal resources including wetland and ESHA, ❖ Assurance of the continuance, restoration and enhancement of the wetlands and ESHA Residential Residential development, including appurtenant development such as roads and private open space, is not allowed within any wetland, ESHA, or required buffer areas and area designated Open Space- Conservation. Uses consistent with the Open Space-Parks des►_gnation are allowed in the residential area All development shall assure the continuance of the habitat value and function of preserved and restored wetlands and environmentally sensitive habitat areas within the area des►_gnated Open Space-Conservation ®pen Space-C®nser-vatl®n A Wetlands Only those uses described in Coastal Element Pol►cy C 6 120 shall be allowed within existing and restored wetlands All development shall assure the continuance of the habitat value and function of wetlands Wetland Buffer Area A buffer area is required along the perimeter of wetlands to provide a separation between development impacts and habitat areas and to function as transitional habitat The buffer shall be of sufficient size to ensure the b►olog►cal integrity and preservation of the wetland the buffer is designed to protect Exhibit A - Resolution No 2008 31 Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications) Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside) Page 11 A m►n►mum buffer width of 100 feet shall be establ►shed Uses allowed with►n the wetland buffer are hm►ted to 1) those uses allowed with►n wetlands per Coastal Element Pohcy C 6 120, 2) a vegetated flood protection levee►s a potential allowable use ►f, due to s►tin_g and des►gn constra►nts, locat►on ►n the wetland buffer►s unavo►dable, and the levee ►s the most protective of coastal resources ►ncludin_g wetland and ESHA, 3) No active park uses (e _q tot lots, playing fields, picnic tables, bike paths, etc ) shall be allowed w►th►n 100 feet of wetlands preserved►n the Open Space Conservation area B Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas Only uses dependent on the resource shall be allowed Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHA) Buffer Areas A variable width buffer area ►s required along the perimeter of the ESHA and►s required to be of sufficient size to ensure the biological►nte_grity and preservation of the ESHA the buffer►s des►_gned to protect A minimum buffer width of 297 to 650-feet shall be established between all residential development or active park use and raptor habitat within the eucalyptus _groves Uses allowed within the ESHA buffer are limited to 1) uses dependent on the resource, 2) wetland and upland habitat restoration and management, 3) ve_getated flood protection levee that►s the most protective of coastal resources including wetland and ESHA Exhibit A - Resolution No 2008 31 Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications) Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside) Page 12 4) within the northern grove ESHA buffer only- passive park use may be allowed if it is more than 150 feet from the ESHA, but only when it is outside all wetland and wetland buffer areas, and does not include any uses that would be disruptive to the ESHA Uses allowed within the passive park areas shall be limited to a) nature trails and benches for passive recreation, education, and nature study. b) habitat enhancement, restoration, creation and management 5 within the southern grove ESHA buffer only- a water guahty Natural Treatment System may be allowed so long as it►s located in an area that is most protective of coastal resources and at least 246 feet from the ESHA U In addition to the required ESHA buffer described above grading shall be prohibited within 500 feet of an occupied raptor nest during the breeding season (considered to be from February 15 through August 31), On�e.„iw marwnf,nnal gle,00 agrah new 4cn,1e. n...,l hanahne fine Oneillanignn and atudi VY s s AC Habitat Management Plan shall be prepared for all areas designated ®pen Space-Conservation which shall include restoration and enhancement of delineated wetlands, wetland and habitat mitigation, and establoshment of appropriate buffers from development Exhibit A - Resolution No 2008 31 Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications) Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside) Page 13 D Protective Fencing Protective fencing or barriers shall be installed along any interface with developed areas, to deter human and pet entrance into all restored and preserved wetland and ESHA buffer areas SUGGESTED MODIFICATION No 6 On page IV-C-60 and IV-C-61, under the heading Visual Resources The Bolsa Chica Mesas revise to include visual resources within Parkside area as follows The northwestern side of the Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve includes bluffs that rise to an upland area known as the Bolsa Chica Mesa These bluffs are primarily under the County s jurisdiction (only a small part of the bluff lies in the City) but are within the City s Sphere of Influence for potential future annexation The mesas constitute a significant scenic resource within the City s coastal Zone The 50 acre site (located west of and adjacent to Graham Street and north of and adjacent to the East Garden Grove Wintersburg Orange County flood Control Channel) known as the "Parkside"site affords an excellent opportunity to provide a public vista point A public vista point in this location would provide excellent public views toward the Bolsa Chica and ocean Use of the public vista point will be enhanced with construction of the Class I bike path along the flood control channel and public trails throughout the Parkside site SUGGESTED MODIFICATION NO 7 On page IV-C-70 add the following language in the first paragraph under the heading Environmentally Sensitive Habitats, to include reference to the wetland and Eucalyptus ESHA on the Parkside site The City s Coastal Element identifies o three `environmentally sensitive habitat areas within the City 1) the Huntington Beach wetland areas and 2) the California least tern nesting sanctuary, and 3) the wetlands and Eucalyptus ESHA on the Parkside site (See Figure C-21 for location of No 1 and 2) The Coastal Element includes policies to protect and enhance environmentally sensitive habitat areas in accordance with the Coastal Act Also on page IV-C-72 add the following new section describing the Eucalyptus ESHA and wetlands on the Parkside site after the paragraph titled California Least Tern Nesting Sanctuary Exhibit A - Resolution No 2008 31 Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications) Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside) Page 14 Parkside Eucalyptus ESHA and Wetlands (See Figure C 6a) Histoncally, this site was part of the extensive Bolsa Chica Wetlands system and was part of the Santa Ana River/Bolsa Chica complex In the late 1890s the Bolsa Chica Gun Club completed a dam with tide gates, which eliminated tidal influence, separatm_g fresh water from salt water In the 1930s, agricultural ditches began to limit fresh water on the site, and in 1959, the East Garden Grove-Wintersburg Flood Control Channel isolated the site hydrologically Nevertheless, wetland areas remain present at the site There are existing and previously delineated wetlands, and areas that have been filled without authorization and are capable of being restored These areas as well as their buffer areas are designated Open Space- Conservation, and uses allowed within these areas are limited In addition, on the site's southwestern boundary, at the base of the bluff, is a line of Eucalyptus trees that continues offsite to the west These trees are used by raptors for nesting, roostinq, and as a base from which to forage The trees within this "eucalyptus -grove"within or adjacent to the subject site's western boundary constitute an environmentally sensitive habitat area (ESHA) due to the important ecosystem functions they provide to a suite of raptor species The Eucalyptus trees along the southern edge of the Bolsa Chica mesa are used for perching, roosting, or nesting by at least 12 of the 17 species of raptors that are known to occur at Bolsa Chica Although it is known as the "eucalyptus -grove", it also includes several palm trees and pine trees that are also used by raptors and herons None of the trees are part of a native plant community Nevertheless, this eucalyptus _grove has been recognized as ESHA by multiple agencies since the late 1970's (USFWS, 1979, CDFG 1982, 1985) not because it is part of a native ecosystem, or because the trees in and of themselves warrant protection, but because of the important ecosystem functions it provides Some of the raptors known to use the grove include the white tailed kite, sharp-shinned hawk, Cooper's hawk, and osprey Many of these species are dependent on both the Bolsa Chica wetlands and the nearby upland areas for their food These Eucalyptus trees were recognized as ESHA by the Coastal Commission prior to its 2006 certification of this section of this LCP, most recently in the context of the Coastal Commission's approval of the adjacent Brightwater development(coastal development permit 5-05-020) The Eucalyptus grove in the northwest corner of the site, although separated from the rest of the trees by a gap of about 650 feet, provides the same types of ecological functions fiqnqq&s as do the rest of the trees bordering the mesa At least ten species of raptors have been observed in this-grove and Cooper's hawks, a California Species of Special Concern, nested there in 2005 and 2006 Due to the important ecosystem functions of providing perching, roosting and nesting opportunities for a variety of raptors, these trees also constitute ESHA These areas as well as their buffer areas are designated Open Sinace-Conservation, and uses allowed within these areas are limited Exhibit A - Resolution No 2008 31 Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications) Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside) Page 15 The wetlands, Eucalyptus ESHA areas, and buffer areas ^^' •^*^�•�•^ '^�' ^^+^� are desmated Open Space-Conservation to assure they are adequately protected SUGGESTED MODIFICATION NO 8 Add the following policy to the certified Land Use Plan on page IV-C-100 as new policy C 113a C113a The provision of public access and recreation benefits associated with private development(such as but not limited to public access ways, public bike paths, habitat restoration and enhancement, etc) shall be phased such that the public benefit(s) are in place prior to or concurrent with the private development but not later than occupation of any of the private development SUGGESTED MODIFICATION NO 9 Add the following policy to the certified Land Use Plan on page IV-C-105 as new policy C 247 C247 The streets of new residential subdivisions between the sea and the first public road shall be constructed and maintained as open to the _-ggeneral public for vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian access General public parkrn_-g shall be provided on all streets throughout the entire subdivision Private entrance _gates and private streets shall be prohibited All public entry controls (e _-g gates, _-gate/quard houses, _-gguards, sygnage, etc) and restrictions on use by the general public (e q preferential parkinq districts, resident-only parking periods/permits, etc) associated with any streets or parking areas shall be prohibited SUGGESTED MODIFICATION NO 10 Modify the following existing LUP Water and Marine Resources policies as follows C 6 1 6 (modify third and fourth paragraph) The City shall require that new development and redevelopment as appropriate, employ nonstructural Best Management Practices (BMPs) and structural BMPs designed to Exhibit A - Resolution No 2008 31 Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications) Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside) Page 16 minimize the volume velocity and pollutant load of stormwater runoff prior to runoff discharge into stormwater conveyance systems, receiving waters and/or other sensitive areas All development shall include effective site design and source control BMPs When the combination of site des►gn and source control BMPs is not sufficient to protect water quality, structural treatment BMPs along with site design and source control measures shall be required BMPs should be selected based on efficacy at mitigating pollutants of concern associated with respective development types To this end the City shall continue implementation of the Municipal Non Point Soum-e Stormwater National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NDPES) &tandards permit(Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board Order No R8- 2002-0010, dated January 18, 2002, or any amendment to or re-issuance thereof) of which the City is a co-permittee with the County of Orange through the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board Per program parameters continue to require a Water Quality Management Plan for all applicable new development and redevelopment in the Coastal Zone C 6 1 16 Encourage the Orange County Sanitation District to accept dry weather nuisance flows into the sewer treatment system prior to discharge New developments shall be des►_gned and constructed to minimize or eliminate dry weather nuisance flows to the maximum extent practicable C 6 1 25 Require that new development and redevelopment minimize the creation of impervious areas, especially directly connected impervious areas, and where feasible reduce the extent of existing unnecessary impervious areas and incorporate adequate mitigation to minimize the alteration of natural streams and/or interference with surface water flow The use of permeable materials for roads, sidewalks and other paved areas shall be incorporated into new development to the maximum extent practicable Add new policy C 6 1 30 Natural or vegetated treatment systems (e g b►o-swa/es, vegetative buffers, constructed or artificial wetlands) that mimic natural drainage patterns are preferred for new developments over mechanical treatment systems or BMPs (e _q water quahty treatment plants, storm drain inlet filters) Exhibit A - Resolution No 2008 31 Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications) Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside) Page 17 SUGGESTED MODIFICATION NO 11 Add the following policy to the certified Land Use Plan on page IV-C-123 as new policy C 727 Any areas that constituted wetlands or ESHA that have been removed, altered, filled or degraded as the result of activities carved out without compliance with Coastal Act requirements shall be protected as required by the policies in this Land Use Plan III FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL OF THE LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT WITH SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS The following findings support the Commission's action of November 14, 2006 approving Land Use Plan amendment 1-06 if modified as suggested Changes to the findings contained in the staff recommendation dated November 1 2007 necessary to reflect the Commission s action are indicated as follows Language added as a result of the Commissions action is shown in bold italic double underline Language deleted as a result of the Commission s action is shown in The Commission hereby finds and declares as follows A Land Use Plan Amendment Description The proposed Local Coastal Program (LCP) amendment is a project-specific amendment designed to make possible a low density residential development up to a maximum 7 dwelling units per acre (dua) on a vacant, approximately 50-acre site comprising two legal lots most of which is currently in agricultural production Most of the site is currently uncertified and the proposed LUP amendment would incorporate those areas into the City's existing LUP and establish land use designations for those areas as well as for the currently certified parts of the site The geographic area that is the subject of this proposed LUP amendment can be divided into three areas See Exhibit C4 The largest section is an area of the City that was deferred certification by the Commission at the time the City s Land Use Plan (LUP) was originally certified in 1982 and that deferral carried through to the eventual LCP certification in 1985 The area of deferred certification (ADC) is approximately 40 acres t The staff report and Commission findings from the 1982 LUP certification are not entirely clear about how much area was deferred certification However the City has clearly depicted the area subject to this LCP amendment(through the Exhibit A - Resolution No 2008 31 Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications) Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside) Page 18 This amendment request proposes to certify this area by bringing it within the City s existing LUP and applying land use designations to the area Just northwest of the ADC is a 5 acre area that is currently certified (see footnote 1) and designated Open Space-Parks The City has resubmitted this area for certification with the same designations Finally there is a five acre area southwest of the ADC that was under the jurisdiction of the County of Orange until it was annexed by the City in 2004 Like the ADC the City proposed to certify that area by bringing it within the broader City LUP and land use designations are proposed for this area as well The proposed amendment would allow the majority of the site to be developed with low density residential development and would also set aside a portion of the site for open space uses including parks and conservation The amendment does not propose to create any new land use designations that are not already used in the existing LUP Each of the land use designations proposed already exist within the certified Land Use Plan (LUP) The land use designations that are proposed to be applied at the subject site have been applied elsewhere within the City's certified LUP However because the site is an area of deferred certification or was recently annexed no land use designation has ever been approved by the Commission at the subject site (with the exception of the 5 acre area designated and zoned Open Space- Parks) The current zoning of approximately 38 acres of the site is Residential Low Density which has not been certified by the Commission Specifically the amendment request proposes the following land use designations (see exhibit C) Land Acres Use RL - 7 Low Density Residential-Maximum 7 units per acre 38 4 acres OS-P Open Space-Park 8 2 acres OS-C Open Space-Conservation 3 3 acres As stated the area of deferred certification is forty acres and the former County parcel is five acres In addition to the 45 acre area the City has also included in this amendment the five acre area that was not deferred certification The certified area totals approximately 5 acres and is land use designated and zoned Open Space— Parks Most of the certified five acre parcel is slope area and not usable as an active park area The proposed amendment would retain that land use, and would expand that designation into the formerly deferred area for a total of 8 2 acres of Open Space — Parks This five acre segment brings the total size of the subject site to 50 acres (40 acre ADC 5 acre former County parcel 5 acre certified area) exhibit to its resolution)and clearly resubmitted any portions of that area that may currently be certified For purposes of this staff report we refer to the uncertified area as being 40 acres and the acreage of the other areas subject to this LUP amendment are calculated accordingly However if the City does not accept the Commission s certification with suggested modifications and the current status quo remains the Commission does not by these descriptions take any position on the issue of what area is currently certified and what area is ADC Exhibit A - Resolution No 2008 31 Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications) Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside) Page 19 Of the approximately 5 acre former County area 1 7 acres are proposed to become low density residential and 3 3 acres are proposed to become Open Space — Conservation (these figures are included within the totals in the chart above) In addition to establishing land use designations for the subject site the amendment also proposes text changes to the LUP The certified LUP includes a section of area-by-area descriptions In this section of the LUP the acreage figure is proposed to be changed to reflect the annexation of the former County parcel (from the current 44 acre figure to the proposed 50 acre figure) In addition, language describing the area as vacant and an area of deferred certification is proposed to be replaced with the following language The Coastal Element land use designation for the vacant 45 acre area next to the East Garden Grove-Wintersburg Flood Control Channel was recently certified as RL-7 (Low Density Residential) and OS-P (Open Space—Park) In addition, approximately 5 acres of land was annexed from the County of Orange into the City of Huntington Beach This area is designated RL-7(Low Density Residential) and OS— C (Open Space — Conservation) The subject area is currently comprised of two parcels one 45 acre parcel (historic City parcel) and one 5 acre parcel (former County parcel) B Site Description and History The site address is 17301 Graham Street Huntington Beach Orange County It is bounded by Graham Street to the east, East Garden Grove Wintersburg Flood Control Channel (EGGWFCC) to the south unincorporated Bolsa Chica area to the west and existing residential uses to the north (along Kenilworth Drive) The development to the north is located within the City The land to the north and to the east of the project is located outside the coastal zone The areas located east of Graham Street, south of the EGGWFCC and immediately north of the subject site along Kennilworth Drive are all developed with low density residential uses To the northwest a multi-family condominium development Cabo del Mar exists To the west of the subject site are undeveloped properties known as the Goodell property and Signal Landmark property To the southwest of the subject site lies the Bolsa Chica wetlands restoration area The 3 3 acre area on the subject site proposed to be land use designated Open Space-Conservation is adjacent to the wetlands restoration area West of the Goodell property is the site of the recently approved Brightwater development for 349 residential units (coastal development permit 5- 05-020) The Brightwater site the Goodell property and the Signal Landmark property are located on the Bolsa Chica mesa The majority of the subject site has been more or less continuously farmed since at least the 1950s The majority of the site is roughly flat with elevations ranging from about 0 5 foot below Exhibit A - Resolution No 2008 31 Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications) Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside) Page 20 mean sea level to approximately 2 feet above mean sea level The western portion of the site is a bluff that rises to approximately 47 feet above sea level Also generally near the mid-point of the southerly property line is a mound with a height of just under ten feet The EGGWFCC levee at the southern border is approximately 12 feet above mean sea level Historically the site was part of the extensive Bolsa Chica Wetlands system In the southwest corner of the site on the former County parcel the City property owner and Commission are in agreement that an approximately 0 45 acre wetland is present In the 1980s as part of the review of the County s proposed LUP for the Bolsa Chica the Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) in the document titled `Determination of the Status of Bolsa Chica wetlands" (as amended April 16, 1982) identified this area as severely degraded historic wetland — not presently functioning as wetland', and considered it within the context of the entire Bolsa Chica wetland system Also in 1989 the U S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published its delineation of an approximately 8 acre wetland area in the northwest area of the site near the base of the bluff At the time of the EPA delineation the area was being farmed The topography of the agricultural field has been significantly altered since about 1998 As a result the area delineated by EPA no longer is inundated or saturated for long periods except during exceptionally wet years Water now tends to inundate an area near the flood control channel (designated "WP ) and an area at the base of the western bluff (designated "AP ), both of which were havo=beim identified as wetlands by the Commission s staff ecologist However. the Commisston found at its November 14, 2007 meeting that the WP is not wet enough Iona enough to result in the formation of hvdric sods and does not exhibit sufficient hydrology that would support a predominance of hydrophvtes in most years The City and property owner do not contest designation of the AP as wetland In addition on the site's western boundary generally along the base of the bluff, are two groves of Eucalyptus trees The trees are used by raptors for nesting roosting, and as a base from which to forage At the time the City's LUP was first considered for certification in 1981, the Commission denied certification, in part because the City proposed low density residential land use designation for the site that is the subject of the present amendment request and the Commission found the site to contain wetlands The City re-submitted the LUP in 1982, but it made no change to the proposed low density residential land use designation for the subject site Once again, the Coastal Commission in its action on the City s proposed Land Use Plan, denied the certification for the MWD site (as the subject site was previously known) finding that it did contain wetland resources and that the designation of this parcel was an integral part of the ultimate land use and restoration program for the Bolsa Chica The Commission findings for denial of the LUP for this area note the importance of this area in relation to the Bolsa Chica LCP Of the 3 3 acres proposed to be Open Space — Conservation, none is located within the 40 acre area that was deferred certification The site was being farmed at the time of the Commission's denial of the low Exhibit A - Resolution No 2008 31 Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications) Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside) Page 21 density residential land use designation for the subject site A related coastal development permit application had been submitted for the subject site 5-06-327 Shea Homes but that application has since been withdrawn similar to prior applications (previously submitted and then withdrawn were application Nos 5-06-021, 5- 05-256 and 5-03-029 for the same development proposal) as well as an appeal of a City permit for the certified area (A-5-HNB-02-376) The appealed action remains pending but the applicant waived the deadline for the Commission to act on the appeal The Commission anticipates acting on the appeal in conjunction with a future permit application The permit application and appeal request subdivision of the site to accommodate 170 single family residences construction of the residences and associated infrastructure preservation of the wetland identified on the former County parcel and dedication and grading of active public park area C LCP History The LCP for the City of Huntington Beach, minus two geographic areas was effectively certified in March 1985 The two geographic areas that were deferred certification were the bulk of the subject site (known at that time as the MWD site— see footnote 1), and an area inland of Pacific Coast Highway between Beach Boulevard and the Santa Ana River mouth (known as the PCH ADC) The subject site is northeast of the Bolsa Chica LCP area At the time certification was deferred, the subject area was owned by the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) The site has since been sold by MWD and is currently owned by Shea Homes Both of the ADCs were deferred certification due to unresolved wetland protection issues Certification of the subject site was also deferred due to concerns that it might be better utilized for coastal-dependent industrial facilities, since MWD at that time had a "transmission corridor' parcel within the Bolsa Chica Lowlands that it indicated could be used to connect seawater intake facilities located offshore to facilities located on its switchyard parcel in the City of Huntington Beach, through the subject parcel This is no longer a possibility, since the State has taken over the lowlands, and given the development of the areas surrounding the subject parcel since 1982 (and pending development that has already been approved), this site is no longer appropriate for coastal dependent industry The PCH ADC was certified by the Commission in 1995 The wetland areas of that former ADC are land use designated Open Space— Conservation and zoned Coastal Conservation No portion of the former PCH ADC is part of the current amendment request A comprehensive update to the City's LUP was certified by the Commission on June 14 2001 via Huntington Beach LCP amendment 3-99 The City also updated the Implementation Plan by replacing it with the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (while retaining existing specific plans for areas located within the Coastal Zone without changes) The updated Implementation Plan was certified by the Coastal Commission in April 1996 via LCP amendment 1-95 Both the LUP update and the IP update maintained Exhibit A - Resolution No 2008 31 Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications) Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside) Page 22 the subject site as an area of deferred certification This LCP amendment was originally submitted as LCPA No 2-02 LCPA 2-02 was subsequently withdrawn and re-submitted as LCPA 1-05 LCPA 1-05 was also withdrawn and re-submitted The current amendment LCPA 1-06 is the most recent submittal of the same amendment No changes have been made to the amendment proposal during any of the withdrawal and re-submittals The withdrawal and re-submittals were done in order to provide the property owner additional time to prepare and submit additional information regarding the presence of wetlands on-site and the use of the eucalyptus grove by raptors and to allow Commission staff adequate time to review the additional information LCPA 1-06 was received on April 13 2006 On June 13, 2006 the Commission granted an extension of the time limit to act on LCPA No 1-06 for a period not to exceed one year On May 10, 2007, the Commission voted to deny the subject Land Use Plan amendment, as submitted A motion (i a the main motion) was made to approve the Land Use Plan amendment with modifications. but, upon deliberation, the hearing was continued The LCPA was subsequently scheduled for Commission action at its July 9-13. 2007 hearing The LCP amendment originally proposed changes to both the Land Use Plan (LUP) and the Implementation Plan (LP) On July 3. 2007, the city withdrew the n IP portion of the LCPA The Commissio recognized the withdrawal of the IP amendment at its July 11, 2007 hearing Also at its July 11, 2007 hearing, the Commission postponed action on suggested modifications for the LUP portion of the LCPA At its November 14. 2007 meeting the Commission approved the LUP amendment with suggested modifications On April 10, 2008. the Commission granted an extension of the time limit for the City to act on suggested modifications to the LCPA D Land Use Plan Format The City s certified Land Use Plan includes a section of Goals, Objectives and Policies These are organized by specific resources, including headings such as Land Use, Shoreline and Coastal Resource Access, and Recreational and Visitor Serving Facilities among many others These are the certified policies that apply City—wide within the coastal zone Another section of the certified LUP is the Technical Synopsis The Technical Synopsis is an area-by-area description of each segment of the City's coastal zone This section includes the descriptions of the existing land use designations It also includes after a narrative description of the sub-areas Table C-2 Table C-2 is titled Community District and Sub-area Schedule' and it provides greater specificity of what is allowed and encouraged within each subdistrict This greater level of specificity provides a more detailed site specific description than would be provided if the land use designation or general policies were considered alone Table C-2 provides language on how general policies and designations would apply to specific sub areas of the coastal zone Taken all together these work well as the standard for development in the coastal zone Exhibit A - Resolution No 2008 31 Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications) Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside) Page 23 The format of the suggested modifications applies this same structure to the amendment site Many of the issues addressed by suggested modifications would be required by the general LUP policies but consistent with the format of the LUP the suggested modifications are intended to provide a greater level of detail that applies to the specific circumstances of the subject site For example, although the City s public access policies may be adequate to require a bike path along the EGGWFCC levee, the LUP format calls the reader s attention to the fact that at this particular site, a bike path is appropriate and is therefore being required in this amendment If one were working from the policies alone, some opportunities at certain sites may not be recognized The LUP s existing format significantly maximizes the protection of resources within the coastal zone The suggested modifications carry out that same format in order to assure protection of resources at the amendment site E Approval of the Land Use Plan Amendment if Modified 1 Incorporation of Findings for Denial of Land Use Plan as Submitted The findings for denial of the Land Use Plan as submitted are incorporated as if fully set forth herein The Commission denied the LUPA as submitted at the Commission's May 10 2007 hearing The findings for denial of the LUPA as submitted that were provided in the May 2007 recommendation are found in Attachment A, attached to this staff report Afho a s.r,.+l.... ..Mon t r-,asegatnn s„ =,F1—w4 »,.00.nn•0 ni hen 2 Wetland The proposed amendment includes an Open Space Conservation designation on a 3 3 acre area within the former County parcel The 3 3 acre area includes an undisputed wetland area (see 3rd revised exhibit NN) The proposed Conservation designation is appropriate for this area However, additional wetland areas exist at the subject site that are not proposed to be protected with the Open Space Conservation (OSC) designation and are addressed in the following findings Wetlands often provide critical habitat nesting sites, and foraging areas for many species, some of which are threatened or endangered In addition, wetlands can serve as natural filtering mechanisms to help remove pollutants from storm runoff before the runoff enters into streams and rivers leading to the ocean Further, wetlands can serve as natural flood retention areas Another critical reason for preserving expanding, and enhancing Southern California's remaining wetlands is because of their scarcity As much as 75% of coastal wetlands in southern California have been lost and statewide up to 91% of wetlands have been lost Section 30121 of the Coastal Act states Exhibit A - Resolution No 2008 31 Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications) Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside) Page 24 `Wetland"means lands within the coastal zone which may be covered periodically or permanently with shallow water and include saltwater marshes, freshwater marshes, open or closed brackish water marshes, swamps mudflats and fens The Commission has further specified how wetlands are to be identified through regulations and guidance documents Section 13577(b)(1) of the Commissions regulations states in pertinent part Wetlands shall be defined as land where the water table is at, near, or above the land surface long enough to promote the formation of hydric sods or to support the growth of hydrophytes For purposes of this section the upland limit of a wetland shall be defined as (A) the boundary between land with predominantly hydrophyec cover and land with predominantly mesophytic or xerophytic cover (B) the boundary between soil that is predominantly hydric and soil that is predominantly nonhydric or (C)in the case of wetlands without vegetation or soils, the boundary between land that is flooded or saturated at some time during years of normal precipitation, and land that is not Section 30231 of the Coastal Act states, in pertinent part The biological productivity and the quality of wetlands appropriate to maintain optimum populations of marine organisms and for the protection of human health shall be maintained and, where feasible, restored through, among other means, preventing depletion of ground water supplies and substantial interference with surface water flow, maintaining natural vegetation buffer areas that protect riparian habitats Section 30233(a) of the Coastal Act states The diking, filling, or dredging of open coastal waters, wetlands estuanes, and lakes shall be permitted in accordance with other applicable provisions of this division where there is no feasible less environmentally damaging alternative, and where feasible mitigation measures have been provided to minimize adverse environmental effects, and shall be limited to the following 9) New or expanded port, energy, and coastal-dependent Industrial facilities including commercial fishing facilities 2) Maintaining existing, or restoring previously dredged, depths in existing navigational channels turning basins, vessel berthing and mooring areas, and boat launching ramps 3) In open coastal waters, other than wetlands, Including streams, estuanes, Exhibit A - Resolution No 2008 31 Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications) Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside) Page 25 and lakes new or expanded boating facilities and the placement of structural pilings for public recreational piers that provide public access and recreational opportunities 4) Incidental public service purposes including but not limited to burying cables and pipes or inspection of piers and maintenance of existing intake and outfall lines 5) Mineral extraction including sand for restonng beaches, except in environmentally sensitive areas 6) Restoration purposes 7) Nature study aquaculture or similar resource dependent activities Section 30250 of the Coastal Act states in pertinent part (a) New residential development shall be located where it will not have significant adverse effects, either individually or cumulatively on coastal resources In addition, the City's LUP includes Policy C 6 1 20, which limits filling of wetlands to the specific activities outlined in Section 30233 of the Coastal Act And LUP policy C 7 1 4 states in pertinent part "Require that new development contiguous to wetlands or environmentally sensitive habitat areas include buffer zones " The Coastal Commission staff ecologist has reviewed considerable amounts of information regarding the extent of wetlands at the site much of which are listed in his memorandum which is attached as Exhibit K The property owner has submitted numerous documents intended to demonstrate that there are no wetlands on site beyond the wetlands recognized on the former County parcel (i a the CP wetlands) Local citizens have submitted documents intended to demonstrate that there are significantly more wetlands on site than that recognized in the CP wetlands These citizens are concerned by the prospect that development may be allowed to occur within wetlands at the site if the LUP amendment were approved as submitted (and as reflected in the related coastal development permit application 5-06-327 Shea Homes, and appeal A-5-HNB-02-376) In addition, the staff ecologist has reviewed historical information regarding the subject site and surrounding area All this information has been reviewed by the staff ecologist and is considered in his memoranda attached as Exhibits K LLL, and QQQ to this staff report and are hereby incorporated into these findings in their entirety The Commission s Mapping/GIS Program Manager has also reviewed numerous historic and more recent aerial photographs and topographical information The purpose of the Mapping/GIS Program Manager's review was to identify changes due to landform alterations such as grading and filling and to attempt to delineate disturbed areas dating from the time the Coastal Commissions jurisdiction began at the project site (1/1/77) The results of his review are reflected in his memoranda dated 7/2/07 and 10/25/07, attached as exhibits MMM and RRR of this staff report and which are hereby incorporated into these findings in their entirety Exhibit A - Resolution No 2008 31 Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications) Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside) Page 26 In brief summary results of the review of the aerial photos and topographic maps indicates that topography has changed on site particularly in the area delineated by the EPA as wetlands in their 1989 publication (generally in the northwest area of the site) Changes are also identified in the area of the former equestrian facility (generally in the southwestern portion of the site between the CP and WP areas) Howev"t its November 14, 2007 hearing, the Commission found, based on evidence presented, that no wetlands exist in the I&P area In the aerial photo taken on May 21, 1970 the western extension of Slater Avenue is visible just north of the flood control channel embankment on the subject property The 1970 photo establishes a pre-Proposition 20 pre-Coastal Act baseline for gauging the extent of land alterations and other changes that occurred later (post Coastal Act 1/1/77) A clearly distinguishable topographic depression in the area of the EPA wetlands is depicted on topographic maps from 1970 1980 and 1996 However by 2005 that depression was no longer present in the same configuration The lowest area had been displaced to the west abutting the base of the mesa and the historic EPA wetland area had been relatively flattened In the area of the former equestrian facility the aerial photos and topographic maps also show disturbance In the images from 1981 on fill is evident in the area that was developed as an equestrian facility It appears that fill first appears in conjunction with establishment of the equestrian facility with additional fill being placed over the life of the facility The extent of fill has migrated primarily to the north but also to some extent to the southwest WP and AP Areas_ With regard to existing wetlands, based on his review of the available data the Commission's staff ecologist determined that additional wetland areas exist at the subject site The Commission s staff ecologist considered first questions of whether additional wetland areas exist at two specific areas of the subject site The results of the staff ecologists review regarding the presence of additional wetland at the two specific sites (described below as areas AP and WP) are reflected in his Memorandum, dated 7/27/06, attached as exhibit K to this staff report For the reasons listed in that memorandum and below the Commission concurs and adopts its ecologists conclusions with regard to the area known as the Agricultural Pond (AP) t Two specific areas of were evaluated for the presence of additional wetland area a44 The two sites are referred to as the Wintersburg Pond or WP which is adjacent to the East Garden Grove Wintersburg Flood Control Channel (EGGWFCC) levee along the southern edge of the site and the Agricultural Pond or AP located near the base of the bluff along the western edge of the property The proposed LUP amendment would designate these wetland areas Low Density Residential and Open Space-Parks These land use designations allow grading and the construction of houses, roads and active parks which _could necessitate the dredging and filling of the wetlands if wetlands are present in these areas Such uses within wetlands are inconsistent with Section 30233 of the Coastal Act and with LUP Policy C 6 1 20 which limits filling of Exhibit `A - Resolution No 2008 31 Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications) Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside) Page 27 wetlands to the specific activities outlined in Coastal Act Section 30233 The memorandum dated July 27 2006 from the Commission s staff ecologist states The available data suggest that portions of the agricultural field are inundated or saturated at a frequency and duration sufficient to support a preponderance of wetland plant species Such areas meet the definition of wetlands under the Coastal Act and the Commission s Regulations There are three factors or`parameters that are used to determine whether or not a wetland exists the presence of hydrophytc vegetation the presence of hydric soils, and the presence of wetland hydrology The Commission finds an area to be wetland if any one of the three parameters is present Usually, the presence or absence of hydrophytes or hydric soils is sufficient to determine whether a wetland exists However, those two indicators are not necessary as they do not actually define a wetland Rather, an area is defined as a wetland based on whether it is wet enough long enough that it would support either of those two indicators Therefore, the removal of vegetation by permitted activities does not change a wetland to upland Section 30121 of the Coastal Act provides the statutory definition of wetlands lands within the coastal zone which may be covered periodically or permanently with shallow water and include saltwater marshes, freshwater marshes " Section 13577(b)(1) of the California Code of Regulations provides the regulatory definition of wetlands " land where the water table is at near, or above the land surface long enough to promote the formation of hydric soils or to support the growth of hydrophytes' Thus, the Coastal Act and the Regulations provide that a determination of the presence of wetlands may be made based on whether an area demonstrates the presence of sufficient water to promote hydric soils or to support hydrophytes, whether or not the sods and vegetation are present under existing conditions Because this area was historically a salt marsh and because the site has been historically farmed and continues to be farmed as of the adoption of these findings, the typically used field indicators cannot be relied upon The grading and repeated discing and plowing associated with the existing agricultural use destroys hydric soil features and prevents the development of natural vegetation The evidence presented in the ecologist s memo and summarized below#nkeetas suggests that the AP and WP areas are wet enough long enough to `support the growth of hydophytes T4HM If so, the WP and AP areas would meets_the definition of wetlands contained in the Commission's regulations � e The WP and AP would also meets the Coastal Act definition of wetlands if they are #ems periodically covered in shallow water However, based on all the evidence presented(including the memoranda prepared by Commission staff, information submitted by the City, the property owner, the public, and pubhc testim nv) the Commission found that the area of the WP is not wet enough Iona enough or frequently enough for the development of a preponderance of h"drophvtic vegetation or hydric soils Therefore. the Commission finds that the area known as WP is not a wetland Exhibit A - Resolution No 2008 31 Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications) Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside) Page 28 The wetland conclusion is based on two Imes of evidence (1) an examination of the vegetation at a nearby location that is similar in history, physical characteristics, and hydrology to the depressions in the agricultural field 2 and (2) an informed estimate of the frequency and duration of continuous inundationt a various sites Areas WP and AP were matched by the Commission s staff ecologist with wetland areas on the County parcel that were similar in elevation and topography Inundation in the agricultural and AP ass and at the reference wetlands was similar in pattern further suggesting that the latter is a good proxy for the former Therefore since the dominant vegetation at the reference areas is mostly comprised of wetland species it is reasonable to expect that the agricultural area AP would also support a predominance of hydrophytes in the absence of farming (i a that it is wet enough Iona enough and frequently enough to support such vegetation) Although prior to about 1990 inundation hadn t been apparent in the depression adjacent to the EGGWFCC (WP area) and inundation occurred there less frequently than in the area of the AP- in recent years the Commission considered owdearEe information regarding wrhether the WP is inundated for long duration following significant rainfall Weighing the conflicting information submitted. the Commission found that the WP was not inundated for long duration followrena significant rainfall Establishing the extent of wetlands at the site given its history of farming and disturbance, is not straightforward The best approach for this site regarding WP and AP known to the Commission at this time is to base the wetland boundary on current conditions as inferred from recent topography and the available photographs of recent inundation EPA Delineated Wetland (1989) Prior to about 1990, it appears from aerial photographs that significant inundation was generally confined to the area delineated as wetland Oust east of the area of the AP) by the EPA in its 1989 publication Based on analysis of aerial photographs dating from 1958 to 1985 the property owner s biological consultant concluded that inundation in that area tended to have a different footpnnt in different years and, based on this observation, he 2 In the second to last footnote in Dr Dixon s memo he notes that the topography of the reference site is actually similar to that of WP as it existed in 2003 not at present More recently a box plough was used to fill area WP which is apparent in 2006 topographic maps The box plough fill is under investigation by Conumssion staff as an alleged violation Accordingly relying on the topography prior to the alleged violation yields the appropriate comparison Additionally the hydrology section of Dr Dixon s memo states that LSA biologists stated that WP didn t pond until after about 1973 However if this is due to changes in topography that occurred before 1973 it is again appropriate to focus on the post-1973 topography as that represents current conditions Conditions prior to 1973 may be irrelevant if topograplucal conditions changed prior to 1973 as such changes were pre Coastal Act and therefore not Coastal Act violations Exhibit A - Resolution No 2008 31 Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications) Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside) Page 29 argued that no particular area should be identified as a wetland However, all his estimated wetland polygons in the western portion of the agricultural field appear to fall within the area delineated by the EPA In the absence of wetland vegetation the drawing of wetland boundaries is an approximate exercise based on a small and haphazard collection of aerial photographs or ground observations and estimates of topography Given the approximate nature of such delineations, it appears the consultants results are actually additional evidence that the EPA delineation was reasonable at the time it was made However it appears that the area of the EPA delineation (8 3 acres) was based on extra-normal site circumstances As described in the October 25 2007 memorandum prepared by the Commission s staff ecologist, the 8 3 acre estimate of the wetland size appears to have been based largely on observations made during the period when increased runoff from off-site was temporarily directed onto the subject site This appears to have occurred during the construction of the Cabo del Mar condominiums on the adjacent property from sometime after 1978 until sometime before 1986 If one considers the area delineated by EPA under normal conditions (i a no excess off site drainage directed on-site), a more likely estimate for the wetland area can be made Based on the Bdhorn (1987) and EPA (1989) estimates of wetland area during the period of construction of the Cabo del Mar condominiums, estimates of water availability during the period of interest and the estimated size of ponded areas in available photographs a reasonable estimate of the average area that ponded is 4 0 acres The 1987 and 1989 studies by Bilhorn and EPA were based on field work done prior to 1987 The October 25, 2007 memorandum is attached to this staff report as exhibit QQQ and is hereby incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein As discussed in detail below the EPA wetland is no longer present Existing CP Wetland Substantial evidence suggests that the wetland area of the CP is larger than what has been recognized in the LCP amendment submittal The wetland area recognized by the City and property owner on what is known as the former County parcel totals 0 45 acres However, additional CP area should be included in the CP wetland acreage This wetland area was filled without authorization from the Commission In a letter dated 9/7/82 from the Department of Fish and Game (DFG) to Coastal Commission staff the DFG determined the area, prior to placement of the unpermitted fill to be wetlands and recommended removal of the fill and revegetation (see exhibit BBB) Pursuant to Coastal Development Permit No 5-82-278, the unpermitted fill was to have been removed and the area revegetated Based on comparison of topographic (1980) and vegetation maps (Vegetation Communities Exhibit 26 of the Bolsa Chica Land Use Plan dated January 1982) created before the unpermitted fill was placed, with topographic maps (1986 and 1982) created subsequent to the time the fill was placed the elevation of the subject area was increased by at least 2 feet Because of the unpermitted fill, the pickleweed within the filled area was no longer viable Development approved pursuant to Coastal Development Permit 5-82- i Exhibit A - Resolution No 2008 31 Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications) Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside) Page 30 278 included removal of the unpermitted fill to an elevation of approximately three inches below the grade of the existing adjacent pickleweed stand [area of the recognized CP wetland] and revegetation of the area with one or more of the following species pickleweed spiny rush frankenia sea lavender, and shoregrass However elevations in the fill area are not consistent with pre-fill elevations Rather, topographic maps prepared subsequent to the unpermitted fill and subsequent to the issuance of Permit 5-82-278 depict the fill area at an elevation at least two feet above the adjacent CP wetland This leads to the conclusion that removal of the fill and revegetation never occurred Were it not for this unpermitted development, the area would have remained wetlands area Unpermitted development cannot be used as a basis to justify development in areas where were it not for the unpermitted development, such development would not be allowed Thus consideration of appropriate land use designation must consider site conditions as if the unpermitted development had not occurred Therefore, this area is considered a wetland As proposed the amendment would allow land uses like residential and related uses like roads, within wetland areas Thus, the proposed land use designation is not consistent with Section 30233 of the Coastal Act Potential Unpermitted Development Unpermitted development cannot be used as a basis to justify development in areas where, were it not for the unpermitted development, such development would not be consistent with the requirements of the Coastal Act The site as has been mentioned has historically been farmed Discerning changes in topography on the order of a few feet to fractions of a foot over the course of 30 years and ascertaining that such changes are not due to normal farming activities at a site where farming activities are on-going is problematic Nevertheless it is important to assure that if wetland areas have been eliminated due to unpermitted activity, that those areas are considered as if the unpermitted activity had not occurred Thus if areas that would have met the Commission s definition of a wetland have been altered such that they no longer meet that definition only due to unpermitted activity, that area must be afforded the same protection as would be required had the unpermitted activity not illegally altered the wetlands It has been suggested that the land alterations in the area of the EPA delineated wetland were the result of normal farming activity' and so could not be considered unpermitted development in terms of the need for a coastal development permit However, any activities whether normal farming activities or other that would result in the fill of wetlands cannot be exempt from the need to obtain approval of a coastal development permit Regarding leveling of land as a normal farming activity', a joint EPA and Department of the Army memorandum3 states `grading activities that would change any area of water of the United States including wetlands into dry land is not exempt Furthermore, Section 323 4(a)(1)(iii)(D) of the Army Corps of Engineers regulations pertaining to discharge of dredged or fill material into the waters of the United States states that the term plowing 3 Memorandum Clean Water Act Section 404 Regulatory Program and Agricultural Activities United States EPA and United States Department of the Army May 3 1990 Exhibit A - Resolution No 2008 31 Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications) Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside) Page 31 `does not include the redistribution of soil rock sand or other surficial material in a manner which changes any area of the water of the United States to dry land The Commission agrees and finds that if a wetland is filled and no coastal development permit has been obtained the fill activity constitutes unpermitted development The Commission makes no determination at this time whether the fill activity constitutes unpermitted development Regardless of the precise nature of the Iona- time farming activity, because the LCPA proposes allowing non-farming uses such as the proposed residential and park uses outside of the modified wetland and buffer area, and requires restoration of a 4 0-acre modified EPA wetland, along with establishment of a 100-foot buffer adjacent. the Commission finds that the modified EPA wetlands is protected as a wetland under the Coastal Act In a letter dated July 9 2007 submitted to the Commission at its July 2007 hearing from the California Farm Bureau Federation (see exhibit XXX), raises three issues regarding the LCPA staff report 1) staff s recommendation relies on an EPA study, but there may no longer be any federal jurisdiction authority based on more recent EPA guidance documents 2) the subject site's status of prior converted cropland , and 3) what constitutes normal farming activities Regarding more recent EPA guidance documents the letter states In light of new USEPA and USACOE memorandums and the Staff Report s reliance on these agencies' findings there may no longer be any federal jurisdictional authority over the disputed wetlands In turn this may alter key conclusions in the staff report ' The documents referenced describe procedures to be followed in determining when the EPA/USACE have jurisdiction in implementing the Clean Water Act The guidance documents assist only in determining when a Section 404 permit is necessary from the EPA and have no bearing on a past wetland delineation and cannot be interpreted as negating a past delineation Furthermore, one of the referenced documents (Memorandum Clean Water Act Section 404 Regulatory Programs and Agricultural Activities) states 'For example if a farmer has been plowing, planting and harvesting in wetlands, he can continue to do so without the need for a Section 404 permit so long as he does not convert the wetlands to dry land [emphasis added] Thus, even by the standards cited by the Farm Bureau, farming that converts a wetland to dry land is not exempt from the requirement to obtain Section 404 review Furthermore the 1989 EPA wetland delineation assessed the presence of wetlands and found that wetlands did exist at the site Commission staff have reviewed that study as well as a great deal of other information (as cited in the Commission staff memoranda) and as is outlined in the staff memoranda, found the EPA wetland delineation valid (with adjustments as described elsewhere) A change in other agencies guidance documents has no bearing on the results of the earlier wetland delineation The letter also raises the question of whether the subject site should be considered `prior converted cropland The Farm Bureau letter states "Farm Bureau also believes that the Exhibit A - Resolution No 2008 31 Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications) Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside) Page 32 Coastal Commission should apply and document the site specific facts of this issue against USACOE RGL 90-7 and USEPA's applicable regulations and guidance documents regarding prior converted cropland ' The letter further states `However, attention should be given to the disputed area's present and recent past characteristics and use as prior converted crop land The letter refers to a November 20 1998 letter from the Natural Resource Conservation Service designating the subject site as prior converted cropland That November 20, 1998 Natural Resource Conservation Service letter states that it based its determination that the site is `prior converted cropland on two factors 1) the site has been farmed prior to 1985 and 2) designation of the property as "Prior Converted Cropland' by the Army Corps of Engineers in 1992 review of their designation in 1998 and an independent report from Lisa Kegance of Tom Dodson and Associates in December of 1997 have determined that this property meets the criteria for Prior Converted Cropland However, the Commission's staff ecologists memo dated July 27 2006 (exhibit K) includes review of the Natural Resource Conservation Service's 1998 letter (among many other documents) and addresses the issue of prior converted cropland' at length As described in greater detail in the Commission ecologist's 7/27/06 memo, the decision to dismiss the site from regulation under the Clean Water Act, was based on the faulty work contained in the Kegance report of 1997 and the fact that errors in that report have been perpetuated without challenge until now Furthermore designation of a site as prior converted cropland simply allows on-going farming to continue The proposed LUP amendment would not continue farming at the site so that designation even if it had been accurately applied is moot when considering allowing non-farming uses such as the proposed residential and active park uses Finally, the Farm Bureau letter questions Commission staff's assessment that activities that have occurred on site are not normal farming activities On-going farming activities, such as plowing and discing, that are consistent with the continuance of existing wetlands constitute normal farming activities However, methods, such as grading that go beyond normal farming activities have occurred on site, resulting in the loss and/or fill of wetlands, and do not constitute normal farming activities Moreover members of the public have also presented evidence to suggest that activities that are employed at the site do not constitute normal farming activities And, they have argued those activities have, over time, substantially reduced the presence and extent of areas that would otherwise have met the Coastal Act definition of wetland Such activities include but may not necessarily be limited to, use of a bulldozer and a box plough to move earth in the area of the agricultural field The Commission concurs that use of such earth moving equipment particularly when it results in the fill of wetlands is not typically associated with normal farming activities Development including earth movement on a scale that requires a bulldozer or box plough, in an area of known wetland presence (i e 1989 EPA wetland delineation Commission s 1982 and 1984 actions deferring certification of the site DFG Study of Wetlands at Bolsa Chica), without an approved coastal development permit may constitute unpermitted development Also, other non-farming activities have historically occurred on the site In 1982 the Exhibit A - Resolution No 2008 31 Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications) Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside) Page 33 Commission approved the above mentioned coastal development permit No 5-82-278 The approved development was located near the southwest corner of the site straddling the former City/County boundary (see exhibit BBB) Fill (1 500 to 3 000 cubic yards) for an expanded parking area was explicitly approved as part of that coastal development permit Evidence shows that only the area of the expanded parking lot that was explicitly described in the approved permit was approved for placement of fill under that coastal development permit approval If so any additional fill in the area of the remaining equestrian facility may constitute unpermitted fill The development described in the application for the coastal development permit requests the following placement of mobile home as a caretaker facility additional stable facilities [emphasis added] grading and fill of a parking facility for approximately 50 cars removal of fill and revegetation [described previously] and placement of a fence around the revegetated area The City s 1981 Conditional Use Permit for the project (CUP No 81-13) refers to a request to expand [emphasis added] an existing horse facility The City s CUP staff report states The existing [emphasis added] temporary horse stable on the site has been in operation since 1966 and "According to the applicant most of the existing [emphasis added] facilities were installed prior to 1977 These characterizations of portions of development existing prior to the Commission s jurisdiction in the area (which began on 1/1/77) were carried over into the Coastal Commission staff report for 5-82-278 However review of aerial photos indicates that the equestrian facility was not present until 1978 after the Commission s jurisdiction in the area began Both the City and County of Orange planning staff have reviewed their records for permits for the stable facility that predate 1978 but have found no permits earlier than 19814 Regardless of whether or not any portion of the equestrian facility pre-dates the Coastal Act review of historic aerial photos and topographic maps indicate subsequent actions at the subject site have resulted in fill beyond the footprint and/or at higher elevations than what was approved under coastal development permit 5-82-278 Any fill placed on the site, other than that specifically approved for the 50 space parking area approved under cdp 5- 82-278 is may be unpermitted It should be noted that a coastal development permit application was submitted in 1993 5- 93-376 (Hole in the Wall Stable) The 1993 application requested approval of continued use of the existing equestrian facility (formerly Smokey s Stables) At that time Commission staff determined the request was exempt from the need for a coastal development permit because it simply requested continued use of an existing facility, no construction or grading/fill was proposed (see exhibit DDD) It appears the request was mischaractenzed in that the equestrian facilities present in 1993 were larger still than even those requested in 1982 In addition at the direction of Commission staff the current property owner submitted a 4 The County approved CUP No 80 92 to permit the establishment of a commercial stable on the County portion of the site on 2/26181 Exhibit A - Resolution No 2008 31 Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications) Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside) Page 34 coastal development permit application for discing the site in 1999 (5-99-303 Shea Homes) In response to that application staff informed the applicant at that time that no permit was needed based on the property s prior usage for agricultural purposes (see exhibit NNN) However, staffs determination that no permit was necessary was based on a 1998 letter from CDFG (Exhibit YYY) stating that based on a consultant s report no wetlands were present and the likelihood of wetland restoration on site was slim But that CDFG assessment relied not on an actual wetland delineation by CDFG but rather on the flawed analysis contained in a wetlands assessment of the site conducted by Tom Dodson and Associates (Kegance, 1997)5 Thus, staffs determination that no permit was needed was in error based on faulty information prepared by others Furthermore, staffs determination that no permit was necessary was also based on the characterization by the applicant (Shea Homes) that the development requested was discing of the site The letter from staff Indicating no permit was necessary responded only to the request to continue shallow discing of the farmed area However the site has been subjected to farming practices that may go beyond what can be considered 'normal farming activities' and which were not described as part of the project description in the permit application Supporting this conclusion are recently documented incidents at the site that include use of a bulldozer and a box plough In addition, in his memorandum dated 7/2/07 (exhibit MMM), regarding the history of the EPA wetland area, the Commission s Mapping/GIS Program Manager concludes dramatic changes have occurred in this decade The 7/2/07 memorandum states 'Although agriculture has gone on in this area since the 1930 s the elevations have consistently indicated a topographic depression here Aerial photography shows repeated instances of ponding in the area In this decade the topography has changed dramatically, with the obliteration of the depression in its original location and the creation of a smaller narrower depression at the western margin of the agricultural field " However, other than permit 5-82-278 and the two circumstances mentioned above no other permit history for the site has been discovered The question of whether development occurred without benefit of an approved coastal development permit is particularly important due to the history of wetlands on site There is evidence to suggest that areas where topography has been modified may have supported wetlands If wetlands were present at the time of past development the Coastal Act requires that those wetlands be protected Review of historic aerial photos of the site, comparison of various historic and recent topographic maps of the site photos of earth moving equipment not normally associated with farming activities and earth moving in the area of previously delineated wetlands (i e EPA) also raise significant questions as to whether the site has been altered in ways that would have required a coastal development permit Construction of the Cabo del Mar condominiums —outside the coastal zone but adjacent to the subject site —appears to have included development that extended onto the subject 'See exhibit K Memo from the Commission s staff ecologist explaining why that analysis is flawed and does not reflect actual site conditions Exhibit A - Resolution No 2008 31 Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications) Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside) Page 35 site and thus within the coastal zone Prior to the development of the Cabo del Mar condominiums (c 1983 — 1985) a portion of the runoff from the approximately 22-acre site drained onto the Parkside property and contributed to the hydrology of the wetland mapped by EPA At some point after the Cabo del Mar construction the drainage was directed to new drain pipes that were installed across the subject site Section 30231 of the Coastal Act requires that all wetlands be maintained by preventing substantial interference with surface water flow Construction of the drainage pipes impacted one source of water that fed the EPA wetland, inconsistent with Section 30231 of the Coastal Act Such development would have required a coastal development permit from the Coastal Commission However no such permit was obtained Regarding the EPA wetland area, evidence suggests that this wetland relied on surface water rather than groundwater Any loss of runoff would have a negative effect on the wetland that was historically present in the EPA area and on the wetlands that are currently present Open Space Conservation Area In summary, in order to be most protective of wetlands, the additional wetland area beyond what is proposed to be designated Open Space-Conservation, must be recognized and appropriately designated under this LUP amendment At a minimum, that would include the APB and expanded CP areas, and portions of the wetland area identified by the EPA in a document published in 1989 Although it is very likely the area between the former equestrian facility and the WP would be considered wetland area now were it not for unpermitted development, that determination cannot be conclusively made a MIX" th The area delineated by the EPA as wetland totaled approximately 8 3 acres However as described in the October 25, 2007 memorandum prepared by the Commission s staff ecologist the 8 3 acre figure appears to have been based on observations during a period when construction activities on an adjacent property resulted in a temporary direction of excess off-site drainage onto the subject site Several lines of evidence suggest that a reasonable estimate for the size of the wetland before and after the construction is about 4 0 acres I Innioringiind d^••^'^^•M^^�Long-time farming activities resulted in the loss of the 4-acre EPA wetland area Section 30233 of the Coastal Act requires that loss of wetlands due to fill must be mitigated The Commission typically requires mitigation at a ratio of 4 1 (area of mitigation to wetland area lost) The Commission finds that the 04 0-acre modified EPA wetland e'••^ +^ • must be restored However, the Wad fond •„��• ••'�+•^�•- activities that resulted in the loss of the EPA wetland area also contributed to the creation of wetlands in the area of the �lAP Thus, it would be appropriate to n"01•• the gam^^ ^f ili^ 'A'12 ^ 09 �' Exhibit A - Resolution No 2008 31 Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications) Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside) Page 36 preserve the area of the AP (0 61 acres) creation necessaw to and mitigate the loss of the 4-acre EPA wetland area through restoration of the 4 0-acre modified EPA wetland as delineated by the Staff_ Ecologist ..I/ ,�,, a CM nano �p®� - O0�eao e� Therefore in addition to the AP, an additional UA4 4 0 acres of restoration on site surrounded by a 100. foot buffer would be required to amtWate address the loss of the 4-acre EPA wetland Thus area that must be preserved on site includes the AP expanded CP areas, modified 4 0 acre EPA wetland °° ' ^^ -a ESHA areas wetland and ESHA buffer area. Preservation and/or restoration of the AP expanded CP and restored and 4 0-acre EPA wetlands may require supplemental water $/�^ e.°./�.^^4 e"$^ $^ ...,1^......$^►., r. �$^^$ $h^ - - ^ •'®s�aa®aaa�q®�®I�®9��� �' $ $ ini$h h t6'ar For$L. IA/ ffi to $.. $h^ r.^r$h^rr. prog^r$ / -in ni w r.^„n$ ^.•e.$ ^F$h^ � h F6 r F^ $h^ I-12N .,I9I,r.^..$9,.1•w.^$I..nCIC Ond ^ ^$ ^F$h^ ^r r$h^ r+^r$h^rre 9., ..Iva $ . The area to be designated Open Space Conservation is depicted on i 4th revised Exhibit NN are ofa-^d f^ rr ts; that ^^.,I.,I r-^$ =42annnhfix /+^ F r r^e.„+! $ / active 03-8. Giftnw^^ $^ t h^ $h^r r^ Sh^,.^ .„$^rw.•r. /^nI .+r^n.. ^ 1.r. .,,.+ in h w,^$I ..I,. n $h �/A$h el ®�l9� Bg�RO3i"lC =%���19® ���� ®�99-1i9��9^99 ®9" mfnrp ng in fhof nihor an wife $.,w ajag lb I J area^ar ^ar�.ealll't 2$ ��ha na aF�A�A .,^r.d these ..r.^^,F,^..II.c.11—pr,h^.I ..hair^ an nq^ ^ I^^$ dira,I$ fag protgot =i a �n a s e ^ GUI G Exhibit A - Resolution No 2008 31 Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications) Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside) Page 37 .►w...u., too..,w -G.Ora at.... a nOt- , wa►Md ., wwr.,wa.wra wwaw..warwr. w that'Ond .a go gmnnrinni in wwarrrn at.wa Odoesai waw ton r.ew dww.,s"wawd ..w ab.w4 wrrwh w wwar.,ra,ww/r.www /. war^r. wr..J .r.•arw,warw _ _ _ _ _ a' � ® ® — —— -a no a Oreteet on ^' a The Commission finds that only if modified consistent with the land use designations depicted on 4th revised exhibit NN can the proposed LUP amendment be found to be consistent with Sections 30233 and 30231 of the Coastal Act which require protection of wetlands Moreover the entire area was originally deferred certification due to the historic presence of wetland on site In deferring certification originally, the Commission found North Properties of the Bolsa Chica (Between Wintersburg Channel& base of Bluffs) (MIND Site #1 [virtually identical to the subject site of current LCP amendments]) The LUP designates this site for low density residential uses No modifications were made in the LUP from the previous denial by the Commission The Commission found in its "Preliminary Wetlands Determination for the Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Plan, March 11 1980, that all available information demonstrated that the vast majority of the Bolsa Chica low lands exhibit all the characteristics set forth for the identification of wetlands pursuant to Section 30121 of the Coastal Act and concluded that the information supported a preliminary determination that areas identified on Exhibit J of the `Preliminary Determination" are wetland for the purposes of the Coastal Act The Commission had also previously found in its denial of the City's LUP that this area contained wetland resources Since that action and the previous review of the City's LUP, the Commission and staff have examined additional information concerning the Bolsa Chica wetlands system As part of the review of the Bolsa Chica LUP the Dept of Fish and Game in the document "Determination of the Status of Bolsa ChIca wetlands (as amended April 16, 1982) identified this area as severely degraded Historic wetland— Not Presently Functioning as Wetland and considered it within the context of the entire 6 As indicated in footnote 1 the boundaries of the MWD site at the time of the 1982 staff report were not entirely clear However the site clearly covered what is now the 40 acre ADC and may have covered the former County parcel and some of the 5 acre certified area as well Moreover it did not extend south of the flood control channel so the observations recounted here are definitely applicable to the site that is the subject of the current application Exbibit A - Resolution No 2008 31 Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications) Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside) Page 38 Bolsa Chica wetland system The DFG determined that this area is part of a 1 000 acre degraded wetland system in the area outside State ownership which is capable of being restored The DFG report noted "The 440 acres of histonc wetland which no longer function viably as wetland consists of approximately 250 acres of roads, and pads 70 acres of agricultural land[including the subject site], and about 120 acres of viably functioning upland habitat The roads and fill areas presently function as resting substrate for wetland-associated wildlife, and form narrow ecotones which add to and enhance the diversity of habitat available to wildlife The 120 acres of upland habitat considered in union, may be considered environmentally sensitive because of their special role in the Bolsa Chica wetland ecosystem Were it not for the involvement of dikes, roads and relatively shallow fills these 440 acres would be viably functioning wetlands The entire 1 324 acre study area, including 1,292 acres of histonc wetland(in which 852 acres still function viably as wetlands [sic]constitutes a fundamentally inseparable wetland system of exceptional value to wildlife " The DFG also discussed potential restoration of these areas and noted that the amount of acreage and location of wetlands to be restored will be dependant on the amount of fill and existing wetlands which could be consolidated to allow some development in the lowlands Thus, when the Commission originally deferred certification of the subject site, it did so based on the presence of wetlands The Commission found that the site contained wetlands even though the wetland functions were impaired as is the case today Moreover, farming was on-going at the time certification was deferred Thus the area was deferred certification even though the wetlands were impaired and farming was on-going No change to those conditions have occurred in the intervening years Thus, one cannot argue today that the site does not contain wetlands due to on-going farming activities or due to the impaired condition of the wetlands Furthermore unpermitted activities cannot be used as a basis to say that wetlands no longer exist at the site In addition, in deferring certification of the site the Commission recognized that the site was an integral part of the overall Bolsa Chica wetland system and could feasibly be restored If the site were to be restored it would be a valuable addition to the Bolsa Chica wetlands restoration project Sources to feed a restored wetland at the site would come from rainfall and possibly from the adjacent EGGWFCC as well as urban runoff And perhaps also from re-establishing the site as the location to accept runoff from the Cabo del Mar condominiums In any case, restoration of the site as a freshwater wetland would be consistent with the historic wetland system which would typically have included a freshwater component albeit significantly inland of the subject site The addition of freshwater habitat to the Bolsa Chica wetlands restoration would greatly increase the biodiversity of the overall restoration project In addition, taken with the preservation of the Exhibit A - Resolution No 2008 31 Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications) Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside) Page 39 eucalyptus grove described below the area would provide significant habitat benefits In addition to protecting the wetland area itself it is important to establish buffer areas between the wetland and development Buffers by separating development from wetlands minimize the adverse effects of development on wetlands thereby avoiding significant adverse effects to resources Buffers also provide transitional habitat and upland area necessary for survival of various animal species The Commission has typically found that a minimum 100-foot buffer or larger, is necessary to protect wetlands Without the establishment of a minimum buffer size, projects could be approved with an inadequate buffer jeopardizing the continuing viability of the wetland Section 30250 of the Coastal Act requires that new development be located where it will not have significant adverse effects either individually or cumulatively on coastal resources Wetlands constitute a coastal resource In addition Section 30231 of the Coastal Act requires that all wetlands be maintained by providing natural vegetation buffer areas The City s certified LUP includes Policy C 7 1 4 which requires buffers around wetlands This policy would apply to the subject site, but it allows a lesser buffer area if existing development or site configuration preclude a full 100 feet In this case such circumstances do not apply because the site is 50 acres in size and is not constrained by the site configuration or by existing development A buffer less than 100 feet from all on-site wetlands is not adequately protective of the wetland The proposed amendment does not recognize all wetland areas present on site and does not provide any buffer requirements specific to the site Thus as proposed the amendment could result in locating development too close to the wetland threatening the survival of the resource, inconsistent with Section 30250 which requires that the location of development avoid significant adverse effects on coastal resources such as wetlands and Section 30231 which requires natural vegetation buffer areas The extent of wetlands on site over the last 30 years and past activities on the site that may have impacted those wetlands are difficult to determine with certainty The Commission is charged with protecting wetlands, and limiting uses allowed within wetlands as well as assuring that any allowable use is the least environmentally damaging alternative and that adequate mitigation is provided The Commission must also assure that the quality of wetlands is maintained by among other things preventing substantial interference with surface water flow In order to achieve these requirements the Commission must review the evidence available to it even when that evidence may conflict or be incomplete and arrive at a conclusion that is most protective of wetlands In this case the Commission after reviewing available evidence finds that on balance there is stronger evidence to support the conclusion that there are significantly more wetlands at the site than has been recognized in the LUPA request At a minimum, the additional wetland area includes the AP expanded CP, the area delineated by the EPA in 1989 (as adjusted) and epy:;telp..�--th--ar=ea nealt-'hims LEI rm-r��►f�sir-ran End. 21-Any wetland delineation prepared for the subject site must recognize that the site is both a difficult site to delineate' (i a an area where conditions make the use of standard field indicators of wetland parameters difficult [e g soils formed under hydric conditions Exhibit A - Resolution No 2008 31 Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications) Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside) Page 40 associated with tidal inundation that is no longer present]) and atypical because human activities (i a farming) have resulted in the lack of positive indicators of one or more wetland parameters The wetland delineation must account for circumstances where indicators are absent or difficult to interpret but other evidence demonstrates that the component(s) recognized by the Commission that comprise a wetland are present or would be present if not for the difficult or `atypical situation For example, the wetland delineation must recognize and account for circumstances where vegetation indicators cannot be expected hydric soil indicators may be artifacts of prior conditions the soil surface is frequently disturbed which removes indicators of recent inundation plowing may drastically alter the sod profile irrigation might confound the interpretation of the presence of recruiting wetland plants and the presence of indicators of recent hydric conditions Because the site historically has been more or less continuously farmed these indicators may be lacking even though the area may be "wet enough long enough that wetland features would develop It is critical that future wetland delineations of the site recognize this protocol and that, consequently even if the usual wetland indicators are not observable wetland areas must still be identified if those areas meet Coastal Commission criteria Wetland delineations must be sufficiently current to represent present site conditions As proposed the LUP amendment does not include this clarifying information Therefore a modification is suggested to specifically incorporate this standard into the site specific section of the LUP It should be noted that construction of a flood protection levee within the wetland buffer area provided it is the least environmentally damaging alternative, would not be incompatible with the continuance of the wetland In order to be the least environmentally damaging alternative, the flood protection levee should be placed outside the buffer wherever possible, and as close to land designated for residential and/or active park uses as much as possible According to the related coastal development permit application for the subject site and the project proponent the type of flood protection levee to be constructed would be a vegetated flood protection feature (VFPF), essentially vegetated earthen berm with an internal sheet pile wall The VFPF would not be expected to adversely impact the wetland because 1) there would only be temporary construction- related impacts, 2) once constructed, the VFPF would be planted to provide upland habitat that complements the wetland vegetation and 3) the VFPF would not require maintenance once constructed, thus intrusions into the buffer would be limited only to those necessary during construction For these reasons locating a flood protection levee such as the one described above within the wetland buffer would be consistent with Sections 30233 and 30250 of the Coastal Act regarding wetland protection d- Exhibit A - Resolution No 2008 31 Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications) Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside) Page 41 Furthermore Section 30250 of the Coastal Act requires that new development be located where it will not have adverse effects on coastal resources Wetlands constitute a coastal resource Section 30231 of the Coastal Act requires that all wetlands be maintained and where feasible restored by preventing depletion of ground water supplies and substantial interference with surface water flow and by maintaining natural vegetation buffer areas Based on information submitted with the related coastal development permit application a significant amount of earthwork would be necessary to prepare the site for residential development It is essential that any earthwork undertaken on the site not interfere with the continuance of all on-site wetlands No grading is allowed within the wetland and its buffer area under the Coastal Act (unless the grading is for the express purpose of wetland restoration) Grading outside of the wetland, ESHA and necessary buffers could only be considered if no adverse impacts to the wetlands resulted If grading redirected groundwater and/or surface water flow such that water from the site no longer fed the wetlands it would create an adverse effect on the wetland, which is a coastal resource inconsistent with Sections 30231 and 30250 of the Coastal Act The proposed amendment does not include any requirements that other site development including earthwork, assure that no adverse effect occur to the wetlands Thus even if no grading were to occur within the wetlands and buffer areas, adverse impacts to on-site wetlands might result from the LUP amendment as proposed However if the amendment is modified to include language that requires the protection of the wetlands from all development on-site the amendment could be found to be consistent with Section 30250 of the Coastal Act which requires no adverse effects to coastal resources occur In addition to the modifications suggested above, additional measures must be incorporated into the LUP amendment for the subject site to assure that future development adjacent to the wetland and buffer areas and throughout the site does not adversely impact the wetland For example, if no restrictions were placed on landscaping throughout the site, invasive plants within the residential areas could invade the wetland areas, potentially displacing the wetland plants in addition, pets from the residential development if unrestricted may enter the wetland area causing disruption As proposed the LUP amendment does not include any site specific restrictions regarding potential impacts to continuation of the wetland inconsistent with Section 30250 of the Coastal Act However if modified to include a prohibition on invasive plants throughout the site and a requirement for a domestic animal management plan and fencing along the buffer/development interface as part of the site specific LUP language the amendment could be found consistent with Section 30250 of the Coastal Act Specific suggested modifications to accomplish this are necessary to bring the proposed amendment into conformance with the Coastal Act Exhibit A - Resolution No 2008 31 Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications) Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside) Page 42 Members of the public have raised concerns that unpermitted development has taken place on the property that is the subject of this amendment and that such unpermitted development has affected the extent of wetlands on the site Unpermitted development cannot be used as a basis to justify development in areas where were it not for the unpermitted development such development would not be allowed This is true whether there is a specific policy reflecting this in the LUP or not In this case however d� MeCOW the Commission has established the extent of wetlands on the property and a development footprint,` ..t+ l-0 r+d,..+4rw/ r r.rm.fs,.r,I,J,.v,./ r.s 21 MOO r.rt,. Ir. ..d,./., ,..,../rr..d,.,d.rrb.,.r. .. anack21 rda-paingm-nt nd.rmrb ib.rr. r.•+� rr• r.r+nai d,.r,.,d R9,.,.r+rrr.r. thiC ..r,.r-.,.e.,.,d ffaxega ff /nomant ..rr.nnar./ mrrr.4 ho gionr.rd,.r,.,d no if tho unnarmgtiAnd ,d,.r,.+/r.r.m-0 I.- alat The Commission finds that only if modified as sting, indicated on staff exhibit NN l4th Revised] can the proposed land use plan amendment be found to be consistent with and adequate to carry out Sections 30233 and 30250 of the Coastal Act regarding wetlands 3 Eucalyptus ESHA The subject site contains environmentally sensitive habitat areas (ESHA) The trees within the eucalyptus grove,' within and adjacent to the subject site s western boundary are ESHA due to the important ecosystem functions they provide to a suite of raptor species Section 30240 requires that ESHA be protected from significant disruption and that only uses dependent upon the resource are allowed within ESHA In addition Section 30240 requires development adjacent to ESHA be sited and designed to prevent impacts which would significantly degrade those areas Section 30240 further requires that development be compatible with the continuance of the habitat area This policy is carried over into the City s certified LUP ESHA policies In order to assure the ESHA is not significantly degraded and is protected and remains viable, in addition to precluding non-resource dependent development within the ESHA, a buffer zone around the ESHA must be established A buffer zone would require that development adjacent to the ESHA be set back an appropriate distance from the ESHA The setback is intended to move the development far enough away from the ESHA so as to reduce any impacts that may otherwise accrue from the development upon the ESHA and that would significantly degrade the ESHA or be incompatible with its continuance The distance between the ESHA and development, the buffer zone, must be wide enough to assure that the development would not degrade the ESHA and also would be compatible with the continuance of the ESHA Exhibit A - Resolution No 2008 31 Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications) Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside) Page 43 The property owner has suggested a variable width buffer' as a means of protecting the ESHA see Attachment C. exhibits ' and 2) A variable width buffer would be appropnate The variable width buffer proposed by the property owner would establish a minimum distance of 297 feet between the ESHA and residential or active park development(note 100 meters is 328 feet) The variable width buffer proposed by the property owner would establish a maximum buffer distance of at least 650 feet between the ESHA and residential or active park development In some areas of the site, the effective width of the buffer area would substantially exceed 100 meters due to the relative location of the EPA wetland area and buffer and the AP wetland and buffer The area occupied by EPA and AP wetlands and their buffers would provide appropriate ESHA buffer in that development with the related noise and activities would not occur within them and also those areas would remain viable as raptor foraging area The property owner's proposed variable width ESHA buffer includes a water quality Natural Treatment System (NTS) as an allowable use within the ESHA buffer near the southern grove (see Attachment C. exhibits 9 and 2) The NTS as proposed by the property owner is setback-a minimum of 246 feet from the ESHA Portions of a Natural Treatment System (NTS), would be appropriate within the ESHA buffer as long as it is located as shown on Attachment C. exhibits 9 and 2 An NTS within the ESHA buffer, subject to the setback described above, would be acceptable because it would occupy only a very small portion of the overall buffer area Furthermore. the NTS itself will provide some habitat value The shallow water habitat will increase the variety of habitats within the buffer area For these reasons, allowing an NTS type system within the outer ESHA buffer as shown on Attach C. .exhibits 1 and 2 would not be expected to degrade the ESHA and would be compatible with its continuance As proposed by the property owner, the variable width ESHA buffer would prevent development that is not compatible with the continuance of the ESHA from occurring in a location where it would disrupt the ESHA and disrupt it Therefore. the Commission finds the variable width buffer proposed by the property owner will adequately protect the enure ESHA The buffer should not be measured from myoporum It is important to note however, that the "eucalyptus"ESHA is an area that includes several species of non-native trees that provide important habitat for a large suite of raptors These trees are predominantly eucalyptus, but also include penes and palms !Using aerial photographs, staff has drawn the boundaries of the ESHA by connecting the apparent drip fines of the outmost trees It has been suggested that this has resulted in including a clump of myoporum, an envaseve_exotic that probably is not important to raptors Although, it is appropriate to ignore the myoporum when drawing the boundary, of other nearby trees are species that provide habitat for raptors, the latter should be included within the ESHA boundanr even of that results in some mvoporum being present within the ESHA Exhibit A - Resolution No 2008 31 Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications) Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside) Page 44 irargahla u ...Uh htiffwr...w..lel n w ?9A 6 wb /www C..+..ina 2 w�f r-nmeeni.ww.wawTw wba ff halrin hoc" amn ..41. l4 IQ wl..i.A.... that 6L.w wil de%re/ nt .n.i..eh .nw/...` trag ._tha rw.i..lw r 4wr L+..h.*..4 .n�l�wr 4L..•r. tl�w w/.�.Mjp 1 27A fa-4 Aw .1wr.w 4J3Q iJ . As proposed ESHA area would be land use designated Open Space Parks which would allow active park uses within the ESHA In order to assure the ESHA is protected in addition to precluding development within the ESHA a buffer zone around the ESHA must be established As proposed the LUP amendment designates necessary buffer area Open Space Parks and Low Density Residential The proposed designations would allow residential and park uses within the required buffer areas Residential and park uses within ESHA and its buffer are inconsistent with Section 30240 of the Coastal Act The land use designation that protects ESHA by limiting uses within ESHA to those allowed under Section 30240, and that prevents disruption of the habitat is Open Space Conservation In order to assure that development adjacent to the ESHA does not significantly degrade or impair the continuance of the ESHA, the appropriate land use designation for both the ESHA and its buffer area is Open Space Conservation Uses allowed within the ESHA buffer for the southern grove are lr►n►ted to resource dependent uses, habitat restoration. and VFPF(described below l In addition. within the northern grove ESHA buffer passive park use may be allowed►f►t►s located more than 150 feet from the ESHA but the uses within the passive park are limited to nature traits, benches for passive use, and habitat enhancement. restoration, creation and management Such uses are acceptable within the ESHA buffer because they are compatible with the continuance of the ESHA It is also worth noting that California gnatcatchers (Polioptila californica californica), a species listed as threatened" under the Endangered Species Act are known to frequent the subject site especially the western portion Also Southern tarplant (Centromedia parryi ssp Australis) a California Native Plant Society "1 b 1 species (seriously endangered in California) also exists at the site However, the Southern tarplant exists in scattered areas on the site A focused survey documented the presence of 42 individuals distributed in 6 locations The Commissions staff ecologist, in a memo dated 12/19/06 (see exhibit N) concludes that neither the seasonal gnatcatcher foraging habitat nor the Southern tarplant on the subject site meet the Coastal Act definition of ESHA Nevertheless, regarding gnatcatcher habitat on-site, the staff ecologists memo states, it is worth noting that the areas of marginal habitat where gnatcatchers have been observed Exhibit A - Resolution No 2008 31 Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications) Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside) Page 45 are not proposed for development Regarding the Southern tarplant, the memo states In contrast to the habitats on the Bolsa Chica mesa, the scattered areas containing southern tarplant on the Parkside property do not appear to be significant habitat for this species, and it is my opinion that these areas do not meet the definition of ESHA under the Coastal Act In any case, if the amendment is modified as suggested, the gnatcatcher s habitat and the southern tarplant on site will be retained within the Open Space- Conservation designation The land use designations within the ESHA must be limited to the designation that allows only those uses dependent upon the ESHA In addition, the land use designation within the buffer zone must be the designation that allows only those uses compatible with the continuance of the ESHA, and that will not degrade the ESHA Furthermore, it is important to assure the continuance of the raptor community by reserving adequate foraging area In fact the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) provided statements to this effect in a letter to the City dated June 15, 1998 commenting on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Parkside project (see Exhibit ZZZ) In that letter, CDFG states that ff [a]gricultural areas, grasslands and wetlands are of seasonal importance to several species of raptors in Orange County by providing important, if not vital, staging and wintering habitat These habitats also provide foraging areas for resident breeding raptors " CDFG goes on the express concern about the loss of raptor foraging areas within the project site and vicinity and the impacts such loss may have on the adjacent Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve However, CDFG didn't suggest any specific mitigation for this loss in this letter The wetland areas, their buffers as well as the ESHA buffers will provide some raptor foraging area am, r-n has •a= a Maws UV..w +h.w r.a E.w w .ahw.J w4 4hw w..h.ww4 w.4w ohw.•4 47 narac wi ihw w•.h•wwt 649 d no-me— 4w ha .Jww..x anicel Anna a C n aww 4w wa14•.l atw 6hw /wwe. As proposed the LUP amendment would not preserve all ESHA areas or provide required buffers and thus is not consistent with Section 30240 of the Coastal Act In addition, because the proposed land use designations within and adjacent to ESHA do not limit the uses to those consistent with Section 30240 of the Coastal Act, the proposed LUPA is inconsistent with this Coastal Act requirement to protect ESHA Therefore the amendment must be denied as proposed However, if the proposed amendment were modified to land use designate all ESHA and necessary buffer area Open Space-Conservation as depicted on _4th revised exhibit NN the amendment would be consistent with Section 30240 of the Coastal Act The above referenced exhibit depicts all areas on site that are recommended for designation as Open Space-Conservation (OS-C) The recommended OSC area encompasses all known wetland areas on site and necessary buffer and area, all ESHA on site and the required buffers En ra es By retaining adequate area on site as OS-C, a Residential designation on the remainder of the site could be found compatible with continuance of the ESHA Exhibit A - Resolution No 2008 31 Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications) Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside) Page 46 ..i ney one!i;II.,.,I..,,.il.....J GCLI A w..i..�...i.O � el..wl.i., noi..r..I ir....im..r.i a.,..i-m hmr indwasentionil womidef him ann mniip An A/T�`, ■n,nulel /... _..i..,n..l.J r. .J., Lam..L�.i..i /...�. /....l.r. i 9 6�®®9�i' 998ii-10 I roninr Mr-mn nes O&Q0 T/. L..i..i■. w ./..I r. ra i/... rr,�i.( 'Y�i'�91 �'®i� 9'®�99�i9'®�®=® s It should be noted that construction of a flood protection levee within the ESHA buffer provided it is the least environmentally damaging alternative would not significantly degrade the ESHA Alternatives that minimize encroachment into buffer area are preferred According to the related coastal development permit application for the subject site and the project proponent, the type of flood protection levee to be constructed would be a vegetated flood protection feature (VFPF), essentially a vegetated earthen berm with an internal sheet pile wall The VFPF would not be expected to degrade the ESHA because 1) there would only be temporary construction-related impacts 2) once constructed the VFPF would be planted thus providing habitat and, 3) the VFPF would not require maintenance once constructed thus intrusions into the ESHA buffer due to the VFPF would be limited only to those necessary during construction For these reasons locating a flood protection levee such as the vegetated flood protection levee described above within the ESHA buffer would be consistent with Section 30240 of the Coastal Act regarding protection of ESHA The actual design and construction of the flood protection levee would depend on its location In addition to land use designating all ESHA area and necessary buffer and mitigation areas Open Space-Conservation additional measures must be incorporated into the LUP amendment for the subject site to assure that future development does not adversely impact the ESHA For example fuel modification requirements necessary to protect future development from fire hazard must be addressed to assure habitat values within the ESHA and required buffer areas are not adversely affected In addition, if no restrictions were placed on landscaping throughout the site invasive plants within the residential areas could invade the ESHA areas, potentially displacing the ESHA plants In addition pets from the residential development, if unrestricted may enter the ESHA area causing disruption As proposed the LUP amendment does not include any site development restrictions intended to eliminate the site development's potential disruptions to the ESHA inconsistent with Section 30240 of the Coastal Act However if modified to include a prohibition on invasive plants throughout the site, and a requirement for a domestic animal management plan and fencing as part of the site specific LUP language, the amendment can be found consistent with Section 30240 of the Coastal Act Specific suggested modifications to accomplish this are necessary to find the proposed amendment consistent with the Coastal Act Therefore, the Commission finds that only as modified can the proposed amendment be found to be consistent with Section 30240 of the Coastal Act Exhibit A - Resolution No 2008 31 Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications) Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside) Page 47 4 Density As proposed the amendment would allow a density of up to 7 dwelling units per acre on approximately 38 acres of the 50 acre site which would yield a maximum of 266 units on the area proposed to be designated residential However the related coastal development permit application contemplates just 170 detached single family homes on relatively large lots The City has proposed a residential land use designation of RL (Residential Low maximum of 7 units per net acre) However the City s certified LUP includes a residential land use designation of RM (Residential Medium from 7 to a maximum of 15 units per net acre) The Commission's suggested modifications necessary to protect coastal resources would reduce the allowable development footprint from the proposed approximately 38 acres to approximately 26 5 acres If developed at the maximum allowed under RL, a total of 119 units would be the maximum number possible This would still provide a viable use of the site However density consistent with the RM designation would also be acceptable within the allowable development footprint If the RM designation were applied to the site the maximum total number of units possible would be 255 units significantly more than the number currently contemplated by the property owner s development plan Although 255 units are not guaranteed under the RM designation the ability to establish more units under RM leaves the property owner with greater flexibility in determining the best use of its property It is worth noting that although the project site abuts a low density, single family detached residential development to the north (along Kenilworth Drive and Greenleaf Avenue), there are also higher density multi family residential developments adjacent to and nearby the project site The previously described Cabo del Mar condominium complex is adjacent to the subject site Immediately to the north and west of Cabo del Mar are additional multi family residential developments Thus developing at a higher density at the subject site would not be out of the scale or character of the surrounding development In addition Section 30250 of the Coastal Act encourages residential development to be concentrated in areas able to accommodate it The higher residential density allowed under the RM designation would allow development at the site to be concentrated in the northeast portion of the site consistent with this Coastal Act requirement Thus, a modification is suggested which would allow the City at the time it considers accepting the suggested modifications recommended herein to apply either the RL or the RM designation 5 dater Qualilty Section 30230 of the Coastal Act requires that marine resources be maintained, enhanced and where feasible restored Section 30231 of the Coastal Act requires that the biological productivity and quality of coastal waters be protected The City's certified LUP includes policies that reflect the requirements of 30230 and 30231 of the Coastal Act Development has the potential to adversely impact coastal water quality through the Exhibit A - Resolution No 2008 31 Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications) Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside) Page 48 removal of native vegetation increase of impervious surfaces increase of runoff erosion, and sedimentation introduction of pollutants such as petroleum sediments, metals, cleaning products pesticides and other pollutant sources The 50 acre protect site is currently undeveloped with the exception of farming activities Under existing conditions no runoff leaves the site during most rainfall events However installation of impervious surfaces and activities associated with residential development and related hardscape represent a potentially significant impact to water quality downstream of the project which include the Inner and Outer Bolsa Bay Muted Tidal Pocket wetlands Huntington Harbour and Anaheim Bay Wildlife Refuge These downstream areas are likely to suffer increases in water quality impairment when site development produces greater volumes and velocities of runoff as well as introducing increased pollutant loads It is important that LUP language for the subject site clearly address potential adverse impacts arising due to post development runoff into the channel and significant water bodies downstream This is especially true because little or no runoff currently leaves the site dunng most rainfall events However the proposed amendment does not include such language Without such language the LUP amendment is not consistent with the water quality policies of the Coastal Act The subject site represents an excellent opportunity to incorporate a natural treatment system such as a wetland detention system There are multiple benefits from natural treatment systems such as pollutant removal groundwater recharge, habitat creation and aesthetics Furthermore maintenance needs are typically more apparent and less frequent with natural/vegetative treatment systems and thus are more likely to remain effective than mechanical systems such as storm drain inserts and the like which can become clogged and otherwise suffer mechanical difficulties If mechanical treatment control BMPs are not continually maintained they will cease to be effective, and consequently water quality protection would not be maximized Incorporating a natural treatment system, such as wetland detention pond system is feasible at the site The site is an appropriate candidate for a natural treatment system because it is a large site unconstrained by existing development, limited lot size or limited by topography There is plenty of space on the site to accommodate a wetland detention or similar type system while still allowing a reasonable development footprint Moreover, because little or no drainage currently leaves the site it is important that development of the site not result in creation of new adverse water quality impacts such as would result from increased runoff leaving the site In order to achieve the goal of not creating new adverse water quality impacts all dry weather flow would need to be retained on site to the maximum extent practicable The best way to accomplish retention of dry weather flow on site typically is some type of natural treatment system Furthermore in order to protect water quality year round it is appropriate to impose a standard that any runoff that leaves the site must meet The generally accepted standard for stormwater runoff is a requirement to treat at least the 85t' percentile storm event with at least a 24-hour Exhibit A - Resolution No 2008 31 Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications) Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside) Page 49 detention time If dry weather runoff cannot be retained on site it should be treated (e g detained for at least 48 hours and where practicable for seven days in a natural treatment system) The current LUP amendment does not require these site-specific water quality measures and standards Therefore there is no assurance that water quality will be protected Consequently the amendment is not consistent with the water quality policies of the Coastal Act and must be denied In addition although the existing LUP includes policies that require projects to incorporate water quality BMPs none of the existing LUP policies express a preference for types of treatment control BMPs The preferred option for treatment control BMPs is first a natural treatment system (e g bio-swales, vegetative buffers constructed or artificial wetlands) then, second, a combination of natural treatment and mechanical systems or BMPs and last use of mechanical treatment systems or BMPs alone (e g site-specific water quality treatment plants storm drain filters and inserts) In addition application of appropriate site design and source control BMPs reduces the amount of runoff that would need treatment control measures Thus site design and source control BMPs should be considered first in order to adequately size any necessary treatment control BMPs In addition the LUP does not contain any policy citing a hierarchy of preference for different types of BMPs Without such an LUP policy there is no guarantee they will be incorporated into projects when it is feasible to do so Natural treatment systems for the reasons described above provide better water quality protection, among other benefits Consequently the amendment is not consistent with the water quality policies of the Coastal Act and must be denied However, if the amendment is modified as suggested to include this in LUP policy language it would be consistent with the water quality policies of the Coastal Act The use of permeable materials for paved areas in new developments is a site design and source control measure which can reduce the rate and volume of the first flush of stormwater runoff and can help to minimize or eliminate dry weather flow The proposed amendment does not include any discussion on the benefits of incorporating permeable materials into the design of future projects However, if the amendment is modified as suggested to include this in LUP policy language, it would be consistent with the water quality policies of the Coastal Act In addition as proposed the amendment does not include any requirements to minimize or eliminate dry weather flows through the use of site design and source control BMPs Consequently adverse water quality impacts due to dry weather flows are not minimized However if the amendment were modified as suggested to incorporate policy language addressing this measure the amendment would be consistent with the water quality policies of the Coastal Act The current City of Huntington Beach LCP Policy 6 1 6 (paragraph 4) states that the City shall continue implementation of the Municipal Non-Point [sic] Source National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards program which is required by an order Exhibit A - Resolution No 2008 31 Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications) Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside) Page 50 of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board The policy also states that the City will continue to require a Water Quality Management Plan for all applicable new development and redevelopment in the Coastal Zone The Commission finds this policy should be modified to include the correct name and date of the permit and to incorporate this permit by reference into the Local Coastal Program Updates to the NPDES permit (such as the update expected in 2007) should be submitted to the Executive Director for an LCP amendment While the Commission recognizes that the City s existing policies address water quality protection and improvement within the City it also recognizes that there are additional more specific steps that could be taken to further protect restore and/or enhance the water quality of downstream sites (EGGW flood control channel, Bolsa Chica wetlands restoration area Huntington Harbour, and Anaheim Bay Wildlife Refuge) that will be effected by runoff generated by development of the site The proposed amendment could not be found consistent with Sections 30230 and 30231 of the Coastal Act, if feasible measures known to positively impact water quality were not included in language specific to the subject site as part of the current amendment proposal The Commission's standard of review, which requires the preservation, protection, and enhancement of coastal resources including water quality necessitates that the additional measures outlined above, be imposed Thus the Commission finds that only if modified as suggested is the proposed amendment consistent with Sections 30230 and 30231 of the Coastal Act regarding water quality 6 Public Access and Recreation Section 30210 of the Coastal Act states In carrying out the requirement of Section 4 of Article X of the California Constitution, maximum access which shall be conspicuously posted, and recreational opportunities shall be provided for all the people consistent with public safety needs and the need to protect public rights, rights of private property owners, and natural resource areas from overuse Section 30252 of the Coastal Act states in pertinent part The location and amount of new development should maintain and enhance public access to the coast by (3) providing nonautomobile circulation within the development, (4) providing adequate parking facilities or providing substitute means of serving the development with public transportation, (6) assuring that the recreational needs of new residents will not overload nearby coastal recreation areas by correlating the amount of development with local park acquisition and development plans with the provision of onsite recreational facilities to serve the new development Coastal Act Section 30212 5 states Exhibit A - Resolution No 2008 31 Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications) Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside) Page 51 Wherever appropnate and feasible public facilities including parking areas or facilities shall be distributed throughout an area so as to mitigate against impacts social and otherwise of overcrowding or overuse by the public in any single area Coastal Act Section 30213 states in pertinent part Lower cost visitor and recreational facilities shall be protected, encouraged, and where feasible, provided Developments providing public recreational opportunities are preferred Coastal Act Section 30223 states Upland areas necessary to support coastal recreational uses shall be reserved for such uses where feasible In addition the City s certified LUP contains the following policies regarding public access Provide coastal resource access opportunities for the public where feasible and in accordance with the California Coastal Act requirements Encourage the use of City and State beaches as a destination point for bicyclists, pedestrians shuttle systems and other non-auto oriented transport Encourage the utilization of easements and/or rights-of-way along flood control channels, public utilities, railroads and streets, wherever practical, for the use of bicycles and/or pedestrian (emphasis added) Maintain existing pedestrian facilities and require new development to provide pedestrian walkways and bicycle routes between developments Link bicycle routes with pedestrian trails and bus routes to promote an interconnected system Develop a nding and hiking trail network and support facilities that provide linkages within the Coastal Zone where feasible and appropnate Balance the supply of parking with the demand for parking Maintain an adequate supply of parking that supports the present level of demand and allow for the expected increase in pnvate transportation use Maintain and enhance where feasible existing shoreline and coastal resource access saes Exhibit A - Resolution No 2008 31 Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications) Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside) Page 52 Promote and provide, where feasible additional public access including handicap access to the shoreline and other coastal resources Promote public access to coastal wetlands for limited nature study, passive recreation and other low intensity uses that are compatible with the sensitive nature of these areas Maintain and enhance, where necessary the coastal resource signing program that identifies public access points, bikeways recreation areas and vista points throughout the Coastal Zone Preserve, protect and enhance, where feasible, existing public recreation sites in the Coastal Zone Ensure that new development and uses provide a vanety of recreational facilities for a range of income groups including low cost facilities and activities Encourage, where feasible facilities programs and services that increase and enhance public recreational opportunities in the Coastal Zone Promote and support the implementation of the proposed Wintersburg Channel Class I Bikeway The provision of public access in new development proposals is one of the main tenets of the Coastal Act This emphasis has been carried over into the City s certified LUP In certifying the LUP the Commission recognized via the approved LUP policies the importance of including measures such as providing and enhancing public access to the sea and other coastal resources adequate parking and alternate means of transportation, low cost recreational uses, and public access signage with new development The 50-acre site is located in close proximity to the Bolsa Chica wetlands restoration area (see exhibit BBBB) The Bolsa Chica Wetlands, at approximately 1,000 acres, is the largest remaining wetland in Southern California Because it is tidally influenced the Bolsa Chica wetlands constitute `sea according to the Coastal Act definition (Section 30115) Because there is no public road between the subject site and the Bolsa Chica wetlands the site is between the sea and the first public road As such, the area is given special significance with regard to the requirement for the provision of public access Given the prominence of the adjacent Bolsa Chica wetlands appropriate public access and passive recreational opportunities must be provided and conspicuously posted Further, the Coastal Act gives priority to land uses that provide opportunities for enhanced public access, public recreation and lower cost visitor recreational uses Beyond the Bolsa Chica wetlands restoration area is the Pacific Ocean and its sandy public beaches Thus, public access across the subject site to the Bolsa Chica area Exhibit A - Resolution No 2008 31 Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications) Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside) Page 53 would in turn facilitate public access via alternate means of transportation (bicycle and pedestrian) to the ocean beach beyond It is also worth noting that the visitor serving uses available within the Bolsa Chica reserve (such as walking nature study or bird watching) are served by only two small parking areas One located at the Interpretive Center at the corner of Warner Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway and the second at about the midway point along the reserves Pacific Coast Highway frontage There is no public parking available along Pacific Coast Highway adjacent to the reserve Thus the benefits of providing alternate forms of transportation to access the area such as biking or hiking from inland areas, are substantially increased The lack of adequate parking to serve the reserve area is also a limiting factor in maximizing public use of the reserve's amenities Assuring that any future streets within the subject site are public and provide public parking is critical to maximizing public access in the area It is also important to note that the Brightwater residential development, approved by the Coastal Commission under Coastal Development Permit No 5-05-020 (Brightwater), is located less than one half mile west of the subject site That development was originally proposed as a private guard gated community However as approved by the Commission the development will be open to general public vehicular and pedestrian access also allowing public parking on all subdivision streets Also, as approved by the Commission the development will include a public trail along the bluff edge of the development, with public paseos and pocket parks throughout (see exhibit BBBB) The Commissions approval also required public access signage In approving the Brightwater development the Commission found The provision of public access in new development proposals is one of the main tenants (s1c]of the Coastal Act, especially in conjunction with new development located between the sea and the first public road, such as the subject project The 225-acre Bolsa Chica Mesa is located between the first public road and the mean high tide of the sea At roughly 50 ft above mean sea level, spectacular views of the wetlands and the associated wildlife and uninterrupted views of the Bolsa Chica State Beach and Pacific Ocean are available from the upper bench of the Bolsa Chica Mesa Santa Catalina Island is also often visible from the project site The Bolsa Chica Wetlands at approximately 1,000 acres is the largest remaining wetland in Southern California Following the 1997 State acquisition of most of the remaining wetlands that were under pnvate ownership, a comprehensive Bolsa Chica wetlands restoration effort is now underway Given the prominence of the adjacent Bolsa Chica wetlands appropriate public access and passive recreational opportunities must be provided and conspicuously posted Further, the Coastal Act gives pnonty to land uses that provide opportunities for enhanced public access, public recreation and lower cost visitor recreational uses " A trail connection between the Brightwater trail system and the East Garden Grove Exhibit A - Resolution No 2008 31 Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications) Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside) Page 54 Wintersburg Flood Control Channel levee trail is also anticipated in the future and shown on the approved public access plan for the Brightwater development The public access trails of the approved Brightwater project link to the trail system along the Bolsa Chica wetlands and beyond These trails in addition to providing recreational opportunities also provide significant opportunities for nature study and views of the wetlands and ocean beyond The Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve public trail system is a public access resource of regional significance Members of the general public come from throughout the entire County of Orange and beyond to bird watch hike or bike the trail system As the largest remaining wetland in Southern California the public trail system leading to and within the Bolsa Chica area constitutes a resource of statewide significance Further, Bolsa Chica State Beach located across Pacific Coast Highway from the Bolsa Chica wetland area can be accessed via this trail system The proposed LUP amendment contains no language to assure public access will be provided throughout the site in conjunction with future site development Although the certified LUP includes (as listed above) strong public access policies the proposed LUP amendment does not include any public access language specifically addressing public access needs appropriate for the site taking into consideration the recreational needs of both the new residents and other users of the adjacent public recreational resources Specifically identifying the necessity of these provisions in the LUP is especially important at the subject site due to its unique position to link with and expand the very significant public trail systems within the Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve the Brightwater development, and the public beaches beyond In order to assure that access is maximized at the time of future site development specific language addressing access in the site specific section of the LUP is necessary As proposed, no such language is included in the LUP amendment Some specific methods for assuring the provision of public access at the subject site are described further below a) Bicycle Path The subject site is immediately adjacent to the north levee of the East Garden Grove Wintersburg Flood Control Channel (EGGWFCC) The County's Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan (the regional bikeways plan for Orange County) identifies a Class I bikeway along the flood control channel This is also reflected in the City s certified LUP Figure C- 14 Trails and Bikeways Map in the certified LUP identifies a proposed bikeway along the EGGWFCC adjacent to the site A letter from the County's Public Facilities & Resources Department dated January 8 1998 (exhibit J) states `Regarding the City s proposal to continue the Class I bikeway northerly along the Wintersburg Channel to Graham Street The County supports this it would provide an excellent bikeway connection between the City s road system and the off-road wetlands perimeter route (We suggest referring to this entire route— between Graham Street and PCH — as the Bolsa Chica Bikeway) " In addition a letter from the County's Public Facilities & Resources Department dated Exhibit A - Resolution No 2008 31 Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications) Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside) Page 55 February 13 1998 (exhibit J) commenting on a proposed tentative tract map for the subject site, states A bicycle trail along the CO5 [East Garden Grove-Wintersburg Channel] north levee maintenance road will be required A bike route in this area would provide substantial public access benefits It is encouraged in existing LUP policies It would provide a connection between existing inland routes and the Bolsa Chica area and is expected to be extended in the future along the remainder of the EGGWFCC levee adjacent to the Bolsa Chica Restoration area When such an extension occurs (as is anticipated in the City's LUP and by the County Public Facilities & Resources Department), the bike route would eventually link to the coast An off road bicycle path already exists along the entire length of the City's ocean fronting beach A bike path at the subject site and along the remainder of the EGGWFCC would provide a new connection from inland bicycle paths to this coastal path Not only would such a bicycle path provide substantial public recreational benefits, but it would also improve public access opportunities by providing alternate means of transportation to get to the coast and to the trails within the Bolsa Chica area The City and the County have both indicated that a bicycle path in this location is desirable and appropriate However, the proposed LUP amendment does not include any language specific to this site assuring that implementation of the bicycle trail will occur prior to or concurrent with site development Current LUP policy merely states "promote" and "encourage" the bicycle path's implementation Therefore there is no assurance that it will be built in a timely manner or perhaps that it will be built at all Thus the amendment as proposed cannot be found to be consistent with Sections 30210 30213 and 30252 of the Coastal Act regarding maximizing public access b) Public Streets and Parking In addition if the residential development that the proposed land use designation would allow were to be a private and/or gated development, public access would not be maximized or enhanced, inconsistent with Sections 30210, 30212 5, 30223 and 30252 of the Coastal Act All public entry controls such as gates, gate/guard houses or other guarded entry signage that discourages access and any other restrictions on the general public s entry by and use of any streets or parking areas (e g private streets preferential parking districts resident-only parking periods/permits etc ) would constrain the public's ability to access the area proposed as public park as well as the public's ability to access the public bike path along the EGGWFCC levee In turn, public access to the Bolsa Chica area and ocean beyond would also not be provided As stated previously, the site is between the first public road and the sea (in this case the Bolsa Chica wetlands) The provision of public parking within the area would allow visitors to begin a bike ride or walk along the levee through the Bolsa Chica area, and on to the ocean front Public streets and public parking within the residential area would not only support public recreational use in the vicinity of the subject site but also allow visitors from beyond the immediate vicinity to use the park area and public recreational and open space resources in the Exhibit A - Resolution No 2008 31 Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications) Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside) Page 56 Bolsa Chica area In addition ungated public streets would facilitate the use of interior public trails within the development Interior trails would further maximize support and enhance public access opportunities Public trails could be established leading from Graham Street to the outer edge of the area recommended to be designated Open Space conservation and from within the development back onto the bike way along the north levee of the EGGWFCC Establishing such trails would provide an excellent public access experience consistent with the requirements of Sections 30210, 30212 5 30213 30223 and 30252 to maximize and enhance lower cost public recreational and public access opportunity with new development and assure adequate support facilities are provided The provision of interior trails within a future development at the site would be especially consistent with Section 30252 s requirement that non-automobile circulation be provided within the new development In order to assure that this aspect of public access (the provision of public parking within an ungated residential area with public streets and interior trails) is provided at the time the site is developed language reflecting this must be incorporated into the LUP However no such language is proposed as part of the LUP amendment Thus the amendment cannot be found to be consistent with Sections 30210 30212 5 30213 30223 and 30252 of the Coastal Act regarding maximizing and enhancing public access c) Provision of Recreation and Public Access Benefits Residential development of the subject site that would occur pursuant to the proposed amendment would have adverse impacts on public access and recreation unless the above described measures are incorporated into the design of a future project In order to assure maximum public benefit the public recreation and access measures would need to be provided in a timely manner However, nothing in the proposed amendment or in the City's LUP currently requires that lower priority developments (such as residential) be phased to assure the provision of those uses that are a higher priority under the Coastal Act (such as public trails parks and parking) occur prior to or concurrent with the lower priority development Without such a phasing requirement, it is difficult to assure that necessary public benefits would occur in a timely manner or possibly even at all Thus as proposed, the amendment is inconsistent with Sections 30210, 30212 5, 30213 and 30252 of the Coastal Act regarding maximizing and enhancing public recreation and access Coastal Act Section 30210 requires that public coastal access be maximized Coastal Act Section 30252 requires that public access be maintained and enhanced through the provision of nonautomobile circulation within the development, adequate parking and adequate recreational opportunities These requirements are carried over and re- emphasized in the City s Land Use Plan public access policies As proposed the LUP amendment would allow significant residential development to occur with no corresponding requirement for public access specific to the site The site is located between the sea and the first public road Exhibit A - Resolution No 2008 31 Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications) Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside) Page 57 Although a portion of the site is proposed to be designated park, nothing in the proposed amendment would assure that it would be available to the general public via public streets and trails The certified LUP identifies a Class I bicycle path along the flood control channel levee at the subject site However the proposed amendment makes no reference to the suitability of a bicycle path at the subject site If a future residential development at the site included gates or private streets a significant public access opportunity would be lost In addition, public parking in the area would increase public access opportunities to public resources including the park area, the bicycle path the public trails of the Brightwater development and to the Bolsa Chica area beyond, as well as ultimately to the coast However, there is nothing in the LUP amendment that would require the residential streets to be open and available to the public Nor is there any requirement for interior trail connections between Graham Street, any future public park areas, and the bicycle path to areas within the development and beyond In addition nothing in the proposed amendment or in the City s LUP requires that lower priority developments (such as residential) be phased to assure provision of associated recreation and public access (such as public trails parks and parking) occur prior to or concurrent with the lower priority development Without such a phasing requirement it is difficult to assure that Coastal Act high priority uses would occur in a timely manner or possibly even at all However the proposed amendment could be modified such that site specific language in the LUP include reference to the Class I bicycle path along the flood control channel levee, interior trail connections, public parking and access on residential streets This would allow direct public access throughout the site the public trails within the Brightwater development and the Bolsa Chica area and to the beach beyond Furthermore, the proposed amendment could be modified to incorporate a policy requiring phasing of recreation and public access uses prior to or concurrent with lower priority uses Modifications to accomplish these goals would bring the proposed amendment into conformity with Coastal Act Sections 30210 30212 5, 30213, 30223 and 30252 which require that public access and recreation be maximized and enhanced Therefore, the Commission finds that only if modified as suggested is the proposed amendment consistent with Sections 30210 and 30252 of the Coastal Act 7 Visual Resources Section 30251 of the Coastal Act requires that the scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas shall be considered and protected as a resource of public importance The subject site offers the opportunity to provide public views from the site to the Bolsa Chica wetlands area and toward the ocean beyond The VFPS would provide an excellent opportunity to provide public views to and along the coast and scenic areas as required by Section 30251 However the proposed LUP amendment does not include any discussion regarding provision of public view points in association with development of the site Future residential development of the site is expected to include a wall separating residential development adjacent to the flood control levee from the anticipated public Exhibit A - Resolution No 2008 31 Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications) Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside) Page 58 bicycle path along the top of the levee If such a wall is proposed in the future, it could create adverse impacts to public views along the bicycle path However adverse impacts could be minimized by incorporating measures such as open fencing/wall landscaped screening use of an undulating or off-set wail footprint or decorative wall features (such as artistic imprints etc ) or a combination of these measures In addition any such wall should be located upon the private property for which it is intended to provide privacy The proposed amendment does not provide language to address site specific visual impacts and does not assure that potential visual resources will be protected at the time the site is proposed for development Therefore the proposed amendment is inconsistent with Section 30252 of the Coastal Act regarding protection of visual resources within the coastal zone and must be denied However if the amendment were modified to incorporate measures specific to the site that protect and enhance public views, the amendment would be consistent with Section 30252 of the Coastal Act regarding protection of public views 8 Archaeological Resources Coastal Act Section 30244 requires that any impacts to significant archaeological resources be reasonably mitigated The City s certified LUP includes policies which require among other things, identification of resources and mitigation of any impacts Significant archaeological resources are known to exist in the project vicinity and may occur on the subject site However the proposed LUP amendment does not include a specific requirement to avoid and/or mitigate archaeological impacts, even though the site is known to be in a potentially significant archaeological area Without a cross reference in the site specific area discussion of the proposed LUP amendment to the archaeological policies in the LUP, there is no assurance that the potential for archaeological resources to occur on the site will be recognized in conjunction with future development proposals if the potential for archaeological resources at the site is not recognized in the proposed LUP amendment for the site, application of the policies cited above may be overlooked The proposed LUP amendment, which specifically addresses the subject site provides the appropriate opportunity to make clear that archaeological resources may be present on this site, and therefore these specific policies must be applied If the amendment were modified to include a cross reference to the archaeological policies of the LUP, adverse impacts may be avoided and reasonable mitigation for unavoidable impacts could be implemented in conjunction with future site development, consistent with Section 30244 of the Coastal Act Therefore, the Commission finds that only if modified as suggested is the proposed amendment consistent with Section 30244 of the Coastal Act which requires that reasonable mitigation be required for adverse impacts to archaeological resources Exhibit A - Resolution No 2008 31 Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications) • Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside) Page 59 9 Hazards Coastal Act Section 30253 state in pertinent part New Development shall (2) Minimize nsks to life and property in areas of high geologic, flood, and fire hazard (3) Assure stability and structural integnty and neither create nor contribute significantly to erosion geologic instability, or destruction of the site or surrounding area or in any way require the construction of protective devices that would substantially alter natural landforms along bluffs and cliffs The proposed LUP amendment would designate much of the subject site for residential development land use The Commission s staff geologist has reviewed a great deal of technical information submitted in conjunction with the proposed LUP amendment and related coastal development permit application Potential geotechnical and hydrological issues are identified in the staff geologists memo The staff geologists memo is attached as exhibit I, and is hereby incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein Residential development of the site carries with it certain risks Although information submitted relative to the related coastal development permit application indicates there are feasible mitigation measures available to minimize the level of risk involved with site development there is no specific requirement in the proposed amendment to assure that measures necessary for risk reduction would be incorporated into future site development Without such requirements in the amendment there is no assurance that risks will be minimized as required by Section 30253 of the Coastal Act However if the amendment were modified to include such a requirement it would be consistent with Section 30253 of the Coastal Act The subject site and much of the surrounding area are susceptible to tidal flooding Tidal flooding could occur when extreme high tides occur concurrently with storm surge events According to some studies, the existing tidal flooding risk was increased with the opening of the ocean inlet into the Bolsa Chica Restoration area Regardless of the cause of the flooding high tides and storm surge will create tidal flooding The worst case scenario would occur when high tide and storm surge occurs during failure of the levees of the lower reaches of the East Garden Grove Wintersburg Flood Control Channel (EGGWFCC) (which is possible as the levees are not FEMA certified) Under any of these scenarios up to 170 acres of inland developed area would be flooded Consequently, contemplation of any development of the subject site must address this flooding issue With or without development of the subject site, the inland 170 acres of existing development must be protected from flood hazard The path the tidal flooding would follow unavoidably crosses the subject site The only way to adequately insure protection of the Exhibit A - Resolution No 2008 31 Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications) Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside) Page 60 inland 170 acres of existing development is to install a flood protection levee (a k a VFPF) on the subject site or to the southwest of the subject site within the Bolsa Chica Pocket Wetlands between the EGGWFCC and the Bolsa Chica mesa Protection of the inland 170 acres would also protect the 50 acre subject site from flooding The property owner has indicated in documents submitted with the related coastal development permit application that a vegetated flood protection feature (VFPF) is proposed The EGGWFCC is approximately 11 feet above sea level and the bluff at the western site boundary raises some 40 feet above sea level A flood protection levee at this site could effectively capture tidal floods if it is constructed to an elevation above the expected flood flow The existing EGGWFCC levee in the area adjacent to the subject site is expected to be reconstructed to meet FEMA certification standards and would have an elevation of 11 feet above sea level (the existing levee s elevation is also 11 feet above sea level) If a flood protection levee were constructed to the same elevation flood waters would be prevented from flooding the subject site as well as the additional 170 inland acres With or without development of the proposed site some form of flood protection is necessary to minimize risks to life and property in areas of high flood hazard and to assure stability and structural integrity and not contribute significantly to destruction of the surrounding area As it happens the subject site provides the optimum location for the flood protection levee necessary to minimize risk to life and property in the 170 developed acres inland of the subject site Construction of some type of flood protection levee would be necessary with development of the subject site However, such a feature would be necessary even without site development The flood protection levee expected to be constructed as an earthen levee with an internal sheet pile wall would serve an important function Without construction of the flood protection levee, even with reconstruction of the north levee of the EGGWFCC along the subject site, flooding of 170 inland acres (including the subject site)would result during either a tidal surge or a levee failure downstream of the subject site The 170 acre inland area is developed with approximately 800 homes Floodwater depth in some homes it is estimated, would be at least two feet However construction of a flood protection levee on the site would be adequate to assure structural integrity, and neither create nor contribute significantly to erosion geologic instability or destruction of the site or surrounding area In addition construction of the flood protection levee would minimize risks to life and property from flood hazard In order for the flood protection levee to function effectively it would have to be placed within the site s necessary buffer areas However as described previously a flood protection levee in the ESHA or wetland buffer area may be an allowable use within a buffer provided it is the least environmentally damaging feasible alternative Furthermore the construction of the flood protection levee may eliminate the need for the flood control levee downstream of the flood wall If the flood control levee downstream of the flood wall is not reconstructed potential impacts to wetlands in the CP wetland area can be avoided The appropriateness of reconstructing the downstream levee area will be Exhibit A - Resolution No 2008 31 Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications) Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside) Page 61 considered when the related coastal development permit is processed It should be noted that an emergency coastal development permit was issued to the County of Orange to install sheet pile within the north levee of the flood control channel adjacent to the subject site However the County has indicated it is willing to consider alternatives that limit changes to the levee downstream if such an alternative is deemed feasible and environmentally desirable Construction methods proposed by the County to install the sheetpiles will not involve any wetland fill Impacts to coastal resources may occur which will be addressed in the follow-up permit The question of whether the bluff along the western edge of the property should be considered a coastal bluff has been raised The Commissions staff geologist has evaluated the bluff s status The staff geologists evaluation is contained in a memorandum attached as exhibit P The subject bluff was carved by the ancestral Santa Ana river as it meandered across the Bolsa Chica lowlands Assertions have been made that the bluff was subject to marine erosion within the past 200 years based on an 1873 T- sheet that shows tidal channels adjacent to the toe of the bluff The staff geologists response to these assertions is I concur that there is strong evidence that there were tidal wetlands in the Bolsa Chica lowlands prior to dike construction in the early twentieth century but tidal wetlands generally are not the site of extensive marine erosion Indeed they are commonly depositional not erosional and serve as an efficient buffer from marine erosion The staff geologist concludes In summary I believe that the bluff at the Shea Home property is best described as a river bluff and is not a coastal bluff in a genetic or geomorphic sense Thus the Commission finds that the bluff on the subject site is not a `coastal bluff For the reasons described above the Commission finds that only if modified can the proposed amendment be found to be consistent with Section 30253 of the Coastal Act which requires that risks to life and property be minimized and that development assure stability and structural integrity and neither create nor contribute significantly to erosion geologic instability or destruction of the site or surrounding area 10 Priority of Use Section 30222 of the Coastal Act states The use of private lands suitable for visitor-serving commercial recreational facilities designed to enhance public opportunities for coastal recreation shall have priority over private residential general industrial, or general commercial development, but not over agriculture or coastal-dependent industry The LUP amendment does not propose to designate any portion of the site visitor serving commercial Generally in the City of Huntington Beach, the areas recognized as best for visitor serving commercial development are the areas along Pacific Coast Highway, and adjacent to and inland of the pier and areas within and around Huntington Harbour The subject site is surrounded on three sides by existing single family residences and does not Exhibit A - Resolution No 2008 31 Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications) Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside) Page 62 lend itself to visitor serving commercial development Moreover the LUP amendment as proposed and as amended will provide a Class I bicycle path a public view area public park area, and interior trails as well as public parking along the residential streets Such uses constitute lower cost visitor serving recreational uses As modified the recreational and public access provisions will be constructed prior to or concurrent with the residential uses Therefore the Commission finds that the proposed LUP amendment is consistent with Sections 30213 and 30222 of the Coastal Act which requires visitor serving commercial recreational facilities have priority over residential development and encourages provision of lower cost public recreational facilities 11 Conclusion As proposed, the Land Use Plan amendment contains significant deficiencies with regard to consistency with the Coastal Act As proposed the amendment cannot be found consistent with Sections 30210 and 30252 regarding maximizing and enhancing public access 30251 regarding protection of public views 30233 and 30250 regarding wetlands, 30240 regarding ESHA 30244 regarding archaeological resources, and 30230 and 30231 regarding water quality of the Coastal Act However, if the proposed amendment were modified as suggested in Section II of this staff report the amendment would be consistent with the Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal Act Therefore the Commission finds that only if modified is the proposed amendment consistent with the Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal Act IV CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT Section 21080 9 of the California Public Resources Code —within the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) - exempts local governments from the requirement of preparing an environmental impact report (EIR) in connection with its activities and approvals necessary for the preparation and adoption of a local coastal program (LCP) Instead the CEQA responsibilities are assigned to the Coastal Commission However, the Commission s LCP review and approval program has been found by the Resources Agency to be functionally equivalent to the EIR process Thus under Section 21080 5 of CEQA the Commission is relieved of the responsibility to prepare an EIR for each LCP Nevertheless the Commission is required in approving an LCP submittal to find that the LCP does conform with the provisions of CEQA including the requirement in CEQA section 21080 5(d)(2)(A) that the amended 1P LUP will not be approved or adopted as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen any significant adverse impact which the activity may have on the environment 14 C C R Sections 13542(a) 13540(f), and 13555(b) The City of Huntington Beach LCP amendment 1-06 consists of an amendment to beffi the Land Use Plan (LUP) o As outlined in this staff report the LUP amendment is not consistent with the Chapter 3 Exhibit A - Resolution No 2008 31 Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications) Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside) Page 63 polices of the Coastal Act regarding public access and recreation wetland ESHA, marine resources and land resources as proposed „���,,, ,.,,.�.�;,,,� , anel ►►0,. 121on =a ,.d.f.,,& However if modified as suggested the amendment will be consistent with the public access and recreation wetland ESHA marine resource and land resource policies of the Coastal Act Thus the Commission finds that the proposed LUP amendment as modified, meets the requirements of and conforms with the Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal Act .f.,,,,,.r. .,,r Therefore, the Commission finds that approval of the LUP amendment as modified will not result in significant adverse environmental impacts under the meaning of CEQA Therefore, the Commission certifies LGR LUP amendment request 1-06 if modified as suggested herein HNB LCPA 1 06 Parkside AdptdF 5 08 my Res No 2008-31 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I JOAN L FLYNN the duly elected qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of all the members of said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on June 16, 2008 by the following vote AYES Hansen Bohr Coerper Green Carchio NOES Hardy Cook ABSENT None ABSTAIN None C Clerk and ex-office Jerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach California ATTACHMENT #2. RESOLUTION NO 2008-32 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM BY AMENDING THE COASTAL ELEMENT WHEREAS pursuant to State Planning and Zoning Law, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach has held a public hearing relative to Local Coastal Program Amendment No 1- 06 wherein all information presented at said hearing was carefully considered, and after due consideration of the findings and all evidence presented to the City Council, the City Council found that such amendment to the Coastal Element was proper and consistent with the Huntington Beach General Plan and Huntington Beach Local Coastprogram, and Pursuant to the California Coastal Act Local Coastal Program Amendment No 1-06 was referred to the Coastal Commission for its consideration and certification, and The Coastal Commission has certified Local Coastal Program Amendment No 1-06 with suggested modifications and The City Council wishes to accept and approve said modification in accordance with the provisions of the California Coastal Act, NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby resolve as follows SECTION 1 The proposed amendment to the Local Coastal Program Amendment No 1-06 consisting of proposed modifications to the Coastal Element as identified on the attached Exhibit A and incorporated by this reference as though fully set forth herein is hereby adopted and approved PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 16th day of June 2008 4 Mayor REVIE ND APPROVED INITIAT A D APPROVED City Administrat Plan etg Director APPROVED AS TO FORM Attorney G 08 1640/22938 Exhibit A - Resolution No 2008 32 -YIBIT A EXn" a a a I Exhibit A - Resolution No 2008 32 II SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS Certification of City of Huntington Beach LCP Amendment Request No 1-06 is subject to the following modifications The City s existing language is shown in plain text The City s proposed additions are shown in bold text The City s proposed deletions are shown in , The Commission staff s original (November 2007) suggested additions are shown In bold, italic, underlined text The` Commission staffs original (November 2007) suggested deletions are show in bald; itakcunderknec b*e� out te�v4 rc c �n n cc-vvs-c�rr Additions to the November 2007 staff recommendation made by the Commission at the public hearing are shown in bold itahc double underlined text Deletions to the November 2007 staff recommendation made by the Commission at the public hearing are shown in Staff Note Three corrections are made where, due to typos, existing certified LUP language was left out The corrections are 1) replacing the word "residential" in suggested modification No 1, 2) replacing the sub-section Public" in the table in suggested modification No 2 and, 3) inserting the hyphen in the land use category titles Exhibit A - Resolution No 2008 32 Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications) Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside) Page 5 Open Space- Conservation and Open Space - Parks throughout LAND USE PLAN SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS SUGGESTED MODIFICATION NO 1 Sub-Area Descriptions and Land Use Plan The City s certified and proposed Land Use Plan (LUP) language on page IV-C-11 under the heading Zone 2 - Bolsa Chica shall be modified as follows Existing Land Uses Inland (Pacific Coast Highway and areas north to the Coastal Zone boundary ) The majority of Zone 2 the Bolsa Chica is located outside the City s corporate boundary, within the County of Orange The area is in the City's Sphere of Influence A 44- 50 acre area between Los42a-tbs the residential development along Kenilworth ®rive and the East Garden Grove Wintersburg Flood Control Channel is vaGant includes a small section of the Bolsa Chica bluffs Coastal (Seaward of Pacific Coast Highway) Coastal Element Land Use Plan Inland (Pacific Coast Highway and areas north to the Coastal Zone boundary ) The Coastal Element does not present a land use plan for the Bolsa Chica The land area north of the Bolsa Chica within the City s corporate and Coastal Zone boundaries is built out consistent with its Coastal Element designation of low density residential The area west of the Bolsa Chica is also developed consistent with the Coastal Element Land Use designation of low density residential and multi-family residential The VaGant ^^ afire aro., of DefeFr-ed GeFtlf'Gation " Prior to development of the site, an amendment to the City 6 amendment would take e#eGt upes Gemmiss-IGR G841fiGation POFtleRs of this zone are Coastal Efement land use desic Garden Grove Wintersb---.., Reed Control Channel was --eghfiedd as R-1 -7 Densitv..vv.a,.ent all and OS-P(Open pac - D f&tiren •ppi;G sn•.. T-n-e 141 " Exhibit A - Resolution No 2008 32 Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications) Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside) Page 6 The fifty(50) acre area (including the 5 acre area annexed by the City in 2004) adiacent to and Immediately north of the East Garden GroveMintersbur_g Flood Control Channel and adjacent to and immediately west of Graham Street is land use designated Residential and Open Space— Conservation (See Fi_gure C-6a) There are wetlands, a Eucalyptus Grove that is an Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area because it provides important raptor habitat, and buffer areas! at this site These areas are designated Open Space— Conservation The Wintersbur_g Channel Bikeway is identified at this site on the north levee of the Hood control channel in the Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan, which is the regional bikeways plan for Orange County(See page IV--C-49 and figure C-14) SUGGESTED MODIFICATION No 2 The table titled Zone 2 — Land Use Designations, on page IV-C-11 shall be modified as follows Zone 2 — Land Use Designations Residential RL-T or RM or RH Open Space OS-P OS-S OS-C Public P White Hele- Zone 2 —Specific Plan Areas None Zone 2 —General Plan Overlays 4G 4J 4K SUGGESTED MODIFICATION NO 3 Figure C-6 of the City's Land Use Plan shall be modified to reflect the change in the City's corporate boundary and to accurately reflect the correct areas of the certified land use designations (Residential and Open Space Conservation) for the area SUGGESTED MODIFICATION NO 4 New Figure C-6a shall be added to the City s Land Use Plan, which shall be a land use plan of the Parkside site and shall depict the approved land use designations on the site as shown on 3 4th revised exhibit NN Exhibit A - Resolution No 2008 32 Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications) Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside) Page 7 SUGGESTED MODIFICATION NO 5 Add new subarea 4-K to table C-2 (Community District and Subarea Schedule) as depicted below Subarea Characteristic Standards and Princl les 4-K Permitted Uses Categories Residential(R-L or R-M) Open Space Conservation (OS-C) See Fi ure C-6a Density/intensity Residential Maximum of fifteen (15) dwelling units per acre Design and See Figure C-6a Development A development plan for this area shall concentrate and cluster residential units in the neirtheastern portion of the site and include, consistent with the land use designations and Coastal Element pohcies, the following required information (all required information must be prepared or updated no more than one year prior to submittal of a coastal development permit apphcation) 9 A Pubhc Access Plan, including, but not limited to the following features ❖ Class I Bikeway(paved off-road bikeway, for use by bicyclists, walkers, loggers, roller skaters, and strollers) along the north levee of the flood control channel If a wall between residential development and the Bikeway is allowed it shall include design features such as landscaped screening, non-/near footprint, decorative design elements and/or other features to soften the visual impact as viewed from the Bikeway ❖ Pubhc vista point with views toward the Bolsa Chica and ocean consistent with Coastal Element policies C 4 13, C 4 2 1, and C423 •e• All streets shall be ungated, public streets available to the general public for parking, vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle access Exhibit A - Resolution No 2008 32 Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications) Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside) Page 8 All public entry controls (e q gates, gate/quard houses, _guards, signa_ge, etc) and restrictions on use by the _general public (e g preferential parking districts, resident-only parking periods/permits, etc) associated with any streets or parking areas shall be prohibited ❖ Public access trails to the Class I Bikeway, open space and to and within the subdivision, connecting with trails to the Bolsa Chica area and beach beyond ❖ Public access signa_ge ❖ When privacy walls associated with residential development are located adjacent to public areas they shall be placed on the private property, and visual impacts created by the walls shall be minimized through measures such as open fencing/wall design, landscaped screening, use of an undulating or off set wall footprint, or decorative wall features (such as artistic imprints, etc), or a combination of these measures 2 Habitat Management Plan for all ESHA, wetland, and buffer areas designated Open Space- Conservation that provides for their restoration and perpetual conservation and management Issues to be addressed include, but are not limited to, methods to assure continuance of a water source to feed all wetland areas, enhancement of habitats and required buffer areas, restoration and enhancement of wetlands and environmentally sensitive habitats and required buffer areas, and fuel modification requirements to address fire hazard and avoid disruption of habitat values in buffers 3 Archaeological Research Design consistent with Policies C5 11, C5 12, C5 13, C5 14, and C5 15 of this Coastal Element 4 Water Quahty Management Program consistent with the Water and Marine Resources policies of this Coastal Element If development of the parcel creates Exhibit A - Resolution No 2008 32 Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications) Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside) Page 9 significant amounts of directly connected impervious surface (more than 10%) or increases the volume and velocity of runoff from the site to adjacent coastal waters, the development shall include a treatment control BMP or suite of BMPs that will eliminate, or minimize to the maximum extent practicable, dry weather flow_generated by site development to adjacent coastal waters and treat runoff from at least the 85 percentile storm event based on the desLgn criteria of the California Association of StormwaterAgencies (CASQA) BMP handbooks, with at least a 24 hour detention time Natural Treatment Systems such as wetland detention systems are preferred since they provide additional habitat benefits, reliability and aesthetic values 5 Pest Management Plan that, at a minimum, prohibits the use of rodenticides, and restricts the use of pesticides, and herbicides in outdoor areas, except necessary Vector Control conducted by the Qty or County 6 Landscape Plan for non-Open Space Conservation areas that prohibits the planting, naturalization, or persistence of invasive plants, and encourages low- water use plants, and plants primarily native to coastal Orange County 7 Biological Assessment of the entire site 8 Wetland delineation of the entire site 9 Domestic animal control plan that details methods to be used to prevent pets from entering the Open Space- Conservation areas Methods to be used include, but are not limited to, appropriate fencing and barrier plantings 10 Hazard Miti_gatson and Flood Protection Plan, including but not limited to, the following features •o• Demonstration that site hazards including flood and liquefaction hazards are mah ated Exhibit A - Resolution No 2008 32 Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications) Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside) Page 10 ❖ Minimization/mitigation of flood hazard shall include the placement of a FEMA- certifiable, vegetated flood protection levee that achieves hazard mitigation _goals and is the most protective of coastal resources including wetland and ESHA, ❖ Assurance of the continuance, restoration and enhancement of the wetlands and ESHA Residential Residential development, including appurtenant development such as roads and private open space, is not allowed within any wetland, ESHA, or required buffer areas and area designated Open Space- Conservation- Uses consistent with the Open Space-Parks designation are allowed in the residential area All development shall assure the continuance of the habitat value and function of preserved and restored wetlands and environmentally sensitive habitat areas within the area destcinated Open Space-Conservation Open Space-Conservation A Wetlands Only those uses described in Coastal Element Policy C S 120 shall be allowed within existing and restored wetlands All development shall assure the continuance of the habitat value and function of wetlands Wetland Suffer Area A buffer area is reguired along the perimeter of wetlands to provide a separation between development impacts and habitat areas and to function as transitional habitat The buffer shall be of sufficient size to ensure the biological integrity and preservation of the wetland the buffer is designed to protect Exhibit A - Resolution No 2008 32 Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications) Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside) Page 11 A minimum buffer width of 100 feet shall be established Uses allowed within the wetland buffer are hmited to 1) those uses allowed within wetlands per Coastal Element Pohcy C 6 120, 2) a vegetated flood protection levee is a potential allowable use if, due to siting and desL_gn constraints, location in the wetland buffer is unavoidable, and the levee is the most protective of coastal resources including wetland and ESHA, 3) No active park uses (e g tot lots, playing fields, picnic tables, bike paths, etc) shall be allowed within 100 feet of wetlands preserved in the Open Space Conservation area B Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas Only uses dependent on the resource shall be allowed Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHA) Buffer Areas A variable width buffer area is required along the penmeter of the ESHA and is required to be of sufficient size to ensure the biological inte_gnty and preservation of the ESHA the buffer is designed to protect A minimum buffer width of 297 to 650 fee shall be established between all residential development or active park use and raptor habitat within the eucalyptus -groves Uses allowed within the ESHA buffer are limited to 1) uses dependent on the resource, 2) wetland and upland habitat restoration and management, 3) vegetated flood protection levee that is the most protective of coastal resources enclud�ng wetland and ESHA Exhibit A - Resolution No 2008 32 Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications) Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside) Page 12 4) within the northern prove ESHA buffer only— passive park use may be allowed if it is more than 150 feet from the ESHA, but only when of is outside all wetland and wetland buffer areas and does not include any uses that would be disruptive to the ESHA Uses allowed within the passive park areas shall be hm-ited to a) nature trails and benches for passive recreation, education, and nature study, b) habitat enhancement, restoration,creation and management 5) within the southern grove ESHA buffer only- a water guahty Natural Treatment System may be allowed so long as it is located in an area that is most protective of coastal resources and at least 246 feet from the ESHA 56) In addition to the 4QQAtRW required ESHA buffer described above grading shall be prohibited within 500 feet of an occupied raptor nest during the breeding season (considered to be from February 15 through August 31). Ilwww ..11w.aewe,l•.elthin .■rw.■w dwwr .■4wd EA/ntwr nrre■L ALMil re■I Trw.■Emlan4 Cvwf�. 7_O.■wwevw rwwrw..4rw r■.■I •ewww w w/n .■w bre■r/w wM I+wr■wl+ww �wr wevlrrw.■4rwN Orel r■w+rrrw wlrrel.i DC Habitat Management Plan shall be prepared for all areas designated®pen Space-Conservation which shall include restoration and enhancement of delineated wetlands, wetland and habitat mi! atton, and establishment of a_ppropnate buffers from development Exhibit A - Resolution No 2008 32 Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications) Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside) Page 13 D Protective Fencing Protective fencing or barriers shall be installed along any interface with developed areas, to deter human and pet entrance into all restored and preserved wetland and ESHA buffer areas SUGGESTED MODIFICATION No 6 On page IV-C-60 and IV-C-61 under the heading Visual Resources The Bolsa Chica Mesas, revise to include visual resources within Parkside area as follows The northwestern side of the Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve includes bluffs that rise to an upland area known as the Bolsa Chica Mesa These bluffs are primarily under the County s jurisdiction (only a small part of the bluff lies in the City) but are within the City s Sphere of Influence for potential future annexation The mesas constitute a significant scenic resource within the City s coastal Zone The 50 acre site (located west of and adjacent to Graham Street and north of and adjacent to the East Garden Grove Wintersburg Orange County flood Control Channel) known as the "Parkside"site affords an excellent opportunity to provide a public vista point A public vista point in this location would provide excellent public views toward the Bolsa Chica and ocean Use of the public vista point w►A be enhanced with construction of the Class I bike path along the flood control channel and pubhc trails throughout the Parkside site SUGGESTED MODIFICATION NO 7 On page IV-C-70 add the following language in the first paragraph under the heading Environmentally Sensitive Habitats, to include reference to the wetland and Eucalyptus ESHA on the Parkside site The City s Coastal Element identifies ewe three"environmentally sensitive habitat areas within the City 1) the Huntington Beach wetland areas and 2)the California least tern nesting sanctuary, and 3) the wetlands and Eucalyptus ESHA on the Parkside site (See Figure C-21 for location of No 9 and 2) The Coastal Element includes policies to protect and enhance environmentally sensitive habitat areas in accordance with the Coastal Act Also on page IV-C-72 add the following new section describing the Eucalyptus ESHA and wetlands on the Parkside site, after the paragraph titled California Least Tern Nesting Sanctuary Exhibit A - Resolution No 2008 32 Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications) Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside) Page 14 Parkside Eucalyptus ESHA and Wetlands (See Figure C 6a) Histoncally, this site was part of the extensive Bolsa Chica Wetlands system and was part of the Santa Ana River/Bolsa Chica complex In the late 1890s the Bo/sa Chica Gun Club completed a dam with tide gates, which eliminated tidal influence, separating fresh water from salt water In the 1930s, agricultural ditches began to omit fresh water on the site, and in 1959, the East Garden Grove-Wintersburg Flood Control Channel isolated the site hydrologically Nevertheless, wetland areas remain present at the site There are existing and previously delineated wetlands, and areas that have been filled without authorization and are capable of being restored These areas as well as their buffer areas are designated Open Space- Conservation, and uses allowed within these areas are limited In addition, on the site's southwestern boundary, at the base of the bluff, is a hne of Eucalyptus trees that continues offsite to the west These trees are used by raptors for nesting, roosting, and as a base from which to forage The trees within this "eucalyptus grove"within or adjacent to the subject site's western boundary constitute an environmentally sensitive habitat area (ESHA) due to the important ecosystem functions they provide to a suite of raptor species The Eucalyptus trees along the southern edge of the Bolsa Chica mesa are used for perching, roosting, or nestin_g by at least 12 of the 17 species of raptors that are known to occur at Bolsa Chica Although it is known as the "eucalyptus grove", it also includes several palm trees and pine trees that are also used by raptors and herons None of the trees are part of a native plant community Nevertheless, this eucalyptus grove has been recognized as ESHA by multiple agencies since the late 1970's (USFWS, 1979, CDFG 198Z 1985) not because it is part of a native ecosystem, or because the trees in and of themselves warrant protection, but because of the important ecosystem functions it provides Some of the raptors known to use the prove include the white tailed kite, sharp-shinned hawk, Cooper's hawk, and osprey Many of these species are dependent on both the Bolsa Chica wetlands and the nearby upland areas for their food These Eucalyptus trees were recognized as ESHA by the Coastal Commission prior to its 2006 certification of this section of this LCP, most recently in the context of the Coastal Commission's approval of the adjacent Brsghtwater development(coastal development permit 5-05-020) The Eucalyptus _prove in the northwest corner of the site, although separated from the rest of the trees by a gap of about 650 feet, provides the same types of ecological functions_ &@a as do the rest of the trees bordering the mesa At least ten species of raptors have been observed in this "rove and Cooper's hawks, a California Species of Special Concern, nested there in 2005 and 2006 Due to the important ecosystem functions of providing perching, roosting and nesting opportunities for a variety of raptors, these trees also constitute ESHA These areas as well as their buffer areas are designated Open Space-Conservation, and uses allowed within these areas are limited Exhibit A - Resolution No 2008 32 Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications) Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside) Page 15 The wetlands, Eucalyptus ESHA areas, and buffer areas ad are designated Open Space-Conservation to assure they are adequately protected SUGGESTED MODIFICATION NO 8 Add the following policy to the certified Land Use Plan on page IV-C-100 as new policy C 1 1 3a C113a The provision of public access and recreation benefits associated with private development(such as but not hinted to public access ways, public bike paths, habitat restoration and enhancement, etc) shall be phased such that the public benefit(s) are in place prior to or concurrent with the private development but not later than occupation of any of the private development SUGGESTED MODIFICATION NO 9 Add the following policy to the certified Land Use Plan on page IV-C-105 as new policy C 247 C 2 4 7 The streets of new residential subdivisions between the sea and the first public road shall be constructed and maintained as open to the -general public for vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian access General public parking shall be provided on all streets throughout the entire subdivision Private entrance _gates and private streets shall be prohibited All public entry controls (e -g _-ggates, pate/guard houses, _guards, si_gna_ge, etc) and restrictions on use by the general public (e_-g preferential parking districts, resident-only Parking periods/permits, etc ) associated with any streets or parking areas shall be prohibited SUGGESTED MODIFICATION NO 10 Modify the following existing LUP Water and Marine Resources policies as follows C 6 1 6 (modify third and fourth paragraph) The City shall require that new development and redevelopment, as appropriate employ nonstructural Best Management Practices (BMPs) and structural BMPs designed to Exhibit A - Resolution No 2008 32 Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications) Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside) Page 16 minimize the volume velocity and pollutant load of stormwater runoff prior to runoff discharge into stormwater conveyance systems receiving waters and/or other sensitive areas All development shall include effective site design and source control BMPs When the combination of site design and source control BMPs is not sufficient to protect water guahty, structural treatment BMPs along with site design and source control measures shall be required BMPs should be selected based on efficacy at mitigating pollutants of concern associated with respective development types To this end the City shall continue implementation of the Municipal Alen Point Sour-G-e Stormwater National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NDPES)standards permit(Santa Ana Reg�ona/ Water Quahty Control Board Order No R8- 2002-0010, dated January 18, 2002, or any amendment to or re-issuance thereof) of which the City is a co-permittee with the County of Orange through the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board Per program parameters continue to require a Water Quality Management Plan for all applicable new development and redevelopment in the Coastal Zone C 6 1 16 Encourage the Orange County Sanitation District to accept dry weather nuisance flows into the sewer treatment system prior to discharge New developments shall be desygned and constructed to minimize or eliminate dry weather nuisance flows to the maximum extent practicable C6125 Require that new development and redevelopment minimize the creation of impervious areas, especially directly connected impervious areas, and where feasible, reduce the extent of existing unnecessary impervious areas and incorporate adequate mitigation to minimize the alteration of natural streams and/or interference with surface water flow The use of permeable materials for roads, sidewalks and other paved areas shall be incorporated into new development to the maximum extent practicable Add new policy C 6 1 30 Natural or vegetated treatment systems (e_g bro-swa/es, vegetative buffers, constructed or artificial wetlands) that mimic natural drainage patterns are preferred for new developments over mechanical treatment systems or BMPs (e _g water quality treatment plants, storm dram inlet filters) Exhibit A - Resolution No 2008 32 Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications) Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside) Page 17 SUGGESTED MODIFICATION NO 11 Add the following policy to the certified Land Use Plan on page IV-C-123 as new policy C 727 Any areas that constituted wetlands or ESHA that have been removed, altered, filled or degraded as the result of activities carrmed out without compliance with Coastal Act requirements shall be protected as required by the policies in this Land Use Plan LEGEND t f e y�ry I KENXWORTH DRIVE } F-1 RL 26 5 AC± OS C 23 0 AC± � r � v RL C � 6 6' os=C -, t S ii O F O z O N O O 00 W NOTE This exhibit will become Figure C-6a in the Coastal Element with formatting changes for consistency with other figures PA RKSME [EsTxros in the Coastal Element HUNTINGTON BEACH H,s J Land Use 08319 atoon Eghtbot P ry M ���� �� X S Hemming M y 21 200E Res No 2008-32 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I JOAN L FLYNN the duly elected qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of all the members of said City Council at an regular meeting thereof held on June 16, 2008 by the following vote AYES Hansen Bohr Coerper Green Carchio NOES Hardy Cook ABSENT None ABSTAIN None C I*,M-) M/JJVVC*0 CmLherk and ex-officio erk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach California ATTACHMENT #3 STATF nF_('Al IFnRNIA THE RFS01 IRr:FS AnFNr`Y CIRAY DAVIS Gnvarnnr CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION South Coast Area Office 200 Oceangate Suite 1000 Long Beach CA 90802 4302 (562)590 5071 May 20 2008 City of Huntington Beach Scott Hess Planning Director MAY 2 3 2008 City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach CA 92648 Re Huntington Beach LCP Major Amendment No 1-06 (Parkside) Dear Mr Hess You are hereby notified that the California Coastal Commission at its May 7 2008 meeting in Marina del Rey adopted revised findings reflecting the Commissions action of November 14 2007 approving City of Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program Amendment No 1-06 with modifications Local Coastal Program (LCP)Amendment No 1-06 is reflected in City Council Resolution No 2002- 123 The approved amendment as modified provides land use designations and Land Use Plan text for the area known as Parkside an area that was deferred certification at the time the City s LCP was certified Please note the Implementation Plan portion of LCPA 1-06 was withdrawn by the City and thus the subject area remains an area of deferred certification The Commission approved the LCP amendment subject to the attached suggested modifications Therefore LCP Land Use Plan Amendment No 1-06 will not become effective until 1) the Huntington Beach City Council adopts the Commissions suggested modifications 2) the City Council forwards the adopted suggested modifications to the Commission by resolution and 3) the Executive Director certifies that the City has complied with the Commissions November 14 2007 action as reflected in the findings adopted on May 7 2008 On April 10 2008 the Coastal Commission extended the City Councils six month time limit to accept the suggested modifications Therefore the Coastal Act requirement that the City s adoption of the suggested modifications be completed within six months has effectively been extended until May 14 2009 Thus the City Council must act to accept the Commission s suggested modifications by May 14 2009 Thank you for your cooperation and we look forward to working with you and your staff in the future Please call Meg Vaughn or myself at (562) 590-5071 if you have any questions regarding the modifications required for effective certification of City of Huntington Beach LCP Land Use Plan Amendment No 1-06 Sincerely Teresa Henry District Manager cc Mary Beth Broeren Principal Planner HNB LCPA 1 06 parkslde psthrg itr AdptdF 5 20 08 my Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications) Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside) Page 51 Wherever appropriate and feasible, public facilities, including parking areas or facilities shall be distributed throughout an area so as to mitigate against impacts, social and otherwise of overcrowding or overuse by the public in any single area Coastal Act Section 30213 states in pertinent part Lower cost visitor and recreational facilities shall be protected encouraged, and, where feasible, provided Developments providing public recreational opportunities are preferred Coastal Act Section 30223 states Upland areas necessary to support coastal recreational uses shall be reserved for such uses where feasible In addition the City s certified LUP contains the following policies regarding public access Provide coastal resource access opportunities for the public where feasible and in accordance with the California Coastal Act requirements Encourage the use of City and State beaches as a destination point for bicyclists, pedestrians, shuttle systems and other non-auto oriented transport Encourage the utilization of easements and/or rights-of-way along flood control channels, public utilities, railroads and streets, wherever practical for the use of bicycles and/or pedestrian (emphasis added) Maintain existing pedestrian facilities and require new development to provide pedestrian walkways and bicycle routes between developments Link bicycle routes with pedestrian trails and bus routes to promote an interconnected system Develop a riding and hiking trail network and support facilities that provide linkages within the Coastal Zone where feasible and appropriate Balance the supply of parking with the demand for parking Maintain an adequate supply of parking that supports the present level of demand and allow for the expected increase in private transportation use Maintain and enhance where feasible existing shoreline and coastal resource access sites Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications) Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside) Page 52 Promote and provide where feasible, additional public access including handicap access to the shoreline and other coastal resources Promote public access to coastal wetlands for limited nature study passive recreation and other low intensity uses that are compatible with the sensitive nature of these areas Maintain and enhance where necessary the coastal resource signing program that identifies public access points bikeways, recreation areas and vista points throughout the Coastal Zone Preserve, protect and enhance, where feasible, existing public recreation sites rn the Coastal Zone Ensure that new development and uses provide a variety of recreational facilities for a range of income groups including low cost facilities and activities Encourage where feasible facilities, programs and services that increase and enhance public recreational opportunities in the Coastal Zone Promote and support the implementation of the proposed Wintersburg Channel Class l Bikeway The provision of public access in new development proposals is one of the main tenets of the Coastal Act This emphasis has been carried over into the City s certified LUP In certifying the LUP the Commission recognized via the approved LUP policies the importance of including measures such as providing and enhancing public access to the sea and other coastal resources adequate parking and alternate means of transportation, low cost recreational uses and public access signage with new development The 50-acre site is located in close proximity to the Bolsa Chica wetlands restoration area (see exhibit BBBB) The Bolsa Chica Wetlands, at approximately 1,000 acres is the largest remaining wetland in Southern California Because it is tidally influenced, the Bolsa Chica wetlands constitute sea according to the Coastal Act definition (Section 30115) Because there is no public road between the subject site and the Bolsa Chica wetlands, the site is between the sea and the first public road As such, the area is given special significance with regard to the requirement for the provision of public access Given the prominence of the adjacent Bolsa Chica wetlands, appropriate public access and passive recreational opportunities must be provided and conspicuously posted Further the Coastal Act gives priority to land uses that provide opportunities for enhanced public access public recreation and lower cost visitor recreational uses Beyond the Bolsa Chica wetlands restoration area is the Pacific Ocean and its sandy public beaches Thus public access across the subject site to the Bolsa Chica area Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications) Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside) Page 53 would in turn facilitate public access via alternate means of transportation (bicycle and pedestrian) to the ocean beach beyond It is also worth noting that the visitor serving uses available within the Bolsa Chica reserve (such as walking nature study or bird watching) are served by only two small parking areas One located at the Interpretive Center at the corner of Warner Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway and the second at about the midway point along the reserve s Pacific Coast Highway frontage There is no public parking available along Pacific Coast Highway adjacent to the reserve Thus the benefits of providing alternate forms of transportation to access the area such as biking or hiking from inland areas, are substantially increased The lack of adequate parking to serve the reserve area is also a limiting factor in maximizing public use of the reserves amenities Assuring that any future streets within the subject site are public and provide public parking is critical to maximizing public access in the area It is also important to note that the Brightwater residential development approved by the Coastal Commission under Coastal Development Permit No 5-05-020 (Brightwater) is located less than one half mile west of the subject site That development was originally proposed as a private guard gated community However as approved by the Commission the development will be open to general public vehicular and pedestrian access also allowing public parking on all subdivision streets Also as approved by the Commission the development will include a public trail along the bluff edge of the development, with public paseos and pocket parks throughout (see exhibit BBBB) The Commission's approval also required public access signage In approving the Brightwater development the Commission found The provision of public access in new development proposals is one of the main tenants[s1c]of the Coastal Act, especially in conjunction with new development located between the sea and the first public road, such as the subject project The 225-acre Bolsa Chica Mesa is located between the first public road and the mean high tide of the sea At roughly 50 ft above mean sea level, spectacular views of the wetlands and the associated wildlife and uninterrupted views of the Bolsa Chica State Beach and Pacific Ocean are available from the upper bench of the Bolsa Chica Mesa Santa Catalina Island is also often visible from the project site The Bolsa Chica, Wetlands at approximately 1,000 acres is the largest remaining wetland in Southern California Following the 1997 State acquisition of most of the remaining wetlands that were under private ownership, a comprehensive Bolsa Chica wetlands restoration effort is now underway Gwen the prominence of the adjacent Bolsa ChIca wetlands, appropriate public access and passive recreational opportunities must be provided and conspicuously posted Further, the Coastal Act gives pnonty to land uses that provide opportunities for enhanced public access, public recreation and lower cost visitor recreational uses " A trail connection between the Brightwater trail system and the East Garden Grove Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications) Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside) Page 54 Wintersburg Flood Control Channel levee trail is also anticipated in the future and shown on the approved public access plan for the Brightwater development The public access trails of the approved Brightwater project link to the trail system along the Bolsa Chica wetlands and beyond These trails in addition to providing recreational opportunities also provide significant opportunities for nature study and views of the wetlands and ocean beyond The Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve public trail system is a public access resource of regional significance Members of the general public come from throughout the entire County of Orange and beyond to bird watch hike or bike the trail system As the largest remaining wetland in Southern California the public trail system leading to and within the Bolsa Chica area constitutes a resource of statewide significance Further, Bolsa Chica State Beach located across Pacific Coast Highway from the Bolsa Chica wetland area can be accessed via this trail system The proposed LUP amendment contains no language to assure public access will be provided throughout the site in conjunction with future site development Although the certified LUP includes (as fisted above) strong public access policies the proposed LUP amendment does not include any public access language specifically addressing public access needs appropriate for the site taking into consideration the recreational needs of both the new residents and other users of the adjacent public recreational resources Specifically identifying the necessity of these provisions in the LUP is especially important at the subject site due to its unique position to link with and expand the very significant public trail systems within the Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve the Brightwater development and the public beaches beyond In order to assure that access is maximized at the time of future site development specific language addressing access in the site specific section of the LUP is necessary As proposed, no such language is included in the LUP amendment Some specific methods for assuring the provision of public access at the subject site are described further below a) Bicycle Path The subject site is immediately adjacent to the north levee of the East Garden Grove Wintersburg Flood Control Channel (EGGWFCC) The County's Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan (the regional bikeways plan for Orange County) identifies a Class 1 bikeway along the flood control channel This is also reflected in the City s certified LUP Figure C- 14, Trails and Bikeways Map in the certified LUP identifies a proposed bikeway along the EGGWFCC adjacent to the site A letter from the County s Public Facilities & Resources Department dated January 8, 1998 (exhibit J)states "Regarding the City's proposal to continue the Class I bikeway northerly along the Wintersburg Channel to Graham Street The County supports this It would provide an excellent bikeway connection between the City's road system and the off-road wetlands perimeter route (We suggest referring to this entire route — between Graham Street and PCH — as the Bolsa Chica Bikeway) in addition a letter from the County's Public Facilities & Resources Department dated Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications) Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside) Page 55 February 13 1998 (exhibit J) commenting on a proposed tentative tract map for the subject site states A bicycle trail along the CO5 [East Garden Grove-Wintersburg Channel] north levee maintenance road will be required ' A bike route in this area would provide substantial public access benefits It is encouraged in existing LUP policies It would provide a connection between existing inland routes and the Bolsa Chica area and is expected to be extended in the future along the remainder of the EGGWFCC levee adjacent to the Bolsa Chica Restoration area When such an extension occurs (as is anticipated in the City s LUP and by the County Public Facilities & Resources Department) the bike route would eventually link to the coast An off road bicycle path already exists along the entire length of the City s ocean fronting beach A bike path at the subject site and along the remainder of the EGGWFCC would provide a new connection from inland bicycle paths to this coastal path Not only would such a bicycle path provide substantial public recreational benefits, but it would also improve public access opportunities by providing alternate means of transportation to get to the coast and to the trails within the Bolsa Chica area The City and the County have both indicated that a bicycle path in this location is desirable and appropriate However, the proposed LUP amendment does not include any language specific to this site assuring that implementation of the bicycle trail will occur prior to or concurrent with site development Current LUP policy merely states promote" and `encourage the bicycle path s implementation Therefore there is no assurance that it will be built in a timely manner or perhaps that it will be built at all Thus the amendment as proposed cannot be found to be consistent with Sections 30210 30213 and 30252 of the Coastal Act regarding maximizing public access b) Public Streets and Parking In addition if the residential development that the proposed land use designation would allow were to be a private and/or gated development, public access would not be maximized or enhanced, inconsistent with Sections 30210, 30212 5, 30223 and 30252 of the Coastal Act All public entry controls such as gates gate/guard houses or other guarded entry, signage that discourages access and any other restrictions on the general public's entry by and use of any streets or parking areas (e g private streets, preferential parking districts, resident-only parking periods/permits, etc ) would constrain the public's ability to access the area proposed as public park as well as the public's ability to access the public bike path along the EGGWFCC levee In turn, public access to the Bolsa Chica area and ocean beyond would also not be provided As stated previously the site is between the first public road and the sea (in this case the Bolsa Chica wetlands) The provision of public parking within the area would allow visitors to begin a bike ride or walk along the levee through the Bolsa Chica area and on to the ocean front Public streets and public parking within the residential area would not only support public recreational use in the vicinity of the subject site but also allow visitors from beyond the immediate vicinity to use the park area and public recreational and open space resources in the Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications) Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside) Page 56 Bolsa Chica area In addition ungated public streets would facilitate the use of interior public trails within the development Interior trails would further maximize support and enhance public access opportunities Public trails could be established leading from Graham Street to the outer edge of the area recommended to be designated Open Space conservation and from within the development back onto the bike way along the north levee of the EGGWFCC Establishing such trails would provide an excellent public access experience consistent with the requirements of Sections 30210, 30212 5 30213 30223 and 30252 to maximize and enhance lower cost public recreational and public access opportunity with new development and assure adequate support facilities are provided The provision of interior trails within a future development at the site would be especially consistent with Section 30252's requirement that non-automobile circulation be provided within the new development In order to assure that this aspect of public access (the provision of public parking within an ungated residential area with public streets and interior trails) is provided at the time the site is developed, language reflecting this must be incorporated into the LUP However no such language is proposed as part of the LUP amendment Thus the amendment cannot be found to be consistent with Sections 30210 30212 5 30213, 30223 and 30252 of the Coastal Act regarding maximizing and enhancing public access c) Provision of Recreation and Public Access Benefits Residential development of the subject site that would occur pursuant to the proposed amendment would have adverse impacts on public access and recreation unless the above described measures are incorporated into the design of a future project In order to assure maximum public benefit the public recreation and access measures would need to be provided in a timely manner However nothing in the proposed amendment or in the City s LUP currently requires that lower priority developments (such as residential) be phased to assure the provision of those uses that are a higher priority under the Coastal Act (such as public trails parks and parking) occur prior to or concurrent with the lower priority development Without such a phasing requirement it is difficult to assure that necessary public benefits would occur in a timely manner, or possibly even at all Thus as proposed, the amendment is inconsistent with Sections 30210, 30212 5 30213 and 30252 of the Coastal Act regarding maximizing and enhancing public recreation and access Coastal Act Section 30210 requires that public coastal access be maximized Coastal Act Section 30252 requires that public access be maintained and enhanced through the provision of nonautomobde circulation within the development adequate parking, and adequate recreational opportunities These requirements are carried over and re- emphasized in the City's Land Use Plan public access policies As proposed the LUP amendment would allow significant residential development to occur with no corresponding requirement for public access specific to the site The site is located between the sea and the first public road Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications) Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside) Page 57 Although a portion of the site is proposed to be designated park nothing in the proposed amendment would assure that it would be available to the general public via public streets and trails The certified LUP identifies a Class I bicycle path along the flood control channel levee at the subject site However the proposed amendment makes no reference to the suitability of a bicycle path at the subject site If a future residential development at the site included gates or private streets a significant public access opportunity would be lost In addition public parking in the area would increase public access opportunities to public resources including the park area the bicycle path the public trails of the Brightwater development and to the Bolsa Chica area beyond as well as ultimately, to the coast However, there is nothing in the LUP amendment that would require the residential streets to be open and available to the public Nor is there any requirement for interior trail connections between Graham Street any future public park areas and the bicycle path to areas within the development and beyond In addition, nothing in the proposed amendment or in the City s LUP requires that lower priority developments (such as residential) be phased to assure provision of associated recreation and public access (such as public trails parks and parking) occur prior to or concurrent with the lower priority development Without such a phasing requirement it is difficult to assure that Coastal Act high priority uses would occur in a timely manner or possibly even at all However the proposed amendment could be modified such that site specific language in the LUP include reference to the Class I bicycle path along the flood control channel levee interior trail connections public parking and access on residential streets This would allow direct public access throughout the site the public trails within the Brightwater development and the Bolsa Chica area and to the beach beyond Furthermore, the proposed amendment could be modified to incorporate a policy requiring phasing of recreation and public access uses prior to or concurrent with lower priority uses Modifications to accomplish these goals would bring the proposed amendment into conformity with Coastal Act Sections 30210 30212 5 30213 30223 and 30252 which require that public access and recreation be maximized and enhanced Therefore, the Commission finds that only if modified as suggested is the proposed amendment consistent with Sections 30210 and 30252 of the Coastal Act 7 Visual Resources Section 30251 of the Coastal Act requires that the scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas shall be considered and protected as a resource of public importance The subject site offers the opportunity to provide public views from the site to the Bolsa Chica wetlands area and toward the ocean beyond The VFPS would provide an excellent opportunity to provide public views to and along the coast and scenic areas as required by Section 30251 However, the proposed LUP amendment does not include any discussion regarding provision of public view points in association with development of the site Future residential development of the site is expected to include a wall separating residential development adjacent to the flood control levee from the anticipated public Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications) Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside) Page 58 bicycle path along the top of the levee if such a wall is proposed in the future it could create adverse impacts to public views along the bicycle path However adverse impacts could be minimized by incorporating measures such as open fencing/wall landscaped screening use of an undulating or off-set wall footprint or decorative wall features (such as artistic imprints, etc ) or a combination of these measures In addition any such wall should be located upon the private property for which it is intended to provide privacy The proposed amendment does not provide language to address site specific visual impacts and does not assure that potential visual resources will be protected at the time the site is proposed for development Therefore the proposed amendment is inconsistent with Section 30252 of the Coastal Act regarding protection of visual resources within the coastal zone and must be denied However if the amendment were modified to incorporate measures specific to the site that protect and enhance public views the amendment would be consistent with Section 30252 of the Coastal Act regarding protection of public views 8 Archaeological Resources Coastal Act Section 30244 requires that any impacts to significant archaeological resources be reasonably mitigated The City s certified LUP includes policies which require among other things, identification of resources and mitigation of any impacts Significant archaeological resources are known to exist in the project vicinity, and may occur on the subject site However the proposed LUP amendment does not include a specific requirement to avoid and/or mitigate archaeological impacts, even though the site is known to be in a potentially significant archaeological area Without a cross reference in the site specific area discussion of the proposed LUP amendment to the archaeological policies in the LUP, there is no assurance that the potential for archaeological resources to occur on the site will be recognized in conjunction with future development proposals If the potential for archaeological resources at the site is not recognized in the proposed LUP amendment for the site application of the policies cited above may be overlooked The proposed LUP amendment which specifically addresses the subject site, provides the appropriate opportunity to make clear that archaeological resources may be present on this site and therefore these specific policies must be applied If the amendment were modified to include a cross reference to the archaeological policies of the LUP, adverse impacts may be avoided and reasonable mitigation for unavoidable impacts could be implemented in conjunction with future site development, consistent with Section 30244 of the Coastal Act Therefore, the Commission finds that only if modified as suggested is the proposed amendment consistent with Section 30244 of the Coastal Act which requires that reasonable mitigation be required for adverse impacts to archaeological resources Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications) Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside) Page 59 9 Hazards, Coastal Act Section 30253 state in pertinent part New Development shall (2) Minimize risks to life and property in areas of high geologic, flood and fire hazard (3) Assure stability and structural integrity and neither create nor contribute significantly to erosion, geologic instability or destruction of the site or surrounding area or in any way require the construction of protective devices that would substantially alter natural landforms along bluffs and cliffs The proposed LUP amendment would designate much of the subject site for residential development land use The Commission s staff geologist has reviewed a great deal of technical information submitted in conjunction with the proposed LUP amendment and related coastal development permit application Potential geotechnical and hydrological issues are identified in the staff geologists memo The staff geologists memo is attached as exhibit I and is hereby incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein Residential development of the site carries with it certain risks Although information submitted relative to the related coastal development permit application indicates there are feasible mitigation measures available to minimize the level of risk involved with site development there is no specific requirement in the proposed amendment to assure that measures necessary for risk reduction would be incorporated into future site development Without such requirements in the amendment there is no assurance that risks will be minimized as required by Section 30253 of the Coastal Act However, if the amendment were modified to include such a requirement it would be consistent with Section 30253 of the Coastal Act The subject site and much of the surrounding area are susceptible to tidal flooding Tidal flooding could occur when extreme high tides occur concurrently with storm surge events According to some studies the existing tidal flooding risk was increased with the opening of the ocean inlet into the Bolsa Chica Restoration area Regardless of the cause of the flooding high tides and storm surge will create tidal flooding The worst case scenario would occur when high tide and storm surge occurs during failure of the levees of the lower reaches of the East Garden Grove Wintersburg Flood Control Channel (EGGWFCC) (which is possible as the levees are not FEMA certified) Under any of these scenarios, up to 170 acres of inland developed area would be flooded Consequently, contemplation of any development of the subject site must address this flooding issue With or without development of the subject site, the inland 170 acres of existing development must be protected from flood hazard The path the tidal flooding would follow unavoidably crosses the subject site The only way to adequately insure protection of the Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications) Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside) Page 60 inland 170 acres of existing development is to install a flood protection levee (a k a VFPF) on the subject site or to the southwest of the subject site within the Bolsa Chica `Pocket Wetlands between the EGGWFCC and the Bolsa Chica mesa Protection of the inland 170 acres would also protect the 50 acre subject site from flooding The property owner has indicated in documents submitted with the related coastal development permit application that a vegetated flood protection feature (VFPF) is proposed The EGGWFCC is approximately 11 feet above sea level and the bluff at the western site boundary raises some 40 feet above sea level A flood protection levee at this site could effectively capture tidal floods if it is constructed to an elevation above the expected flood flow The existing EGGWFCC levee in the area adjacent to the subject site is expected to be reconstructed to meet FEMA certification standards and would have an elevation of 11 feet above sea level (the existing levee's elevation is also 11 feet above sea level) If a flood protection levee were constructed to the same elevation, flood waters would be prevented from flooding the subject site as well as the additional 170 inland acres With or without development of the proposed site some form of flood protection is necessary to minimize risks to life and property in areas of high flood hazard and to assure stability and structural integrity and not contribute significantly to destruction of the surrounding area As it happens the subject site provides the optimum location for the flood protection levee necessary to minimize risk to life and property in the 170 developed acres inland of the subject site Construction of some type of flood protection levee would be necessary with development of the subject site However, such a feature would be necessary even without site development The flood protection levee expected to be constructed as an earthen levee with an internal sheet pile wall would serve an important function Without construction of the flood protection levee, even with reconstruction of the north levee of the EGGWFCC along the subject site, flooding of 170 inland acres (including the subject site) would result during either a tidal surge or a levee failure downstream of the subject site The 170 acre inland area is developed with approximately 800 homes Floodwater depth in some homes it is estimated, would be at least two feet However construction of a flood protection levee on the site would be adequate to assure structural integrity, and neither create nor contribute significantly to erosion, geologic instability, or destruction of the site or surrounding area In addition construction of the flood protection levee would minimize risks to life and property from flood hazard In order for the flood protection levee to function effectively it would have to be placed within the site s necessary buffer areas However as described previously, a flood protection levee in the ESHA or wetland buffer area may be an allowable use within a buffer provided it is the least environmentally damaging feasible alternative Furthermore the construction of the flood protection levee may eliminate the need for the flood control levee downstream of the flood wall If the flood control levee downstream of the flood wall is not reconstructed potential impacts to wetlands in the CP wetland area can be avoided The appropriateness of reconstructing the downstream levee area will be a Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications) Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside) Page 61 considered when the related coastal development permit is processed It should be noted that an emergency coastal development permit was issued to the County of Orange to install sheet pile within the north levee of the flood control channel adjacent to the subject site However, the County has indicated it is willing to consider alternatives that limit changes to the levee downstream if such an alternative is deemed feasible and environmentally desirable Construction methods proposed by the County to install the sheetpiles will not involve any wetland fill Impacts to coastal resources may occur which will be addressed in the follow-up permit The question of whether the bluff along the western edge of the property should be considered a coastal bluff has been raised The Commission's staff geologist has evaluated the bluff s status The staff geologists evaluation is contained in a memorandum attached as exhibit P The subject bluff was carved by the ancestral Santa Ana river as it meandered across the Bolsa Chica lowlands Assertions have been made that the bluff was subject to marine erosion within the past 200 years based on an 1873 T- sheet that shows tidal channels adjacent to the toe of the bluff The staff geologists response to these assertions is I concur that there is strong evidence that there were tidal wetlands in the Bolsa Chica lowlands prior to dike construction in the early twentieth century but tidal wetlands generally are not the site of extensive marine erosion Indeed, they are commonly depositional, not erosional and serve as an efficient buffer from marine erosion " The staff geologist concludes in summary, I believe that the bluff at the Shea Home property is best described as a river bluff and is not a coastal bluff in a genetic or geomorphic sense ' Thus the Commission finds that the bluff on the subject site is not a coastal bluff For the reasons described above, the Commission finds that only if modified can the proposed amendment be found to be consistent with Section 30253 of the Coastal Act which requires that risks to life and property be minimized and that development assure stability and structural integrity, and neither create nor contribute significantly to erosion geologic instability or destruction of the site or surrounding area 10 Priority of Use Section 30222 of the Coastal Act states The use of pnvate lands suitable for v1s1tor-serving commercial recreational facilities designed to enhance public opportunities for coastal recreation shall have pnonty over pnvate residential, general Industnal, or general commercial development, but not over agriculture or coastal-dependent industry The LUP amendment does not propose to designate any portion of the site visitor serving commercial Generally, in the City of Huntington Beach, the areas recognized as best for visitor serving commercial development are the areas along Pacific Coast Highway, and adjacent to and inland of the pier and areas within and around Huntington Harbour The subject site is surrounded on three sides by existing single family residences and does not Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications) Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside) Page 62 lend itself to visitor serving commercial development Moreover, the LUP amendment as proposed and as amended will provide a Class I bicycle path a public view area public park area, and interior trails as well as public parking along the residential streets Such uses constitute lower cost visitor serving recreational uses As modified the recreational and public access provisions will be constructed prior to or concurrent with the residential uses Therefore the Commission finds that the proposed LUP amendment is consistent with Sections 30213 and 30222 of the Coastal Act which requires visitor serving commercial recreational facilities have priority over residential development and encourages provision of lower cost public recreational facilities 11 Conclusion As proposed the Land Use Plan amendment contains significant deficiencies with regard to consistency with the Coastal Act As proposed the amendment cannot be found consistent with Sections 30210 and 30252 regarding maximizing and enhancing public access, 30251 regarding protection of public views, 30233 and 30250 regarding wetlands 30240 regarding ESHA 30244 regarding archaeological resources and 30230 and 30231 regarding water quality of the Coastal Act However if the proposed amendment were modified as suggested in Section II of this staff report, the amendment would be consistent with the Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal Act Therefore, the Commission finds that only if modified is the proposed amendment consistent with the Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal Act IV CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT Section 21080 9 of the California Public Resources Code —within the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) - exempts local governments from the requirement of preparing an environmental impact report (EIR) in connection with its activities and approvals necessary for the preparation and adoption of a local coastal program (LCP) Instead the CEQA responsibilities are assigned to the Coastal Commission However the Commission s LCP review and approval program has been found by the Resources Agency to be functionally equivalent to the EIR process Thus under Section 21080 5 of CEQA, the Commission is relieved of the responsibility to prepare an EIR for each LCP Nevertheless the Commission is required in approving an LCP submittal to find that the LCP does conform with the provisions of CEQA including the requirement in CEQA section 21080 5(d)(2)(A)that the amended 1P LUP will not be approved or adopted as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen any significant adverse impact which the activity may have on the environment 14 C C R Sections 13542(a) 13540(f) and 13555(b) The City of Huntington Beach LCP amendment 1-06 consists of an amendment to the Land Use Plan (LUP) only _ ___ 12 As outlined in this staff report the LUP amendment is not consistent with the Chapter 3 Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications) Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside) Page 63 polices of the Coastal Act regarding public access and recreation, wetland ESHA, marine resources and land resources as proposed a•^c „f`►,,, "^'i•F""" """"'"^ 12'"" ga Wgnefifind However if modified as suggested, the amendment will be consistent with the public access and recreation wetland ESHA marine resource and land resource policies of the Coastal Act Thus the Commission finds that the proposed LUP amendment as modified meets the requirements of and conforms with the Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal Act Therefore, the Commission finds that approval of the LGR LUP amendment as modified will not result in significant adverse environmental impacts under the meaning of CEQA Therefore, the Commission certifies &!GP LUP amendment request 1-06 if modified as suggested herein HNB LCPA 1 06 Parkside AdptdF 5 08 my ATTACHMENT #4 ] Approved Land Uses �. IN O F r d d a + h H Tki � r � t � 4 L.v't �4Y ° � • • � A e � � t • r Si H a • � 1 • - • • ®Protect Boundary • z � ee 's ®Open Space Conservation • �' k �1 Development Envelope Park Paseo ° • • �, u } Eucalyptus ESHA ® o } Variable ESHA Buffer .• • • • Adjusted EPA Wetland Q 100 ft Wetlands Buffer e - r (Adj EPA Wetland) +� Current Wetland Extent 100 ft Wetlands Buffer DISCLAIMER Permitted FIII This map shows areas on the Parkside/Shea site that the Coastal Commission has concluded-based in part FII led/Altered Wetland on information provided by the applicant as of the date of this map-constitute environmentally sensitive habitat areas(ESHAs)or wetlands per the definitions In the Coastal Act(Cal Pub Res Code§§30107 5 and 30121 respectively)and associated regulations(14 CCR§13577(b)re wetlands)The boundaries of the wetlands - a and ESHA in this map reflect the Commission s best approximations and this map should be Interpreted In a conjunction with the adopted findings The determinations that underlie the delineations of wetlands and ESHA 0 100 200 300 400 500 Note All Locations Approximate areas shown on this map are based on Information provided to the Commission as of November 2007 and those For Illustrative Purposes Only • determinations/delineations could change with the receipt of new Information or as physical conditions on the I I I I I I • ground change over time This map is Intended to be used as guidance solely with respect to the location of Feet t o wetlands and ESHA areas and does not depict any other coastal resources that may be located on other areas C ) L • • of the site The Commission is the final arbiter of what It considers to be wetlands and ESHA By approving the1 i Exhibit A findings the Commission acknowledges the existence of the ESHA areas and wetlands depicted but the exact yN delineation of such ESHA areas and wetlands or other such areas that develop over time will be made when a A ® Ir r n magme End rnr s nr DM r CDP for any development in the proposed subdivision Is approved s I (4th Revised) son a �fT'„x. ATTACHMENT #5 1 REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE October 21, 2002 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER PL02-38 GENERAL PLAN (EXISTING) RML7 2 G L-I I I 1 11 1 1 III It Q1CG .J 15 RMH 25 RL-7 I M 7 i\cl S P1-- RL 7 BOLSA CHICA/ I d S COUNTY OF . _ _ - RL 7 ORANGE Y s GENERAL PLAN (PROPOSED) CG-FG-F-1 1 C i-ELILIRMH 25 ' I RM 11115 r RMH-25 � RL-7 - Gff i< I a -7 OS-P I oy,p i F RL-7 A BOLSA CHICA/� COUNTY OF t � a > ORANGE if i� ,PL-7 ✓1-, � E r y/OS C PL02-38 -5 10/8/2002 5 34 PM ATTACHMENT #6) s. '� � ate" VA d 7 § ' l s� � i � ' y �� 4 3 LEGEND ` i RL 265AC± t �� � R�i M �Ui �i Tr F ifEiVILWOR1ff DRfVE Y 4 u F S fto .......« ........................�......... RL ,$U'l 7 p 100, op dry 'f'r 1 Ir 10 41 c \ x 10, ' u PARKSIDEESTATES HUNTINGTON BEACH N � ®— u NTS rt, Land Use Designations Exhibit per Nov 1 g 2fl 7 CCC Hearing r 21 crs ATTACHMENT #7 s i - -� I I � s � I l Request Accept modifications to the Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA) 1 -06 as approved by the California Coastal Commission Amend the City's Local Coastal Program (Coastal Element) accordingly 2 ;t .. Q �r r. a .v r Background -City Actions ti October 2002 City Council approved — General Plan Amendment, Zoning Map Amendment, Local Coastal Program Amendment, Environmental Impact Report and other entitlements K7 Project Approved by the City allows for — Single family homes, neighborhood park and open space conservation (wetland and Eucalyptus ESHR) on 50 acre site 4 City Approved Land Use Plan 2002 GENER4L PLAN (ENSTliNG) GENERAL PLAN (,PROPOSED) } W.R77LA t AV �. WARGBA' I E I ! k t I CG-F - RMH 25 .�� C F1 RMH-25 m P 0 MI I"mR -- - ~ y J MRMH-2 r RL-7 4 ' , RMH-25 ' y c a �z f BOLSA CHICA/ ' s � COUNTY BOLSA CHTCA/ i' a ORANGE � COUNTY OF " .� RL-7 ORANGE f tl f w rT� Os c 5 Backg round -Coastal Commission Actions E-, November 2007 Commission approved : E Land Use Plan for Parkside Estates Decreases Residential area Eliminates Open Space-Park designation (Active park use w/in area designated for residential) Increases Open Space-Conservation area � 7 Policy changes applicable to entire City Coastal Zone Water quality (BMPs), prohibiting gating of new subdivisions, addressing timing of improvements, protection of wetlands s Co mission Approved Land Uses ® 2007 N I Approved Land Use �' Q Qtc�41a�Bri n1 Cs atxmarfR.G'-vGwv i Part:Nmzo " if +FF z isca ua 21k.4 - Rig IL Wd arch COO a i a r A-1 CPS A-c salt r C - t Qmcri Wd and Cala, :knoll Fil aaamd fmd i,Fnf Id�{'t a a3 1aQaa i i �, _ _ 1 lm�.�t��� mfln�a¢a a'md a+a"i*.ssa'i Rm^�aaiuldzlf d Pci lm.Di-.L iY""�`�f .4 �®•.taut.-r.ts�+fawn®w-t� a,a�m.➢ai a VSTs6aa1KsZ n § u earel Gm{.maei$xY 5. a A—mr D demdili Sd 6a.q s I a ad.7hdr.Ct$ a.�mmao�wom u oal�.,tf�m,crmw,`�maPt3U tia V.uvna 4'� *'m --fi + ar mal9m+enM mac m.,damid dh paidfa Vo a2• w�ltxr.sd.n';II �c9 Qs� v�6ac-a i..�-- '+v�, -� �. 88.mi a v�ifY®Ivin -tidd�e'i a• utm7 mi'vrr�v�ndSa+e� aria �.� a5a ! Chu �� a � amid ate.m: am, rn inmh d.aradt am ua m.gdt,as �,qmai u��om�,.�� t mmat� exf ltathmoa wv9 dam ratdryd ap arm tardy ram n aui mpa faxadu uL/m+ oC a A 3;T A L a re n ca—f>,tsr+ an w.m zt ti erm d� ft it�� udaa,r an oam tF i C i (�1 f�'�y` z > ' ' LSrfi��6la firslv�ra oL eArdgn av firma r9[!a F1i�A v ra Jmt4rt6'C+aeafr8 id as�iaim7. py�r Gfl�0a�L IV 19 7 � dg7m'Lc+�mr M1Pa�. aed Refs to r6'ae msham lidd drm�®7m a9 mem3dm � 7 ' � P A 14th Revs edl,l 3 Acre Com of City Commission Approved Plans Land Use Acres Approved Acres Approved Difference Designation by City Council by Coastal Commission' Residential 374 265 -10 9 ®pen Space- 8 4 0 0 -8 4 Park ®pen Space- 3 7 230 +19 3 Conservation Total 495 1 495 1 The acres shown here are derived by the City from the Land Use exhibit in the Coastal Commission staff report (4th revised exhibit NN), however, specific acreages have not been enumerated by Coastal Commission staff 8 Analysis Of. Plan Changes Commission found that additional wetlands and Eucalyptus ESHA existed on the property ut, Decreases developable land by 29% Err Neighborhood park stall a permitted use in Residential land use area � Project still viable despite reduced building area Staff and property owner in concurrence 9 Land Use Plan per Coastal Commission { LEGEND NEtmwoRrH we RL 265AC µ ❑ OS C 23 OAC 2 RL OS C _ ff OS C s 7j,!- DES ON k 4 l g dl ,H 10 Analysis of Policy Changes F, Require public access and recreation benefits concurrent w/ development Prohibit gates in new projects and require public streets c Preference for natural treatment systems over mechanical BMPs, strengthens water quality treatment (BMP) provisions � Specific policy re altered , fulled or degraded wetlands E Staff in support of policy changes 11 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends City Council Accept Modifications to LCPA No 1 -06 and amend the LCP accordingly because � The modifications are consistent with the intent of the Councis's approval of the LCPA � The modifications are consistent with the Cefiy's General Plan and LCP � The modifications still allow for a viable project on the Parkside Estates site, including regional and local public benefits 12 END OF PRESENTATION CA ROUTING SHEET INITIATING DEPARTMENT PLANNING SUBJECT LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO 1-06 (PARKSIDE ESTATES) COUNCIL MEETING DATE June 16 2008 RCA ATTACHMENTS STATUS Ordinance (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Attached ❑ Not Applicable Resolution (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Attached Not Applicable ❑ Tract Map Location Map and/or other Exhibits Attached ❑ Not Applicable Contract/Agreement (w/exhibits if applicable) Attached ❑ (Signed in full by the City Attorney) Not Applicable Subleases Third Party Agreements etc Attached ❑ (Approved as to form by City Attome ) Not Applicable Certificates of Insurance (Approved by the City Attorney) Attached ❑ Not Applicable Fiscal Impact Statement (Unbudgeted over $5 000) Attached ❑ Not Applicable Bonds (if applicable) Nott Applicable Staff Report (If applicable) Attached t Applicable Ej Commission Board or Committee Report (If applicable) Attached ❑ Not Applicable Findings/Conditions for Approval and/or Denial Attached ❑ Not Applicable EXPLANATION FOR MISSING ATTACHMENTS REVIEWED RETURNED FORWARDED Administrative Staff ( ) _( ) Deputy City Administrator Initial City Administrator (initial) ) ( ) City Clerk ( ) EXPLANATION FOR RETURN OF ITEM 0 RCA Author SH MBB NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Monday June 16 2008, at 6 00 p m in the City Council Chambers 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach the City Council will hold a public hearing on the following planning and zoning items LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO 1-06 (PARKSIDE ESTATES) Applicant City of Huntington Beach Request 1) To accept modifications to the Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program Coastal Element approved by the California Coastal Commission on May 7 2008 for LCPA No 1- 06 2) To amend the City s Local Coastal Program Coastal Element to reflect the California Coastal Commissions modifications Location The Parkside Estates project is proposed for 17301 Graham St (west side of Graham south of Kenilworth adjacent to the East Garden Grove-Wintersburg Channel) The California Coastal Commission also approved modifications that have applicability to all properties in the coastal zone Project Planner Mary Beth Broeren NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Item No 1 affects property located in the appealable jurisdiction of the Coastal Zone and includes a Local Coastal Program Amendment that has been approved by the California Coastal Commission The City Councils action on Item No 1 will be forwarded to the California Coastal Commission for Executive Director Determination NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the preparation and approval of Local Coastal Program Amendment No 1-06 is exempt from the requirements of CEQA pursuant to Section 21080 9 of CEQA and Sections 15251(f) and 15265 of Title 14 California Code of Regulations In any event Local Coastal Program Amendment No 1-06 is covered by Environmental Impact Report No 97-2 certified by the City Council on October 21 2002 in accordance with CEQA requirements as well as the California Coastal Commissions approval of the Local Coastal Program Coastal Element on November 14 2007 pursuant to Section 21080 5 of CEQA ON FILE A copy of the proposed request is on file in the Planning Department 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach California 92648, for inspection by the public A copy of the staff report will be available to interested parties at the City Clerks Office on Thursday June 12 2008 ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above If you challenge the City Councils action in court you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in C\Documents and Settmgs\esparzap\Local Settmgs\Temporary Internet Files\OLK15B\080616(LCPA Parkside Estates Mods) (2)DOC this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City at or prior to the public hearing If there are any further questions please call the Planning Department at 536-5271 and refer to the above items Direct your written communications to the City Clerk Joan L Flynn City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street 2nd Floor Huntington Beach California 92648 (714) 536-5227 C\Documents and Settmgs\esparzap\Local Settmgs\Temporary Internet Files\OLK15B\080616(LCPA Parkside Estates Mods) (2)DOC CITY COUNCIUR�EDnEVE ILOPPMENT AGENCY PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST SUBJECT D(cam' l �T�1/ ����[�,4n�� �� �1 00 DEPARTMENT MEETING DATE I(� CONTACT l�Y PHONE N/A YES NO ( ) ( ) Is the notice attached? ( ) ( ) Do the Heading and Closing of Notice reflect City Council(and/or Redevelopment Agency)hearing? ( ) ) ( ) Are the date, day and time of the public hearing correct? ( ) ( ) If an appeal, is the appellant's name included in the notice? If Coastal Development Permit,does the notice include appeal language? ,-� c� > h�k to v �4g s k n ( ) ( ) Is there an Environmental Status to be approved by Council? ( ) ( ) Is a map attached for publication9 Is a larger ad required? Size N' 0�4z , { ) ( ) Is the verification statement attached indicating the source and accuracy of the mailing list? ( ) ( ) Are the applicant's name and address part of the mailing labels? ( ) ( ) Are the appellant s name and address part of the mailing labels? ( ) If Coastal Development Permit,is the Coastal Commission part of the marling labels? fa`," c--�P b-1�- " K �X*�- �- rc, --5 16-Gc-t s If Coastal Development Permit,are the Resident labels attached? Is the33343 report attached? (Economic Development Dept items only) Please complete the following City of Huntington Beach I Minimum days from publication to hearing date 10 MAY 212008 2 Number of times to be published 3 Number of days between publications SUSAN W CASE , INC 9 17 G L E NNE Y R E S T S U ITE # 7 LAGUNA BEACH CA 92651 PHONE ( 949 ) 494 6105 FAX ( 949 ) 494 - 7418 r CERTIFICATION OF PREPARATION THE ATTACHED LIST REPRESENTS THE NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF ALL PROPERTY "OWNERS LOCATED WITHIN 100 0 FEET OF THE EXTERIOR BOUNDARIES OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT �ae-�✓I � THIS INFORMATION WAS OBTAINED THROUGH FIRST AMERICAN REAL ESTATE SOLUTIONS,A DATA SOURCE UTILIZING THE COUNTY ASSESSMENT ROLLS AND OTHER AVAILABLE DATA SOURCES THIS INFORMATION IS GENERALLY DEEMED RELIABLE,BUT IS NOT GUARANTEED RETURN OF PROPERTY ADDRESSES THAT ARE DEEMED UNDELIVERABLE BY THE UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE IS,THEREFORE,A POSSIBILITY SUSAN W CASE, INC IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING FURTHER INVESTIGATION OF SAID LABELS ACCEPTANCE OF THIS PACKAGE ACKNOWLEDGES THIS FACT ��,f 5,4 t5I��,Io� SUSAN W CASE,INC 372 372 372 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 17172 HARBOR BLUFFS CIR#B 17172 HARBOR BLUFFS CIR#C 17172 HARBOR BLUFFS CIR#D HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 373 373 373 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 17162 HARBOR BLUFFS CIR#A 17162 HARBOR BLUFFS CIR#B 17162 HARBOR BLUFFS CIR#C HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 373 374 374 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 17162 HARBOR BLUFFS CIR#D 17152 HARBOR BLUFFS CIR#A 17152 HARBOR BLUFFS CIR#B HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 374 374 375 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 17152 HARBOR BLUFFS CIR#C 17152 HARBOR BLUFFS CIR#D 17142 HARBOR BLUFFS CIR#A HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 375 375 375 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 17142 HARBOR BLUFFS CIR#B 17142 HARBOR BLUFFS CIR#C 17142 HARBOR BLUFFS CIR#D HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 376 376 376 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 17132 HARBOR BLUFFS CIR#A 17132 HARBOR BLUFFS CIR#B 17132 HARBOR BLUFFS CIR#C HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 376 377 377 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 17132 HARBOR BLUFFS CIR#D 17112 HARBOR BLUFFS CIR#A 17112 HARBOR BLUFFS CIR#B HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 377 377 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 17112 HARBOR BLUFFS CIR#C 17112 HARBOR BLUFFS CIR#D HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINCTON BEACH CA 92649 /� A 365 365 365 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 5152 DUNBAR AVE#B 5152 DUNBAR AVE#C 5152 DUNBAR AVE#D HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 365 365 366 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 5152 DUNBAR AVE#D1 5152 DUNBAR AVE#E 17111 HARBOR BLUFFS CIR#A HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 366 366 366 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 17111 HARBOR BLUFFS CIR#B 17111 HARBOR BLUFFS CIR#C 17111 HARBOR BLUFFS CIR#D HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 367 367 367 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 17131 HARBOR BLUFFS CIR#A 17131 HARBOR BLUFFS CIR#B 17131 HARBOR BLUFFS CIR#C HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 367 368 368 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 17131 HARBOR BLUFFS CIR#D 17141 HARBOR BLUFFS CIR#A 17141 HARBOR BLUFFS CIR#B HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 368 368 369 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 17141 HARBOR BLUFFS CIR#C 17141 HARBOR BLUFFS CIR#D 17151 HARBOR BLUFFS CIR#A HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 369 369 369 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 17151 HARBOR BLUFFS CIR#B 17151 HARBOR BLUFFS CIR#C 17151 HARBOR BLUFFS CIR#D HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 370 370 370 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 17161 HARBOR BLUFFS CIR#A 17161 HARBOR BLUFFS CIR#B 17161 HARBOR BLUFFS CIR#C HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 370 371 371 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 17161 HARBOR BLUFFS CIR#D 17171 HARBOR BLUFFS CIR#A 17171 HARBOR BLUFFS CIR#B HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 371 371 372 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 17171 HARBOR BLUFFS CIR#C 17171 HARBOR BLUFFS CIR#D 17172 HARBOR BLUFFS CIR#A HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 /�/a�-- /elo,4 / -�� 361 361 361 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 5122 DUNBAR AVE#B 5122 DUNBAR AVE#C 5122 DUNBAR AVE#D HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 361 361 361 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 5122 DUNBAR AVE#A1 5122 DUNBAR AVE#B1 5122 DUNBAR AVE#C1 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 361 362 362 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 5122 DUNBAR AVE#D1 5112 DUNBAR AVE#A 5112 DUNBAR AVE#B HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 362 362 362 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 5112 DUNBAR AVE#C 5112 DUNBAR AVE#D 5112 DUNBAR AVE#A1 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 362 362 362 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 5112 DUNBAR AVE 4131 5112 DUNBAR AVE#C1 5112 DUNBAR AVE#D1 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 363 363 363 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 5132 DUNBAR AVE#B 5132 DUNBAR AVE#C 5132 DUNBAR AVE#C HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 363 363 363 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 5132 DUNBAR AVE#D 5132 DUNBAR AVE#A1 5132 DUNBAR AVE#B1 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 363 363 364 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 5132 DUNBAR AVE#C1 5132 DUNBAR AVE#D1 5142 DUNBAR AVE#A HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 364 364 364 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 5142 DUNBAR AVE#B 5142 DUNBAR AVE#C 5142 DUNBAR AVE#D HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 364 364 364 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 5142 DUNBAR AVE#E 5142 DUNBAR AVE#A1 5142 DUNBAR AVE#D1 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 354 354 354 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 5072 DUNBAR AVE#C 5072 DUNBAR AVE#D 5072 DUNBAR AVE#E HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 355 355 355 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 5082 DUNBAR AVE#A 5082 DUNBAR AVE#B 5082 DUNBAR AVE#C HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 355 355 355 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 5082 DU' R AVE#D 5028 DUNBAR AVE#A1 5082 DUNBAR AVE#E HUNTING 13EACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 356 356 356 OCCUPA^'T OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 5092 DU P AVE#A 5092 DUNBAR AVE#B 5092 DUNBAR AVE#C HUNTING BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 356 357 357 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 5092 DUi AVE#D 5102 DUNBAR AVE#A 5102 DUNBAR AVE#B HUNTIP -LACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 357 357 358 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 5102 DU n A\IE#C 5102 DUNBAR AVE#D 5166 DUNBAR AVE#A HUNTINt- -FACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 358 358 358 OCCUPP T OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 5166 D'- n AVE #B 5166 DUNBAR AVE#C 5166 DUNBAR AVE#D HUNTI� -EACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 359 359 359 OCCUPt\'lT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 5172 DU - VE#A 5172 DUNBAR AVE#B 5172 DUNBAR AVE#C HUNTIfv -CACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 359 360 360 OCCUPF T OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 5172 D JE #D 5182 DUNBAR AVE#A 5182 DUNBAR AVE#B HUNTI CACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 360 360 361 OCCUP^ T OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 5182 D +N AVE #C 5182 DUNBAR AVE#D 5122 DUNBAR AVE#A HUNTIN( EACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 343 344 344 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 17082 HARBOR BLUFFS CIR#D 17092 HARBOR BLUFFS CIR#A 17092 HARBOR BLUFFS CIR#B HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 344 344 345 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 17092 HARBOR BLUFFS CIR#C 17092 HARBOR BLUFFS CIR#D 17102 HARBOR BLUFFS CIR#A HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 345 345 345 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 17102 HARBOR BLUFFS CIR#B 17102 HARBOR BLUFFS CIR#C 17102 HARBOR BLUFFS CIR#D HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 349 349 349 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 17122 BOLSA CHICA ST#B 17122 BOLSA CHICA ST#C 17122 BOLSA CHICA ST#D HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 350 350 350 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 5032 DUNBAR AVE#A 5032 DUNBAR AVE#B 5032 DUNBAR AVE#C HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 350 351 351 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 5032 DUNBAR AVE#D 5042 DUNBAR AVE#A 5042 DUNBAR AVE#B HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 351 351 352 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 5042 DUNBAR AVE#C 5042 DUNBAR AVE#D 5052 DUNBAR AVE#A HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 352 352 352 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 5052 DUNBAR AVE#B 5052 DUNBAR AVE#C 5052 DUNBAR AVE#D HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 353 353 353 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 5062 DUNBAR AVE#A 5062 DUNBAR AVE#B 5062 DUNBAR AVE#C HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 353 354 354 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 5062 DUNBAR AVE#D 5072 DUNBAR AVE#A 5072 DUNBAR AVE#B HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 616/o e- � C?-�w-- / 6,!!� 336 336 336 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 5151 DUNBAR AVE#D 5151 DUNBAR AVE#E 5151 DUNBAR AVE#D1 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 337 337 337 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 17061 LESLIE LN#A 17061 LESLIE LN#B 17061 LESLIE LN#C HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 337 338 338 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 17061 LESLIE LN#D 17081 LESLIE LN#A 17081 LESLIE LN#B HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 338 338 339 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 17081 LESLIE LN#C 17081 LESLIE LN#D 17062 HARBOR BLUFFS CIR#A HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 339 339 339 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 17062 HARBOR BLUFFS CIR#B 17062 HARBOR BLUFFS CIR#C 17062 HARBOR BLUFFS CIR#D HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 340 340 340 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 17062 LESLIE LN#A 17062 LESLIE LN#B 17062 LESLIE LN#C HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 340 341 341 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 17062 LESLIE LN#D 17082 LESLIE LN#A 17082 LESLIE LN#B HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 341 341 342 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 17082 LESLIE LN#C 17082 LESLIE LN#D 17072 HARBOR BLUFFS CIR#A HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 342 342 342 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 17072 HARBOR BLUFFS CIR#B 17072 HARBOR BLUFFS CIR#C 17072 HARBOR BLUFFS CIR#D HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 343 343 343 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 17082 HARBOR BLUFFS CIR#A 17082 HARBOR BLUFFS CIR#B 17082 HARBOR BLUFFS CIR#C HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 329 329 329 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 5101 DUNBAR AVE#A 5101 DUNBAR AVE#B 5101 DUNBAR AVE#C HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 329 330 330 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 5101 DUNBAR AVE#D 5091 DUNBAR AVE#A 5091 DUNBAR AVE#B HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 330 330 330 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 5091 DUNBAR AVE#C 5091 DUNBAR AVE#C1 5091 DUNBAR AVE#C2 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 330 330 330 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 5091 DUNBAR AVE#D1 5091 DUNBAR AVE#D1 5091 DUNBAR AVE#F1 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 330 331 331 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 5091 DUNBAR AVE#D2 5071 DUNBAR AVE#A 5071 DUNBAR AVE#B HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 331 331 332 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 5071 DUNBAR AVE#C 5071 DUNBAR AVE#D 5051 DUNBAR AVE#A HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 332 332 332 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 5051 DUNBAR AVE#B 5051 DUNBAR AVE#C 5051 DUNBAR AVE#D HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 333 333 334 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 5041 DUNBAR AVE#A 5041 DUNBAR AVE#D 5021 DUNBAR AVE#A HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 334 334 334 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 5021 DUNBAR AVE#B 5021 DUNBAR AVE#C 5021 DUNBAR AVE#D HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 336 336 336 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 5151 DUNBAR AVE#A 5151 DUNBAR AVE#B 5151 DUNBAR AVE#C HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 939 542 89 939 542 97 939 543 06 Occupant Occupant Occupant 5101 Tortuga Dr#206 5101 Tortuga Dr #210 5145 Tortuga Dr#203 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Be-ich CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 543 07 939 543 15 939 543 16 Occupant Occupant Occupant 5145 Tortuga Dr#204 5145 Tortuga Dr#208 5145 Tortuga Dr#109 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 543 17 939 543 34 939 543 40 Occupant Occupant Occupant 5145 Tortuga Dr#110 17202 Corbina Ln #107 17202 Corbina Ln #109 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 543 42 939 543 47 939 543 51 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17202 Corbina Ln #111 17202 Corbina Ln #212 5176 Tortuga Dr#104 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 543 52 939 543 57 939 543 58 Occupant Occupant Occupant 5176 Tortuga Dr#201 5176 Tortuga Dr#106 5176 Tortuga Dr#107 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 543 60 939 543 61 939 543 64 Occupant Occupant Occupant 5176 Tortuga Dr#205 5176 Tortuga Dr#206 5176 Tortuga Dr#109 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Be-ch CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 543 85 939 543 91 939 543 94 Occupant Occupant Occupant 5096 Tortuga Dr#206 5096 Tortuga Dr#112 5096 Tortuga Dr#211 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 116 16f L aA4 / --66 939 541 75 939 541 76 939 541 82 Occupant Occupant Occupant 5071 Dorado Dr#112 5071 Dorado Dr 20e 17172 Abalone Ln #103 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 541 87 939 541 91 939 541 98 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17172 Abalone Ln #204 17172 Abalone Ln #108 17172 Abalone Ln #111 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 541 99 939 542 00 939 542 01 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17172 Abalone Ln #112 17172 Abalone Ln #209 17172 Abalone Ln #210 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 542 02 939 542 05 939 542 18 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17172 Abalone Ln#211 5146 Dorado Dr#102 5146 Dorado Dr#207 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 542 26 939 542 37 939 542 39 Occupant Occupant Occupant 5146 Dorado Dr#211 17151 Corbina Ln #106 17151 Corbina Ln #108 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 542 42 939 542 44 939 542 53 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17151 Corbina Ln#207 17151 Corbinq Ln #109 17191 Corbina Ln #102 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 542 56 939 542 57 939 542 59 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17191 Corbina Ln #201 17191 Corbina Ln #202 17191 Corbina Ln #204 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 542 61 939 542 63 939 542 68 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17191 Corbina Ln #106 17191 Corbina Ln #108 17191 Corbina Ln #109 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 542 69 939 542 70 939 542 71 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17191 Corbma Ln #110 17191 Corona Ln #111 17191 Corbina Ln #112 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 542 74 939 542 75 939 542 84 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17191 Corbina Ln #211 17191 Corbina Ln #212 5101 Tortuga Dr#105 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 6 116/,�)f - L�i� / -06 163 191 21 163 252 30 163 252 33 Occupant Occupant Occupant 5342 Glenstone Dr 5391 Barwood Dr 17551 Putney Cir Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 253 08 163 271 16 163 311 09 Occupant Occupant Occupant 5302 Allstone Dr 17551 Bates Cir 17308 Hampton Ln Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 311 13 939 541 19 939 541 23 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17317 Hampton Ln 5032 Dorado Dr#108 5032 Dorado Dr#208 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 541 25 939 541 26 939 541 34 Occupant Occupant Occupant 5032 Dorado Dr#110 5032 Dorado Dr#1 1 1 5031 Dorado Dr#103 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Be-& CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 541 35 939 541 36 939 541 40 Occupant Occupant Occupant 5031 Dorado Dr#104 5031 Dorado Dr#201 5031 Dorado Dr#105 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Be-ich CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 541 43 939 541 46 939 541 48 Occupant Occupant Occupant 5031 Dorado Dr#108 5031 Dorado Dr 4207 5031 Dorado Dr#109 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 541 49 939 541 54 939 541 56 Occupant Occupant Occupant 5031 Dorado Dr#110 5031 Dorado Dr 4211 5071 Dorado Dr#101 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 541 57 939 541 58 939 541 59 Occupant Occupant Occupant 5071 Dorado Dr#102 5071 Dorado Dr#103 5071 Dorado Dr#104 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 541 61 939 541 62 939 541 64 Occupant Occupant Occupant 5071 Dorado Dr#202 5071 Dorado Dr#203 5071 Dorado Dr#105 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Be ct C P 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 541 65 939 541 66 939 541 68 Occupant Occupant Occupant 5071 Dorado Dr#106 5071 Dorado Dr#107 5071 Dorado Dr#205 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 6116 f - Z :�-�/4 /--,�96 163 032 14 163 032 16 163 032 18 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17101 Saint Andrews Ln 17121 Saint Andrews Ln 17141 Saint Andrews Ln Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 032 27 163 033 06 163 034 17 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17082 Pleasant Cir 17142 Saint Andrews Ln 5391 Kenilworth Dr Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 042 23 163 045 03 163 045 09 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17052 Greentree Ln 5302 Kenilworth Dr 17222 Greenleaf Ln Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 051 10 163 051 13 163 052 04 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17327 ApelLn 17311 ApelLn 17336 ApelLn Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 102 09 163 103 07 163 103 10 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17122 Berlin Ln 17102 Friml Ln 17121 Twain Ln Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 112 05 163 112 13 163 112 15 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17182 Berlin Ln 17211 Friml Ln 17181 Friml Ln Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 11216 163 11306 163 121 31 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17171 Friml Ln 17192 Friml Ln 17062 Bolsa Chica St Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 12302 163 131 24 163 141 09 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17112 Bolsa Chica St 17172 Bolsa Chica St 17441 Valeworth Cir Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 14209 163 181 01 163 181 02 Occupant Occupant Occupant 5521 Glenstone Dr 5501 Mossval- Cir 5521 Mossvale Cir Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 191 09 163 191 16 163 191 18 Occupant Occupant Occupant 5391 Glenstone Dr 5311 Glenstone Dr 5291 Glenstone Dr Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 46/116 /o0(/- - L0-1:w / p06 560 560 560 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 17171 BOLSA CHICA ST#105 17171 BOLSA CHICA ST#106 17171 BOLSA CHICA ST#107 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 560 560 560 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 17171 BOLSA CHICA ST#108 17171 BOLSA CHICA ST#109 17171 BOLSA CHICA ST#110 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 560 560 560 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 17171 BOLSA CHICA ST#111 17171 BOLSA CHICA ST#112 17171 BOLSA CHICA ST#113 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 560 560 560 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 17171 BOLSA CHICA ST#114 17171 BOLSA CHICA ST#115 17171 BOLSA CHICA ST#116 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 560 560 560 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 17171 BOLSA CHICA ST#117 17171 BOLSA CHICA ST#118 17171 BOLSA CHICA ST#119 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 560 560 560 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 17171 BOLSA CHICA ST#120 17171 BOLSA CHICA ST#121 17171 BOLSA CHICA ST#122 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 560 560 560 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 17171 BOLSA CHICA ST#123 17171 BOLSA CHICA ST#124 17171 BOLSA CHICA ST#125 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 560 560 560 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 17171 BOLSA CHICA ST#126 17171 BOLSA CHICA ST#127 17171 BOLSA CHICA ST#128 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 560 560 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 17171 BOLSA CHICA ST#129 17171 BOLSA CHICA ST#130 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 560 560 560 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 17171 BOLSA CHICA ST#79 17171 BOLSA CHICA ST#80 17171 BOLSA CHICA ST#81 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 560 560 560 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 17171 BOLSA CHICA ST#82 17171 BOLSA CHICA ST#83 17171 BOLSA CHICA ST#84 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 560 560 560 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 17171 BOLSA CHICA ST#85 17171 BOLSA CHICA ST#86 17171 BOLSA CHICA ST#87 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 560 560 560 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 17171 BOLSA CHICA ST#88 17171 BOLSA CHICA ST#89 17171 BOLSA CHICA ST#90 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 560 560 560 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 17171 BOLSA CHICA ST#91 17171 BOLSA CHICA ST#92 17171 BOLSA CHICA ST#93 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 560 560 560 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 17171 BOLSA CHICA ST#94 17171 BOLSA CHICA ST#95 17171 BOLSA CHICA ST#96 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 560 560 560 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 17171 BOLSA CHICA ST#97 17171 BOLSA CHICA ST#98 17171 BOLSA CHICA ST#99 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 560 560 560 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 17171 BOLSA CHICA ST#100 17171 BOLSA CHICA ST#101 17171 BOLSA CHICA ST#102 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 560 560 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 17171 BOLSA CHICA ST#103 17171 BOLSA CHICA ST#104 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 Z 560 560 560 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 17171 BOLSA CHICA ST#53 17171 BOLSA CHICA ST#54 17171 BOLSA CHICA ST#55 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 560 560 560 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 17171 BOLSA CHICA ST#56 17171 BOLSA CHICA ST#57 17171 BOLSA CHICA ST#58 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 560 560 560 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 17171 BOLSA CHICA ST#59 17171 BOLSA CHICA ST#60 17171 BOLSA CHICA ST#61 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 560 560 560 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 17171 BOLSA CHICA ST#62 17171 BOLSA CHICA ST#63 17171 BOLSA CHICA ST#64 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 560 560 560 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 17171 BOLSA CHICA ST#65 17171 BOLSA CHICA ST#66 17171 BOLSA CHICA ST#67 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 560 560 560 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 17171 BOLSA CHICA ST#68 17171 BOLSA CHICA ST#69 17171 BOLSA CHICA ST#70 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 560 560 560 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 17171 BOLSA CHICA ST#71 17171 BOLSA CHICA ST#72 17171 BOLSA CHICA ST#73 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 560 560 560 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 17171 BOLSA CHICA ST#74 17171 BOLSA CHICA ST#75 17171 BOLSA CHICA ST#76 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 560 560 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 17171 BOLSA CHICA ST#77 17171 BOLSA CHICA ST#78 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 560 560 560 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 17171 BOLSA CHICA ST#27 17171 BOLSA CHICA ST#28 17171 BOLSA CHICA ST#29 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 560 560 560 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 17171 BOLSA CHICA ST#30 17171 BOLSA CHICA ST#31 17171 BOLSA CHICA ST#32 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 560 560 560 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 17171 BOLSA CHICA ST#33 17171 BOLSA CHICA ST#34 17171 BOLSA CHICA ST#35 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 560 560 560 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 17171 BOLSA CHICA ST#36 17171 BOLSA CHICA ST#37 17171 BOLSA CHICA ST#38 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 560 560 560 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 17171 BOLSA CHICA ST#39 17171 BOLSA CHICA ST#40 17171 BOLSA CHICA ST#41 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 560 560 560 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 17171 BOLSA CHICA ST#42 17171 BOLSA CHICA ST#43 17171 BOLSA CHICA ST#44 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 560 560 560 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 17171 BOLSA CHICA ST#45 17171 BOLSA CHICA ST#46 17171 BOLSA CHICA ST#47 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 560 560 560 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 17171 BOLSA CHICA ST#48 17171 BOLSA CHICA ST#49 17171 BOLSA CHICA ST#50 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 560 560 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 17171 BOLSA CHICA ST#51 17171 BOLSA CHICA ST#52 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 V1/i41o04-111, Z-el4A 1 --® 6 560 560 560 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 17171 BOLSA CHICA ST#1 17171 BOLSA CHICA ST#2 17171 BOLSA CHICA ST#3 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 560 560 560 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 17171 BOLSA CHICA ST#4 17171 BOLSA CHICA ST#5 17171 BOLSA CHICA ST#6 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 560 560 560 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 17171 BOLSA CHICA ST#7 17171 BOLSA CHICA ST#8 17171 BOLSA CHICA ST#9 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 560 560 560 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 17171 BOLSA CHICA ST#10 17171 BOLSA CHICA ST#11 17171 BOLSA CHICA ST#12 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 560 560 560 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 17171 BOLSA CHICA ST#13 17171 BOLSA CHICA ST#14 17171 BOLSA CHICA ST#15 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 560 560 560 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 17171 BOLSA CHICA ST#16 17171 BOLSA CHICA ST#17 17171 BOLSA CHICA ST#18 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 560 560 560 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 17171 BOLSA CHICA ST#19 17171 BOLSA CHICA ST#20 17171 BOLSA CHICA ST#21 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 560 560 560 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 17171 BOLSA CHICA ST#22 17171 BOLSA CHICA ST#23 17171 BOLSA CHICA ST#24 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 560 560 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 17171 BOLSA CHICA ST#25 17171 BOLSA CHICA ST#26 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 378 378 378 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 17172 BOLSA CHICA ST#49 17172 BOLSA CHICA ST#50 17172 BOLSA CHICA ST#51 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 378 378 378 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 17172 BOLSA CHICA ST#52 17172 BOLSA CHICA ST#53 17172 BOLSA CHICA ST#54 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 378 378 378 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 17172 BOLSA CHICA ST#55 17172 BOLSA CHICA ST#56 17172 BOLSA CHICA ST#57 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 378 378 378 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 17172 BOLSA CHICA ST#58 17172 BOLSA CHICA ST#59 17172 BOLSA CHICA ST#60 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 378 378 378 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 17172 BOLSA CHICA ST#61 17172 BOLSA CHICA ST#62 17172 BOLSA CHICA ST#63 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 378 378 378 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 17172 BOLSA CHICA ST#64 17172 BOLSA CHICA ST#65 17172 BOLSA CHICA ST#66 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 378 378 378 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 17172 BOLSA CHICA ST#67 17172 BOLSA CHICA ST#68 17172 BOLSA CHICA ST#69 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 378 378 378 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 17172 BOLSA CHICA ST#70 17172 BOLSA CHICA ST#71 17172 BOLSA CHICA ST#72 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 6 116 /0e, zex -OA4 378 378 378 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 17172 BOLSA CHICA ST#25 17172 BOLSA CHICA ST#26 17172 BOLSA CHICA ST#27 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 378 378 378 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 17172 BOLSA CHICA ST#28 17172 BOLSA CHICA ST#29 17172 BOLSA CHICA ST#30 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 378 378 378 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 17172 BOLSA CHICA ST#31 17172 BOLSA CHICA ST#32 17172 BOLSA CHICA ST#33 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 378 378 378 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 17172 BOLSA CHICA ST#34 17172 BOLSA CHICA ST#35 17172 BOLSA CHICA ST#36 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 378 378 378 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 17172 BOLSA CHICA ST#37 17172 BOLSA CHICA ST#38 17172 BOLSA CHICA ST#39 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 378 378 378 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 17172 BOLSA CHICA ST#40 17172 BOLSA CHICA ST#41 17172 BOLSA CHICA ST#42 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 378 378 378 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 17172 BOLSA CHICA ST#43 17172 BOLSA CHICA ST#44 17172 BOLSA CHICA ST#45 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 378 378 378 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 17172 BOLSA CHICA ST#46 17172 BOLSA CHICA ST#47 17172 BOLSA CHICA ST#48 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 6116 A p / & fi 1 - 046 378 378 378 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 17172 BOLSA CHICA ST#1 17172 BOLSA CHICA ST#2 17172 BOLSA CHICA ST#3 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 378 378 378 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 17172 BOLSA CHICA ST#4 17172 BOLSA CHICA ST#5 17172 BOLSA CHICA ST#6 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 378 378 378 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 17172 BOLSA CHICA ST#7 17172 BOLSA CHICA ST#8 17172 BOLSA CHICA ST#9 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 378 378 378 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 17172 BOLSA CHICA ST#10 17172 BOLSA CHICA ST#11 17172 BOLSA CHICA ST#12 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 378 378 378 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 17172 BOLSA CHICA ST#13 17172 BOLSA CHICA ST#14 17172 BOLSA CHICA ST#15 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 378 378 378 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 17172 BOLSA CHICA ST#16 17172 BOLSA CHICA ST#17 17172 BOLSA CHICA ST#18 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 378 378 378 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 17172 BOLSA CHICA ST#19 17172 BOLSA CHICA ST#20 17172 BOLSA CHICA ST#21 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 378 378 378 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 17172 BOLSA CHICA ST#22 17172 BOLSA CHICA ST#23 17172 BOLSA CHICA ST#24 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 939 543 76 871 939 513 77 872 939 543 78 873 Francesca Kim Norman Sands Ann Patrice Dewey 5096 Tortuga Dr#201 5096 Tortuga Dr#202 5096 Tortuga Dr#203 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 543 79 874 939 543 80 875 939 543 81 876 Lloyd & Sharon Sorensen Lauren McGirr Gary Trudeau 5096 Tortuga Dr#204 5096 Tortuga Dr#105 5096 Tortuga Dr#106 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 543 82 877 939 543 83 878 939 543 84 879 Patricia Taylor Don Paden Harish Malhotra 5096 Tortuga Dr#107 5096 Tortuga Dr#108 5096 Tortuga Dr#205 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 543 85 880 939 543 86 881 939 543 87 882 Lilian Broadway Ned & Debra Woods William & Elaine Solan 5096 Tortuga Dr#203 5096 Tortuga Dr#207 5096 Tortuga Dr#208 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 543 88 883 939 543 89 884 939 543 90 885 Salvatore Grasso Gary Heinnchs Gary& Barbara Mooney 5096 Tortuga Dr#109 5096 Tortuga Dr#110 5096 Tortuga Dr#111 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 543 91 886 939 543 92 887 939 543 93 888 Peter Mitchell Diron Lai Wendy Beetler 3201 La Cresta Dr 5096 Tortuga Dr#209 5096 Tortuga Dr#210 Bakersfield CA 93305 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 543 94 889 939 543 95 890 Pinching Lester Christine Overstreet 334 Carroll Park E 5096 Tortuga Dr#212 Long Beach CA 90814 Huntington Beach CA 92649 6 116 ke LSO / / —og 939 543 46 841 939 543 47 842 939 543 48 843 Margaret Riley Richard Skramstad Ward Cannon 17202 Corbina Ln #211 21706 Talisman St 5176 Tortuga Dr#101 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Torrance CA 90503 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 543 49 844 939 543 50 845 939 543 51 846 Eric Medel Robert Zmgg Harold Towers Jr 5176 Tortuga Dr#102 5176 Tortuga Dr#103 43104 W Sunland Dr Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Mancopa AZ 85238 939 543 52 847 939 543 53 848 939 543 54 849 William Michael Verna Scott Runge Linas Raslavicius 28012 Paseo Rincon 5176 Tortuga Dr#202 5176 Tortuga Dr#203 Mission Viejo CA 92692 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 543 55 850 939 543 56 851 939 5 852 Lindsay Tullis Joshua Littlejohn Mille 5176 Tortuga Dr#204 5176 Tortuga Dr#105 PO "�00 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Sunset Beach CA 90742 939 543 58 853 939 543 59 854 939 543 60 855 G & S Valdez Daniel Estrada Rudy Tan 507 13th St 5176 Tortuga Dr#108 PO Box 750611 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Las Vegas NV 89136 939 543 61 856 939 543 62 857 939 543 63 858 Francisco Larrea Michael Hall Shuping Chen 9048 Buttercup Ave 5176 Tortuga Dr#207 5176 Tortuga Dr#208 Fountain Valley CA 92708 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 543 64 859 939 543 65 860 939 543 66 861 Robert Waligurski Danny Maruki Diane Schug Anderson 2310 17th St 5176 Tortuga Dr#110 5176 Tortuga Dr#111 Anacortes WA 98221 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 543 67 862 939 543 68 863 939 543 69 864 Darren Stewardson Craig Branson Denver Gearhart III 5176 Tortuga Dr#112 5176 Tortuga Dr#209 5176 Tortuga Dr#210 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 543 70 865 939 543 71 866 939 543 72 867 Michele Levitt Lisa Carmen Laura Maclachlan 5176 Tortuga Dr#211 5176 Tortuga Dr#212 5096 Tortuga Dr#101 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 543 73 868 939 543 74 869 939 543 75 870 Michael David Handler Brady Kooiman Carla Sgroi 5096 Tortuga Dr#102 5096 Tortuga Dr#103 5096 Tortuga Dr#104 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 6 116/0 S- 66 939 543 16 811 939 543 17 812 939 543 18 813 George Renteria Christa Gemehl Camelia Valencia 816 Hollowbrook Ct 440 Davis Ct#802 5145 Tortuga Dr#111 San Marcos CA 92078 San Francisco CA 94111 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 543 19 814 939 543 20 815 939 543 21 816 Norman Kenji Suzuki Victoria Poure Dave Bickelhaupt 5145 Tortuga Dr#112 5145 Tortuga Dr#209 5145 Tortuga Dr#210 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 543 22 817 939 543 23 818 939 543 24 819 Larry Friedlander Robert Rice Allan Pollock 5145 Tortuga Dr#211 5145 Tortuga Dr#212 17202 Corbina Ln #101 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 543 25 820 939 543 26 821 939 543 27 822 Paulette Dewire Linda Curoso Lori Felling 17202 Corbina Ln #102 17202 Corbina Ln #103 17202 Corbina Ln #104 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 543 28 823 939 543 29 824 939 543 30 825 Wayne Elus Mary Wurzburg Timothy Campbell 17202 Corbina Ln #201 17202 Corbina Ln #202 17202 Corbina Ln #203 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 543 31 826 939 543 32 827 939 543 33 828 Steven Nakamoto Daniel Nelson Kathleen Gentry 17202 Corbina Ln #204 17202 Corbina Ln#105 17202 Corbina Ln#106 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 543 34 829 939 543 35 830 939 543 36 831 Patrick Hegarty Colleen Moroney Crystal Whorton 368 Harvard Dr 17202 Corbina Ln #108 1702 Corbina Ln #205 Arcadia CA 91007 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 543 37 832 939 543 38 833 939 543 39 834 Robin Lynn Deemer Viktor Schreckengost Samien &Vivara Nol 17202 Corbina Ln #206 17202 Corbina Ln #207 17202 Corbina Ln #208 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 543 40 835 939 543 41 836 939 543 42 837 Rickie Hulsey He-ither Morton Christopher Hliboki 13342 Chestnut St 17202 Corbina Ln #110 16 Wescott St Westminster CA 92683 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Old Tappan NJ 07675 939 543 43 838 939 543 44 839 939 543 45 840 Jamieson Hopkins Michael Bogert Penelope Nichols 1720? Corbina Ln 4112 17202 Corbina Ln #209 17202 Corbina Ln #210 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 6/i6/6,p - Z,2".O,4 �--�� 939 542 86 781 939 542 87 782 939 542 88 783 Henry Uranga Jr Marton Carungay Eric Stolp 5101 Tortuga Dr#107 5101 Tortuga Dr#108 5101 Tortuga Dr#205 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 542 89 784 939 542 90 785 939 542 91 786 Lori Leilani Suzuki Janice Elaine Botzbach John Carnahan 5145 Tortuga Dr#112 5101 Tortuga Dr#207 16294 Janine Dr Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Whittier CA 90603 939 542 92 787 939 542 93 788 939 542 94 789 James Utegg Kelley Bruemmer Sinh Du 5101 Tortuga Dr#109 5101 Tortuga Dr#110 5101 Tortuga Dr#111 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 542 95 790 939 542 96 791 939 542 97 792 Chance Gordon Kristine Arnold Terry Carter 5101 Tortuga Dr#112 5101 Tortuga Dr#209 7332 Douglas Cir Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 La Palma CA 90623 939 542 98 793 939 542 99 794 939 543 00 795 Patricia Arnstad Reginaldo Aleman Carol Philipp 5101 Tortuga Dr#211 5101 Tortuga Dr#212 5145 Tortuga Dr#101 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 543 01 796 939 543 02 797 939 543 03 798 Alma Balli Betty Bridge K M Bergenson Willi 5145 Tortuga Dr#102 5145 Tortuga Dr#103 5145 Tortuga Dr#104 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 543 04 799 939 543 05 800 939 543 06 801 David & Linda Butson Joanne Alstrand Archie Komae 5145 Tortuga Dr#201 5145 Tortuga Dr#202 45 303 Puuloko PI Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Kaneohe HI 96744 939 543 07 802 939 543 08 803 939 543 09 804 David Baker Carl Beach Jelena Radovic 2105 Alabama St 5145 Tortuga Dr#105 5145 Tortuga Dr#106 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 543 10 805 939 543 11 806 939 543 12 807 Toni Dipaolo Bruce Allen Pouder Molly Bounds 5145 Tortuga Dr 9107 5145 Tortuga Dr#108 5145 Tortuga Dr#205 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 543 13 808 939 543 14 809 939 543 15 810 Jeanne Romano Colleen Congelliere Norma Morales 5145 Tortuga Dr#206 5145 Tortuga Dr#207 16497 Tropez Ln Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 ,,111610 ,e — Z / —06 939 542 56 751 939 542 57 752 939 542 58 753 Samaha John Kremer Alan Scherf 9726 Willow Glenn Cir 711 Alabama St 17191 Corbina Ln #203 Santa Ana CA 92705 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 542 59 754 939 542 60 755 939 542 61 756 Robert Chang Armen Asadourian John & Deanne Nelson 4682 Warner Ave #C216 17191 Corbina Ln #105 6151 Hamshire Dr Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92647 939 542 62 757 939 542 63 758 939 542 64 759 Ryan Gates Michelle Tan Yvette Helen Paimkas 17191 Corbina Ln #107 2413 Rockefeller Ln #B 17191 Corbina Ln #205 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Redondo Beach CA 90278 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 542 65 760 939 542 66 761 939 542 67 762 Julio Trinidad Triaa Saul GOLDEN PAULA 17191 Corbina Ln #206 17191 Corbina Ln #207 17191 Corbina Ln#208 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 542 68 763 939 542 69 764 939 542 70 765 Elaine Mock Henry III LaTempa Archer 5300 Sunset Ln 6672 Jardines Dr 7371 E Woodsboro Ave Yorba Linda CA 92886 Huntington Beach CA 92647 Anaheim CA 92807 939 542 71 766 939 542 72 767 939 542 73 768 Patrick Reynolds Stanley Vielma II Clifford Richards 910 Turtle Crest Dr 17191 Corbina Ln #209 17191 Corbina Ln #210 Irvine CA 92603 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 542 74 769 939 542 75 770 939 542 76 771 Donna Dozier Powell Matthew Kiemle 16458 Bolsa Chic@ St 21179 Via Nonega 5101 Tortuga Dr#101 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Yorba Linda CA 92887 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 542 77 772 939 542 78 773 939 542 79 774 Cynthia Annette Girard Jean Koerner Christine Stempleski 5101 Tortuga Dr#102 5101 Tortuga Dr#103 5101 Tortuga Dr#104 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 542 80 775 939 542 81 776 939 542 82 777 J David Jostak Ryan Redenbaugh Brian Saulson 5101 Tortuga Dr#201 5101 Tortuga Dr#202 5101 Tortuga Dr#203 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 542 83 778 939 542 84 779 939 542 85 780 Diane Dennm Miller Mabel Shih 5101,Tortuga Dr#204 PO Box 760 5101 Tortuga Dr#106 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Sunset Beach CA 90742 Huntington Beach CA 92649 611616 f- / --06 939 542 26 721 939 542 27 722 939 542 28 723 John &E M Eastman Stacey McDonald Craig Eichorn 840 E 37th St 5146 Dorado Dr#212 17151 Corbina Ln #101 Long Beach CA 90807 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 542 29 724 939 542 30 725 939 542 31 726 Mary Ludington Colin Matsumoto Gina Caudillo 17151 Corbina Ln #102 17151 Corbina Ln #103 17151 Corbina Ln #104 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 542 32 727 939 542 33 728 939 542 34 729 Robert Cordery Lawrence Grote David Zagres 17151 Corbina Ln #201 17151 Corbina Ln #202 17151 Corbina Ln #203 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 542 35 730 939 542 36 731 939 542 37 732 Gwen Kuroye Christopher Palmer Steven &M A Mossman 17151 Corbina Ln #204 17151 Corbina Ln#105 750 Loma Vista St Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 El Segundo CA 90245 939 542 38 733 939 542 39 734 939 542 40 735 Ayala Leslie Murata Conrad Wilson 17151 Corbina Ln #107 1910 Westmoreland Dr 17151 Corbina Ln #205 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Brea CA 92821 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 542 41 736 939 542 42 737 939 542 43 738 Athanasios Koubourns Michael Eggleson David Heath 17151 Corbina Ln #206 2975 Dorn Ct 17151 Corbina Ln#208 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Laguna Beach CA 92651 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 542 44 739 939 542 45 740 939 542 46 741 Michael Spangler Barbara Sowma Kimberly Fellers PO Box 2012 17151 Corbina Ln #110 17151 Corbina Ln #111 Huntington Beach CA 92647 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 542 47 742 939 542 48 743 939 542 49 744 Margaret Diane Stewart Clevan Barclay Mary Elizabeth Orewyler 17151 Corbina Ln #112 17151 Corbina Ln#209 17151 Corbina Ln #210 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 542 50 745 939 512 51 746 939 542 52 747 Reynolds Taney Claire Maquire Linda Dalsimer 17151 Corbina Ln #211 17151 Corbina Ln #212 17191 Corbina Ln #101 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 542 53 748 939 542 54 749 939 542 55 750 Rodney Pease Sherry Gentilint Georganna Janelli 30510 Passageway PI 17191 Corbina Ln #103 17191 Corbina Ln #104 Agdura Hills CA 91301 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 6//6/De LC14�4 / 06 939 541 96 691 939 541 97 692 939 541 98 693 Gloria Cholota Robert &Christine Giles III Jan Lee 17172 Abalone Ln #109 17172 Abalone Ln #110 14126 Ocean Gate Ave Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Hawthorne CA 90250 939 541 99 694 939 542 00 695 939 542 01 696 Donald Cervantes Harold Jackson Richard Vanesian 550 S Palm St 15402 Maryknoll St 14014 N 16th St La Habra CA 90631 Westminster CA 92683 Phoenix AZ 85022 939 542 02 697 939 542 03 698 939 542 04 699 Elmer Ph►bbs Grace Wipperfurth Grover Wise 16382 Oakmont Ln 17172 Abalone Ln #212 5146 Dorado Dr#101 Huntington Beach CA 92647 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 542 05 700 939 542 06 701 939 542 07 702 Mary Patricia McKenna Jacqulyn Andrews Michel Larry Costner 16621 Channel Ln 5146 Dorado Dr#103 5146 Dorado Dr#104 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 542 08 703 939 542 09 704 939 542 10 705 Steven Thompson John Davidson Laura Giles 5146 Dorado Dr#201 5146 Dorado Dr#202 5146 Dorado Dr#203 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 542 11 706 939 542 12 707 939 542 13 708 Jeannette Poitevin Charlotte Velasquez Stanley 2005 Wmc2 Morgan 5146 Dorado Dr#204 5146 Dorado Dr#105 5146 Dorado Dr#106 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 542 14 709 939 542 15 710 939 542 16 711 Cindy Metzgar Michael Shaver Lisa Bondy 5146 Dorado Dr#107 5146 Dorado Dr#108 5146 Dorado Dr#205 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 542 17 712 939 542 18 713 939 542 19 714 Lisa Baker Robert & Helene Orear Steven Reed 514CD Dorado Dr#206 5146 Dorado Dr#111 5146 Dorado Dr#208 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 542 20 715 939 542 21 716 939 542 22 717 Jennifer Gates Raymond Shaw Robert Orear 5146 Dorado Dr#109 5146 Dorado Dr#110 5146 Dorado Dr#111 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 542 23 718 939 542 24 719 939 542 25 720 Everett Sweeney Manusz Sieradzk► Judy Morris 5146,Dorado Dr#112 5146 Dorado Dr#209 5146 Dorado Dr#210 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 116/6)f - Z- e,-" / -�� 939 541 66 661 939 541 67 662 939 541 68 663 Sheela Choudhury Michelle Conway Gregory Manack 6751 Lafayette Dr 5071 Dorado Dr#108 276 Hubbard St Huntington Beach CA 92647 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Glastonbury CT 06033 939 541 69 664 939 541 70 665 939 541 71 666 Joseph Bobshosky Sr Dean Shier Mary Giacchino 5071 Dorado Dr#206 5071 Dorado Dr#207 5071 Dorado Dr#208 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 541 72 667 939 541 73 668 939 541 74 669 Charlotte Pikor Maureen Slattery Catherine Gaboune 5071 Dorado Dr#109 5071 Dorado Dr#110 5071 Dorado Dr#111 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 541 75 670 939 541 76 671 939 541 77 672 Jeffrey Benon D E & N E Wiemer Maria D Imperial 10 Brownsbury Rd 16751 Barefoot Cir 5071 Dorado Dr#210 Laguna Niguel CA 92677 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 541 78 673 939 541 79 674 939 541 80 675 Angela Segal Mark Frey Barbara Rossi 5071 Dorado Dr 9211 5071 Dorado Dr#212 17172 Abalone Ln #101 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 541 81 676 939 541 82 677 939 541 83 678 Theodore Ramsdell Jackson Shook Vincent Corella 17172 Abalone Ln #102 1510 W Cowles St 17122 Abalone Ln #104 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Long Beach CA 90813 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 541 84 679 939 541 85 680 939 541 86 681 Tuong Nguyen Curtis Heitkamp Jean Myers 17172 Abalone Ln #201 17172 Abalone Ln #202 17172 Abalone Ln #203 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 541 87 682 939 541 88 683 939 541 89 684 Allan Dickson Fish Leslie Maddox Veronica Fallon 592oRedwood Dr 17172 Abalone Ln #105 17172 Abalone Ln #106 Santa Cruz CA 95060 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 541 90 685 939 541 91 686 939 541 92 687 Martin Marnie Ulrich Kai Kramer 17172 Abalone Ln #107 30590 Lake Pointe Dr 17172 Abalone Ln #205 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Menifee CA 92584 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 541 93 688 939 511 94 689 939 541 95 690 Gavin Calder Mark Clark David Crow 17172 Abalone Ln #206 17172 Abalone Ln #207 17172 Abalone Ln #208 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 6 A2,/0-,f -- Z- e/<� / -045� 939 6 631 939 541 37 632 939 541 38 633 BANK OF YORK TRUST CO N Andrew Galvin Veronica Carbajal 5031 Dorado Dr#202 5031 Dorado Dr#203 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 541 39 634 939 541 40 635 939 541 41 636 Daniel Sparks Dino Caramagno Susan Sullivan 5031 Dorado Dr#204 13661 Fairmont Way 5031 Dorado Dr#106 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Tustin CA 92780 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 541 42 637 939 541 43 638 939 541 44 639 Ricardo Garcia Kenneth Ono Denny Garrison 5031 Dorado Dr#107 6552 Dohrn Cir 5031 Dorado Dr#205 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92647 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 541 45 640 939 541 46 641 939 541 47 642 Gary Reeb Luis Contreras T Kent Pugmire 5031 Dorado Dr#206 542 Eaker Way 5031 Dorado Dr#208 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Antioch CA 94509 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 541 48 643 939 541 49 644 939 541 50 645 Harold &Claire Via Joseph Coghill Stacey Hunt 13592 Palomar St PO Box 316 5031 Dorado Dr#111 Westminster CA 92683 Surfside CA 90743 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 541 51 646 939 541 52 647 939 541 53 648 Garth & Marcela Rosenberger Imad & Lina Shbeeb Kristy Mutch 5031 Dorado Dr#112 5031 Dorado Dr#209 5031 Dorado Dr#210 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 541 54 649 939 541 55 650 939 541 56 651 Darryl Webb Mark & Mary Monmoto Mary Wurzburg 6262 Pacemont Dr 5031 Dorado Dr#212 17202 Corbina Ln #202 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 541 57 652 939 541 58 653 939 541 59 654 Brad Gnegy Frank & Nancy Timan Brian & C McMann 33; Prospect St 526 9th St 16391 Eagle Ln Newport Beach CA 92663 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 541 60 655 939 541 61 656 939 541 62 657 Alicia Wickwire Ryan & Carolyn Marcus Thomas Adams 5071 Dorado Dr#201 620 Danube Way 5858 Engineer Dr Huntington Beach CA 92649 Costa Mesa CA 92626 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 541 63 658 939 541 64 659 939 541 65 660 Victoria Evelyn Bouffard Matthew Dingwall Rusty Long 5071 Dorado Dr#204 21246 Alanis Cir 17241 Apel Ln Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92649 6//6/)f - ��� / -a6 163 311 22 601 163 311 23 602 939 541 08 603 Landmark Signal Lan rk Signa Patricia Tensfeldt 434 on ar a v 434 o ar a 5032 Dorado Dr#101 New on�arj a V660 Ne CA 92660 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 541 09 604 939 541 10 605 939 541 11 606 John &Carole Pardee Patricia Rankin Martin Jarolimek 5032 Dorado Dr#102 5032 Dorado Dr#103 5032 Dorado Dr#104 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 541 12 607 939 541 13 608 939 541 14 609 John Pulera Tracey Riverman Deborah Shubin 5032 Dorado Dr#201 5032 Dorado Dr#202 5032 Dorado Dr#203 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 541 15 610 939 541 16 611 939 541 17 612 Kyung Moh Kelly Miller Ned Ruggiero 5032 Dorado Dr#204 5032 Dorado Dr#105 5032 Dorado Dr#106 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 541 18 613 939 541 19 614 939 541 20 615 Patricia Hegeman Mock Brun Cabddo 5032 Dorado Dr#107 5300 Sunset Ln 5032 Dorado Dr#205 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Yorba Linda CA 92886 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 541 21 616 939 541 22 617 939 541 23 618 Amy Annette Marrero Elizabeth Toumapan Dont Santos 5032 Dorado Dr#206 5032 Dorado Dr#207 18627 Brookhurst St Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Fountain Valley CA 92708 939 541 24 619 939 541 25 620 939 541 26 621 Clarissa Raposas Blaine Lohman Jack&Leslie Markovitz 5032 Dorado Dr#109 6372 Braemar Dr PO Box 1604 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92647 Sunset Beach CA 90742 939 541 27 622 939 541 28 623 939 541 29 624 Craig Borkowski Peter Gover Michaela Conroy 5032 Dorado Dr#112 5032 Dorado Dr#209 5032 Dorado Dr#210 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 541 30 625 939 541 31 626 939 541 32 627 Rolland & Teresa Boceta Jeremy Mason Carlos Torres 5032 Dorado Dr#211 5032 Dorado Dr#212 5031 Dorado Dr#101 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 541 33 628 939 541 34 629 939 541 35 630 Luis Berban Marc Levin Dino Caramagno 5031 Dorado Dr#102 5612 ` Parkcrest St 13661 Fairmont Way Huntington Beach CA 92649 Long Beach CA 90808 Tustin CA 92780 6 /` /o'? - ��� / -off 163 281 21 571 163 281 24 572 163 281 25 573 Si Hyong Kim John Radle Dennis Oba 4902 Seapine Cir 4901 Los Patos Ave 4911 Los Patos Ave Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 281 26 574 163 281 27 575 163 281 28 576 David Johnson Paul Bowman Leslie Wiedemann 4921 Los Patos Ave 4931 Los Patos Ave 4941 Los Patos Ave Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 281 29 577 163 281 30 578 163 281 31 579 Gregory Douglas Ames Allen Zeroski 4961 Los Patos Ave 4971 Los Patos Ave 4981 Los Patos Ave Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 311 01 580 163 311 02 581 163 311 03 582 Chong Choi Michael & D L Burley Jouret 4903 Shelburne Dr 4915 Shelburne Dr 4927 Shelburne Dr Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 311 04 583 163 311 05 584 163 311 06 585 James Yamashita Kusal Tan Tamara Shaw 4939 Shelburne Dr 4953 Shelburne Dr 4965 Shelburne Dr Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 311 07 586 163 311 08 587 163 311 09 588 James Filipan J A Kuttel Abdio Hernandez 17280 Hampton Ln 17298 Hampton Ln 962 Heron Cir Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Seal Beach CA 90740 163 311 10 589 163 311 11 590 163 311 12 591 Kapnas William Helzer Michael McAlister 17347 Hampton Ln 17337 Hampton Ln 17327 Hampton Ln Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 311 13 592 163 311 14 593 163 311 15 594 Maurice Aouate Hanbury Craven Rho& Ping Chao 71, 4 Holmes Ct 17301 Hampton Ln 4930 Shelburne Dr Canton MI 48187 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 311 16 595 163 311 17 596 163 311 18 597 Mark Schwene Landmar Si al Landmark Signal 4918 Shelburne Dr 6 Execu i e Cir# 5 4343 Von Karman Ave Huntington Beach CA 92649 Irvine C 5p Newport Beach CA 92660 163 311 19 598 163 311 20 599 163 31 1 P26 Land rk al La Si nal Land ark i naI4343, n K o rm 434 on maNewpor each% CA 92660 Newport Beac C 92660 New Beac CA 6116/to r- Z��J1- a6 163 271 19 541 163 271 20 542 163 271 21 543 Richard Patrick Conway Lois Hoshgo Edward & S J Juline 17521 Bates Cir 17522 Bates Cir 17532 Bates Cir Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 271 22 544 163 271 23 545 163 271 24 546 Victor&Jennifer Murphy James Conti James Inabinet 17542 Bates Cir 17552 Bates Cir 17531 Tuscan Cir Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 271 25 547 163 271 26 548 163 271 27 549 Joseph Janda Kennedy Gregory & Ellen Clifford 17521 Tuscan Cir 17511 Tuscan Cir 17501 Tuscan Cir Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 271 28 550 163 272 01 551 163 272 02 552 CITY OF HU C Jay Slender Mary Rose P ox 190 5302 Fanwood Dr 5292 Fanwood Dr Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 272 03 553 163 272 04 554 163 272 05 555 Justin Brown Gibson John Mauger 5282 Fanwood Dr 17632 Gainsford Ln 17642 Gainsford Ln Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 272 06 556 163 279 0 557 163 27 3 558 Brian & Lorna White SIGNAL O IE I SIGN M AN 17646 Gainsford Ln 4343 Vo 434 a Huntington Beach CA 92649 Newpor h CA 9 60 Newpor Beach CA 2660 163 279 04 559 163 281 06 560 163 281 09 561 SIGNAL PANIEP660 Cambridge John &Chung Choi 4343 V Kar n 17171 Bolsa Chica St 17242 Green St Newp h Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 281 10 562 163 281 13 563 163 281 14 564 Jose Ramirez Chnstos Tsimerekis Russell &Knsh Newman 17252 Green St 4911 Seapine Cir 4921 Seapine Cir Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 281 15 565 163 281 16 566 163 281 17 567 Ceccarelli Ramaekers Helen Gouin 4931 Seapine Cir 4952 Seapine Cir 4942 Seapine Cir Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 281 18 568 163 281 19 569 163 281 20 570 Michael Barto Michael Reed Bret Archambault 4932,Seapine Cir 4922 Seapine Cir 4912 Seapine Cir Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 116/C J- Ze / 6g 163 252 53 511 163 252 54 512 163 252 513 Timothy Bridges Steve Howsmon CITY OF HUNT ON BEACH 17542 Beckwall Ln 17552 Beckwall Ln PO Box 190 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 9264 163 252 61 514 16325262 515 163 253 07 516 OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CI UNTINGTON BEACH Erwin PO Box PO Box 190 5292 Allstone Dr Huntington Beach C 48 Huntington Beach C 648 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 253 08 517 163 253 09 518 163 259 01 51 Michael Friedson Arthur Daedelow SIG M ANI I C 29471 Crown Rdg 5312 Allstone Dr 434 a Laguna Niguel CA 92677 Huntington Beach CA 92649 New each CA 92660 163 259 02 520 163 259 03 1 163 04 522 0 G PAP66 NC SIG C M I NC am SIw 4343 ar434 43 e 0 C 1 Ne Newport 163 271 01 523 163 271 02 524 163 271 03 525 Cary Tanamachi Douglas Martin Cynthia Cutforth 5311 Fanwood Dr 5305 Fanwood Dr 5301 Fanwood Dr Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 271 04 526 163 271 05 527 163 271 06 528 Gary & Carolyn Smith Danny & Doreen Haramoto Jack Combest 5291 Fanwood Dr 5281 Fanwood Dr 5271 Fanwood Dr Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 271 07 529 163 271 08 530 163 271 09 531 Helen Mane Eisenman STATE OF CALIFORNIA Mitchell Marosek 5261 Fanwood Dr 100 Howe Ave#100 5282 Allstone Dr Huntington Beach CA 92649 Sacramento CA 95825 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 271 10 532 163 271 11 533 163 271 12 534 Jeffrey Klaetsch Robert Pepper Scott&Joanna Mathews 5272 Allstone Dr 5262 Allstone Dr 5252 Allstone Dr Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 271 13 535 163 271 14 536 163 271 15 537 Karen Gorsuch STATE LIFO I Bowden 5242 Allstone Dr 100 How Ave 00 17561 Bates Cir Huntington Beach CA 92649 Sacra A 2 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 271 16 538 163 271 17 539 163 271 18 540 Jo Ellyn Hix William Ying S C &J A Moore PO Box 2413 17541 Bates Cir 17531 Bates Cir Huntington Beach CA 92647 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 6 116/04 - � / -66 163 252 23 481 163 252 24 482 163 252 25 483 Chi Henson Goodwin Fred &Janet Humphrey 17511 Crown Cir 17501 Crown Cir 17512 Crown Cir Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 252 26 484 163 252 27 485 163 252 28 486 Qualified Personal Resid Sacco Seidler Kathryn O Steen 17522 Crown Cir 17532 Crown Cir 17542 Crown Cir Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 252 29 487 163 252 30 488 163 252 31 489 Michael &Julie Enright Phillip & Rose Foerstel Dubich 17562 Crown Cir 5412 Barwood Dr 5411 Barwood Dr Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 252 32 490 163 252 33 491 163 252 34 492 John &Cindy Iacono Kenneth Wolder Hans Fassnacht 5421 Barwood Dr 16212 Piedmont Cir 17541 Putney Cir Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 252 35 493 163 252 36 494 163 252 37 495 Thomas Brennan Ronald Magnuson Quang Nam Nguyen 17531 Putney Cir 17521 Putney Cir 17511 Putney Cir Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 252 38 496 163 252 39 497 163 252 40 498 Richard Farmer Michael Conti Mary Rich 17512 Putney Cir 17522 Putney Cir 17532 Putney Cir Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 252 41 499 163 252 42 500 163 252 43 501 Richard Garman Yasuyoshi Chikazawa Beverly Clark 17542 Putney Cir 17552 Putney Cir 17652 Putney Cir Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 252 44 502 163 252 45 503 163 252 46 504 Gary Randall Toy Leslie Robert O Brien Keiran & Carolyn Ohalloran 17561 Beckwall Ln 17551 Beckwall Ln 17541 Beckwall Ln Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 252 47 505 163 252 48 506 163 252 49 507 Robert Peck Mary Nieto Robert Baker 17531 Beckwall Ln 17521 Beckwall Ln 17511 Beckwall Ln Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 252 50 508 163 252 51 509 163 252 52 510 Kelly Bautista Steele Gary Allen Westwell 1751? Beckwall Ln 17522 Beckwall Ln 17532 Beckwall Ln huntmgton Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 61wlof- Z-ei /: - 1 - D46 163 191 39 451 163 191 40 452 163 199 0 453 Ronald Candipan Leonard Munan SIGNAL_ M IE C 17452 Hillgate Ln 17442 Hillgate Ln 4343 Vo ar Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Newport Beach Vi660 163 251 01 454 163 251 02 455 163 251 03 456 Nishimoto Randall Tossey Hanh Pham 17611 Rainglen Ln 17615 Rainglen Ln 17621 Rainglen Ln Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 251 04 457 163 251 05 458 163 252 01 459 Rodney Shook Christopher Toland Allen Carter 17601 Rainglen Ln 17591 Rainglen Ln 17602 Rainglen Ln Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 252 02 460 163 252 03 461 163 252 04 462 James Madonia Lindquist B C & K E Smith 17612 Rainglen Ln 17591 Crown Cir 17581 Crown Cir Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 252 05 463 163 252 06 464 163 252 07 465 David &Letty Point John Naimo Eric Berg 17571 Crown Cir 17561 Crown Cir 17541 Crown Cir Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 252 08 466 163 252 09 467 163 252 10 468 Michael Robinson Ben Lopez Steven Bruce Jacobson 17531 Crown Cir 17562 Rainglen Ln 17572 Rainglen Ln Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 252 11 469 163 252 12 470 163 252 13 471 Gerald Reynolds Timothy & C Rand Cary Johnston 17592 Rainglen Ln 17502 Tuscan Cir 17512 Tuscan Cu Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 252 14 472 163 252 15 473 163 252 16 474 Shing Ching Richard Chan Scott Yukio Nishisaka Dominique Morel 17522 Tuscan Cir 17521 Rainglen Ln 17511 Rainglen Ln Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 252 17 475 163 252 18 476 163 252 19 477 Ronald Malmquist Ralph Lucas Lawrence O Toole 17501 Rainglen Ln 17522 Rainglen Ln 17532 Rainglen Ln Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 252 20 478 163 252 21 479 163 252 22 480 Brian & Michelle Vardiman James Moroney Gerald Halstead 17542 Rainglen Ln 17552 Rainglen Ln 17521 Crown Cir Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 191 09 421 163 191 10 422 163 191 11 423 Joyce T Lim Steele Albert&Ann Amendola Jackson Sproat 2151 Haller St 5381 Glenstone Dr 5361 Glenstone Dr San Diego CA 92104 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 16319112 424 163 191 13 425 16319114 426 John Wiedrnck Black Curtis Jr Tullio 5351 Glenstone Dr 5341 Glenstone Dr 5331 Glenstone Dr Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 16319115 427 163 191 16 428 16319117 429 Arthur Donaher Ronald Marks Stanley Hams 5321 Glenstone Dr 6752 Derby Cir 5301 Glenstone Dr Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 191 18 430 163 191 19 431 163 191 20 432 Noeline Khaw Alex& Marilyn Hand Daniel Kittredge 98 1066 Palula Way 5322 Glenstone Dr 5332 Glenstone Dr Aiea HI 96701 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 191 21 433 163 191 22 434 163 191 23 435 Douglas & Michele Wischmeyer Jerry Wolff Knsty Knox 8322 Lambert Dr 5352 Glenstone Dr 5362 Glenstone Dr Huntington Beach CA 92647 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 191 24 436 163 191 25 437 16319126 438 Dan Doyle Donald Cotton William Bowden 5382 Glenstone Dr 17481 Bellport Cir 17491 Bellport Cir Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 16319127 439 163 191 28 440 163 191 29 441 Martin Morris Kay Kitsuta Alfredo Santana 17492 Bellport Cir 17482 Bellport Cir 17472 Bellport Cir Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 191 30 442 163 191 31 443 163 191 32 444 Jolene Chavira Robert Schwarte Ronald Cornelsen 5412 Glenstone Dr 5422 Glenstone Dr 17441 Hillgate Ln Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 191 33 445 163 191 34 446 163 191 35 447 Mark David Bixby Rose Mane Miller Ross Potter 17451 Hillgate Ln 17471 Hillgate Ln 17481 Hillgate Ln Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 16319136 448 163 191 37 449 16319138 450 Ronald & Sandra Dawson Louis Flynn Dennis Clarke 17492 Hillgate Ln 17482 Hillgate Ln 17472 Hillgate Ln Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 141 16 391 163 141 17 392 16314118 393 R& L Dufresne Gregory Cruz Jennifer Leonard 17452 Valeworth Cir 17442 Valeworth Cir 17441 Frans Ln Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 16314119 394 163 141 20 395 16314121 396 Angelina Nordell Ned Richey David Murray 17451 Frans Ln 17471 Frans Ln 17481 Frans Ln Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 14201 397 163 14202 398 163 142 03 399 Robert Pinkstaff John & Barbara Redl George Border 5502 Wendy Cir 5522 Wendy Cir 5532 Wendy Cir Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 14204 400 163 14205 401 163 142 06 402 Sandra Childs Branden Eisen Philip Treviso 5542 Wendy Cir 5552 Wendy Cir 5551 Glenstone Dr Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 142 07 403 163 14208 404 163 142 09 405 Debra Squiciarini Flo,d Lory Larson 5541 Glenstone Dr 5531 Glenstone Dr 3761 Nimble Cir Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 142 10 406 163 14901 407 163 181 01 408 Donald Cohen SIGNAL COMPANIES INC Stanley Chandler 5501 Glenstone Dr 4343 Von Karman Ave 4041 Warner Ave Huntington Beach CA 92649 Newport Beach CA 92660 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 181 02 409 163 181 03 410 16318104 411 Scott Barger Jing Shiang Wey Christopher& Brenda Sthdaire PO Box 2075 5531 Mossvale Cir 5541 Mossvale Cir Huntington Beach CA 92647 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 18201 412 163 191 01 413 163 191 02 414 Sparks Hans Dorflinger Gary Frank Winters 5502 Mossvale Cir 17422 Hillgate Ln 17412 Hillgate Ln Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 191 03 415 163 191 04 416 16319105 417 Charles Emde Akihiko Ohshima Rodney Blue 17402 Hillgate Ln 17401 Hillgate Ln 17421 Hillgate Ln Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 191 06 418 163 191 07 419 16319108 420 Terry Evans Kenneth Feldman Dantonio 5421,Glenstone Dr 5411 Glenstone Dr 5401 Glenstone Dr Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 123 18 361 163 123 19 362 163 123 20 363 Emil Ratsiu James &Sandra Talley Emil Ratsiu 5122 Dunbar Ave 202 20th St 5132 Dunbar Ave#A Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 12321 364 163 12322 365 163 131 11 366 Emil Ratsiu Emil Ratsiu Nakachi 5142 Dunbar Ave 5152 Dunbar Ave#A 17111 Harbor Bluffs Cir Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 16313112 367 16313113 368 163 131 14 369 Lory Eugene Larson Franklin Buccella Lory Larson 3761 Nimble Cir 3541 Courtside Cir 3761 Nimble Cir Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 1631311 370 163 131 16 371 163 131 17 372 Franklin uccell Lory Larson Richard Ciancone 3541 Cc 3761 Nimble Cir 17172 Harbor Bluffs Cir Huntington each P64 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 16313118 373 163 131 19 374 16313 375 Howard Stein Byron Bishop Frank li u c la 3541 Sagamore Dr 25416 Boone PI 3541 id r Huntington Beach CA 92649 Laguna Hills CA 92653 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 131 21 376 163 131 22 377 16313124 378 Herbert Swanigan Hilary H Chan ALTIC PROP LLC 17132 Harbor Bluffs Cir 9842 Kings Canyon Dr 4639 Tremont Ln Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92646 Corona Del Mar CA 92625 163 131 26 379 163 380 16314102 381 CABO DEL MAR HOMEOWNERS CABO D HO�NERS SCHOOL OCEAN VIEW 1176 Main St 1176 Ma 7972 Warner Ave Irvine CA 92614 Irvine CA 14 Huntington Beach CA 92647 163 141 382 163 04 383 163 141 09 384 SCHO L A CITY OF GTON BEACH Karen Deffner 7972 A PO Box 190 5921 Kenbrook Dr Huntington Beac rCA92647 Huntington Beach CA 9264 Huntington Beach CA 92648 163 141 10 385 163 141 11 386 16314112 387 Hilda Pope James & J McNeill Tod &Cindy Mmato 17451 Valeworth Cir 17471 Valeworth Cir 17481 Valeworth Cir Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 16314113 388 163 141 14 389 16314115 390 Scandura Hilton Nelson Henry Toshiyuki Urada 17492 Valeworth Cir 17482 Valeworth Cir 17472 Valeworth Cir Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 6116 /0 (f - Z- 1 -66 16312126 331 163 121 27 332 16312128 333 Ching Chung Weng Ronald Allen Sylvia Sahagian 16402 Hobart Ln 6003 Arbor Rd 18521 E Queen Creek Rd #10 Huntington Beach CA 92647 Lakewood CA 90713 Queen Creek AZ 85242 16312129 334 163 121 31 335 16312148 336 Esther Hsu Nasser Zeighami Martin Edwards 876 Via Del Monte 12466 Turner PI 3917 Aruba Cir Palos Verdes Estates CA 90274 Tustin CA 92782 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 121 49 337 163 121 50 338 163 122 04 339 Nakachi Franklin Buccella MANZONIANO GROUP LLC 17061 Leslie Ln 3541 Courtside Cir 502 Park Ave#11H Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 New York NY 10022 163 122 06 340 163 12207 341 163 122 08 342 Lory Larson Franklin Buccella Franklin Buccella 3761 Nimble Cir 3541 Courtside Cir 3541 Courtside Cir Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 16312209 343 163 122 10 344 163 122 11 345 Surendra Shah Ben Li Franklin Buccella 12727 Nottingham St 555 E Washington Ave 914 3541 Courtside Cir Cerritos CA 90703 Sunnyvale CA 94086 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 12212 346 163 123 01 347 163 12302 348 Anthony Bartoli Warren Ziebarth Xuan Mai Thi Nguyen 5200 Warner Ave 9209 17082 Bolsa Chica St 16761 Tim Ln Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Van Nuys CA 91406 163 12303 349 163 12304 350 163 123 05 351 Enza Cianfanelli Robert Dawson James &Yue Ching Tsai 17122 Bolsa Chica St#A 17071 Bolero Ln PO Box 9947 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Fountain Valley CA 92728 163 123 06 352 163 12307 353 163 12308 354 Rubin Nichols ALLISON PROP P Esther Hsu 5726 E Rocking Horse Way 6264 Via Canada 876 Via Del Monte Orange CA 92869 Rancho Palos Verdes CA 90275 Palos Verdes Estates CA 90274 163 123 09 355 163 123 10 356 163 123 11 357 David Blakeman Bishop HATFIELD INVESTMENT INC Jeffrey Sargent 5267 Warner Ave 876 Via Del Monte PO Box 130249 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Palos Verdes Estates CA 90274 Carlsbad CA 92013 16312313 358 163 123 14 359 16312315 360 Robert Hancock Farouk Al Mussawir Milton Jelinowicz 5166,Dunbar Ave 56 Battery Ave 3911 Sunflower St Huntington Beach CA 92649 Brooklyn NY 11228 Seal Beach CA 90740 ,;�)//(,- /0C-- Z-0-,,�q"q- / -a/-, 163 11307 301 163 11308 302 163 113 09 303 Michael & Lon Roberts Akira Yatsu Ronald Hunt 17212 Friml Ln 17222 Fnml Ln 17211 Twain Ln Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 16311310 304 163 113 11 305 16311312 306 Martha Chick Robert Lachman Edward Walters 17201 Twain Ln 17181 Twain Ln 17171 Twain Ln Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 16311313 307 16311314 308 163 113 15 309 Wayne Berge David Mosqueda Robert Villanueva 17161 Twain Ln 17151 Twain Ln 17131 Twain Ln Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 16311401 310 163 11402 311 16311403 312 Michael Ward Lawrence Plank Jr Jai Jhu 17132 Twain Ln 17152 Twain Ln 17162 Twain Ln Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 114 04 313 163 114 05 314 163 114 06 315 James Meehan Ian Adam Ellen Jacobs 17172 Twain Ln 5631 Kern Dr 5641 Kern Dr Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 11407 316 163 11408 317 163 11409 318 Russell & Lori Buccola Alan &Desiree Wendell William Danz 5651 Kern Dr 5661 Kern Dr 17151 Tiffany Cir Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 114 10 319 163 11604 320 163 11605 321 Allen Blodgett John Gontarz Mark Samples 17141 Tiffany Cir 5652 Kern Dr 5642 Kern Dr Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 11606 322 163 11607 323 163 116 08 324 Winter Elizabeth Trang Harrison Doan 5632 Kern Dr 5622 Kern Dr 5612 Kern Dr Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 11609 325 163 121 21 326 163 121 22 327 Charles Acocello Margaret Yerema I Ratsiu &Veronica Ratsi Emil 5602 Kern Dr 5100 Dunbar Ave 5121 Dunbar Ave Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 121 23 328 163 121 24 329 16312125 330 To Independence Pathways ROCKY BEACH PROPERTIES Vernon Canada PO Box 43 70400 Kinikin Rd 5091 Dunbar Ave#E Los Alamitos CA 90720 Montrose CO 81401 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 111 04 271 16311105 272 16311106 273 Frank&Kathleen Said Rosemary Wharton Andrew Edwards 17191 Berlin Ln 17201 Berlin Ln 17221 Berlin Ln Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 111 07 274 163 111 08 275 163 112 01 276 John Forster Neil Wagner Danny Wood 17231 Berlin Ln 17241 Berlin Ln 17132 Berlin Ln Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 11202 277 16311203 278 163 112 04 279 Michael Youngsma Tiffany Nigro Andrew Anderson 17152 Berlin Ln 17162 Berlin Ln 17172 Berlin Ln Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 11205 280 163 112 06 281 163 112 07 282 BERLIN LANE LLC Michael Castellano Christopher Alan Roberts 172 Reposado Dr 17192 Berlin Ln 17212 Berlin Ln La Habra Heights CA 90631 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 112 08 283 163 112 09 284 163 112 10 285 Donna Kuehne William & Lon Bickford Rosa Haro 17222 Berlin Ln 17232 Berlin Ln 17252 Berlin Ln Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 16311211 286 163 112 12 287 163 112 13 288 Edmund Cunningham Richard Carter Edward Gmerek 17241 Friml Ln 17221 Friml Ln 22521 Shake Ridge Rd Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Volcano CA 95689 16311214 289 16311215 290 163 112 16 291 Vieira Jan Danita Lyle Tara S Reid 17191 Friml Ln 111 Rancho Del Sol 26916 Poppy PI#P Huntington Beach CA 92649 Camino CA 95709 Mission Viejo CA 92692 163 112 17 292 16311218 293 16311219 294 Howard Hitchcock James Reyes Richard Palmer 17161 Friml Ln 17151 Friml Ln 17131 Friml Ln Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 113 01 295 163 11302 296 163 11303 297 Joseph Ping James Alexanian Ronald Ritva Shapiro 17132 Friml Ln 17152 Friml Ln 17162 Friml Ln Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 11304 298 163 113 05 299 163 11306 300 Nelda Howell Christian &Ashley Larsen PTARMIGAN INVESTS INC 17172 Friml Ln 17182 Friml Ln 5267 Warner Ave#332 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 101 07 241 163 101 08 242 163 10203 243 Rafael Llorente E &K Vergilio Kimberly Cole Weidenbach 17071 Berlin Ln 17051 Berlin Ln 17062 Berlin Ln Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 102 04 244 163 102 05 245 163 102 06 246 Shyu Mun Kevin & Susan Via Linda McKibben 17072 Berlin Ln 17082 Berlin Ln 17092 Berlin Ln Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 10207 247 163 10208 248 163 10209 249 Todd Miller Stanley Zone Alan & Tracy Tonden 17102 Berlin Ln 17112 Berlin Ln 242 W Main St#101 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Tustin CA 92780 163 102 10 250 163 102 11 251 16310212 252 Robert Brimer Brian Strohecker Herbert Hopf 17121 Friml Ln 17111 Friml Ln 17101 Friml Ln Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 16310213 253 16310214 254 16310215 255 Rachael Berge Terry Cooper Yoneko Ige 17091 Friml Ln 17081 Friml Ln 17071 Friml Ln Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 102 16 256 163 10305 257 163 10306 258 John David Delmonico Lucille Renzo Robert Savin 17061 Friml Ln 17082 Friml Ln 17092 Friml Ln Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 10307 259 163 10308 260 163 103 09 261 Sharon Erickson Rene Hoffman Michael &Joanne Flory 16872 Pacific Coast Hwy #2 17112 Friml Ln 17122 Friml Ln Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 103 10 262 163 103 11 263 163 103 12 264 Michael Hennessy Thomas Clark Martin Engquist 16217 Chella Dr 17111 Twain Ln 17101 Twain Ln Hacienda Heights CA 91745 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 103 13 265 163 104 14 266 16310415 267 Donald Galloro A W Chapman Steven Schock 17091 Twain Ln 17112 Twain Ln 17122 Twain Ln Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 111 01 268 16311102 269 163 111 03 270 John Spaulding George Molvin Tamra Kaplan 1716.1 Berlin Ln 17171 Berlin Ln 17181 Berlin Ln Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 6/6 /to f - zc1% i-o� 163 051 18 211 163 052 01 212 163 052 02 213 Michael Trapschuh Kenneth Yoshioka Gregory Weber 17281 Apel Ln 17362 Apel Ln 17352 Apel Ln Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 052 03 214 163 052 04 215 163 052 05 216 Charles H Kam Newman Brun Chamberlain 17342 Apel Ln 16312 Mandalay Cir 17332 Apel Ln Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 052 06 217 163 053 08 218 163 053 09 219 Larry Richey Gconnie Burbridge Ha The Nguyen 17326 Apel Ln 17312 Apel Ln 5641 Tilburg Dr Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 053 10 220 163 055 01 221 163 055 02 222 Gilberto Guevara Paul & Mary Lagreek Hendrik DeMoet 5651 Tilburg Dr 5521 Kern Dr 5511 Kern Dr Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 055 03 223 163 055 04 224 163 055 05 225 Richard & Nancy Richards Robert Brooks Jr Wendy Dixon 5501 Kern Dr 5502 Kern Dr 5512 Kern Dr Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 055 06 226 163 055 07 227 163 055 08 228 Renate Belcher Jose Haro Daniel Tolentino Jr 5522 Kern Dr 5532 Kern Dr 5542 Kern Dr Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 055 09 229 163 055 10 230 163 055 11 231 Jesse Cummings Jr Richard &Louise Carragher Christopher Eastes 5552 Kern Dr 5562 Kern Dr 5572 Kern Dr Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 055 12 232 163 055 13 233 163 14 234 Jimmy& D C Negrete Melanie Anne Fox CITY OF �CA ACH 5582 Kern Dr 5592 Kern Dr PO Box 19 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington 163 101 01 235 163 101 02 236 163 101 03 237 Ray Phillip Hardy Gary Twiford 17131 Berlin Ln 17121 Berlin Ln 17111 Berlin Ln Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 101 04 238 163 101 05 239 163 101 06 240 Virgie Jane Gabelman Samantha Verga Chad Fehmie 17101 Berlin Ln 17091 Berlin Ln 17081 Berlin Ln Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 6I/6/LOP - Z-e-/:�91-q /-06 163 045 04 181 163 045 05 182 163 045 06 183 Tunstall Robert Rizzo Barbara Jean Olson 5292 Kenilworth Dr 5282 Kenilworth Dr 5262 Kenilworth Dr Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 045 07 184 163 045 08 185 163 045 09 186 Daniel Dawes Hsing Hsiung Wei Robert Warden 5252 Kenilworth Dr 5242 Kenilworth Dr 2798 Waxwing Cir Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Costa Mesa CA 92626 163 045 10 187 163 046 03 188 163 046 04 189 Robert Joseph Allen Martin Benom Charles Koenig 17232 Greenleaf Ln 17051 Greentree Ln 17071 Greentree Ln Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 046 05 190 163 046 06 191 163 046 07 192 Stratton Matinas Henry Palan Mark Flores 17081 Greentree Ln 17091 Greentree Ln 17101 Greentree Ln Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 046 08 193 163 051 01 194 163 051 02 195 Louann Connors Peter&Chnsta Teichmann Reece 17111 Greentree Ln 5501 Wendy Cir 5511 Wendy Cir Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 051 03 196 163 051 04 197 163 051 05 198 Charles Jansen Juergen Kahlweiss Margot Kahlweiss 5521 Wendy Cir 5541 Wendy Cir 17361 Frans Ln Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 051 06 199 163 051 07 200 163 051 08 201 Joseph &Judy McAllise Damon Bowden William Paul Theobald 17351 Frans Ln 17341 Apel Ln 17337 Apel Ln Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 051 09 202 163 051 10 203 163 051 11 204 John & Betty Turner Michael Keele Michael Beatty 17331 Apel Ln 8301 La Senda Rd 17321 Apel Ln Huntington Beach CA 92649 Alta Loma CA 91701 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 051 12 205 163 051 13 206 163 051 14 207 Matzke Lewis Holman John &Jennifer Daniels 17317 Apel Ln 16432 Underhill Ln 17307 Ape[ Ln Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92647 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 051 15 208 163 051 16 209 163 051 17 210 Robert Horvath John Ferguson Peter Geister 17301 Apel Ln 17297 Apel Ln 17291 Apel Ln Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 043 08 151 163 043 19 152 163 043 20 153 Sheila Shane Joseph &Kristen Coppa Matthew Huecker 5261 Glenroy Dr 17231 Greenleaf Ln 17221 Greenleaf Ln Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 043 21 154 163 043 22 155 163 043 23 156 Ponciana Obeck Harry & Lorraine Thielen Edward Trotz 17211 Greenleaf Ln 17191 Greenleaf Ln 17201 Greenleaf Ln Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 043 25 157 163 043 26 158 163 043 27 159 Paul Fuzzard Jr Valdes Dimiter & Ileana Gulmesoff 17181 Greenleaf Ln 17171 Greenleaf Ln 17151 Greenleaf Ln Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 043 28 160 163 043 29 161 163 044 01 162 John McRee Patrick McDaniel I F Bartenbach 5241 Glenroy Dr 5251 Glenroy Dr 5322 Glenroy Dr Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 044 02 163 163 044 03 164 163 044 04 165 Anita Priscella Cizek Gloria Pica Penny Martinez 5312 Glenroy Dr 5302 Glenroy Dr 5292 Glenroy Dr Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 044 05 166 163 044 06 167 163 044 07 168 George Cassell Phyllis Toombs Scr Jhr 5282 Glenroy Dr 5262 Glenroy Dr 17172 Greenleaf Ln Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 044 08 169 163 044 09 170 163 044 10 171 Barry Martin Spiegel Buley Leonard Arsulich 17182 Greenleaf Ln 17192 Greenleaf Ln 5251 Kenilworth Dr Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 044 11 172 163 044 12 173 163 044 13 174 Dorothy Dupont Karin Bless Dodge 5261 Kenilworth Dr 5281 Kenilworth Dr 5291 Kenilworth Dr Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 044 14 175 163 044 15 176 163 044 16 177 Kuo Liu Chang Byrne Michel Hsiao Yu 5301 Kenilworth Dr 5311 Kenilworth Dr 5321 Kenilworth Dr Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 045 01 178 163 045 02 179 163 045 03 180 Dixie Grimmett Sam Nguyen Lisa Kelter 532ZKendworth Dr 5312 Kenilworth Dr 1610 Pacific Coast Hwy Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92648 163 041 01 121 163 041 02 122 163 041 03 123 Richard Boykin Jr John O Brien Norman Michaud 17042 Newquist Ln 17052 Newquist Ln 17072 Newquist Ln Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 041 04 124 163 041 05 125 163 041 06 126 Tim Rasmussen Harry&Sigrid Boyer Thomas Glenn 17082 Newquist Ln 17092 Newquist Ln 17102 Newquist Ln Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 041 07 127 163 041 08 128 163 041 09 129 Jane Carey Armen Asadounan Duane Barnes 17112 Newquist Ln 17122 Newquist Ln 17132 Newquist Ln Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 041 10 130 163 041 11 131 163 042 06 132 Robert Hankin Hlavaty Mingoia 17142 Newquist Ln 17152 Newquist Ln 17051 Newquist Ln Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 042 07 133 163 042 08 134 163 042 09 135 Paliwoda Paul McLeod Ryuichi &Jana Nakagawa 17071 Newquist Ln 17081 Newquist Ln 17091 Newquist Ln Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 042 10 136 163 042 11 137 163 042 18 138 Donald & M L Clemens Phil Urabe Richard Ernst Sr 17101 Newquist Ln 17111 Newquist Ln 17112 Greentree Ln Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 042 19 139 163 042 20 140 163 042 21 141 Lisa Waide Ronald Lamperts Manohar Hinduja 17102 Greentree Ln 17092 Greentree Ln 17082 Greentree Ln Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 042 22 142 163 042 23 143 163 043 01 144 Maynard Arnold Axvig Timothy Salmas Judie Kaufman 17072 Greentree Ln 12823 Maxwell Dr 5242 Vineland Dr Huntington Beach CA 92649 Tustin CA 92782 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 043 02 145 163 043 03 146 163 043 04 147 Helen Hawes William Hays Larry Gowing 5252 Vineland Dr 5262 Vineland Dr 5282 Vineland Dr Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 043 05 148 163 043 06 149 163 043 07 150 Bernard Moskowitz Raymond Cook Lis 529Z Vineland Dr 5291 Glenroy Dr 5281 Glenroy Dr Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 ,1,-1j6/0f - z-e-l� J -,�?6 163 034 04 91 163 034 05 92 163 034 06 93 Lee & Patricia Haber William Steele Distel 5392 Glenroy Dr 5382 Glenroy Dr 5372 Glenroy Dr Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 034 07 94 163 034 08 95 163 034 09 96 Sayoko Baker Mary Quinlan George Clemens 5362 Glenroy Dr 5352 Glenroy Dr 5342 Glenroy Dr Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 034 10 97 163 034 11 98 163 034 12 99 Eric& Lisa Harenburg Darnel Fillet William & Lore Masilek 5332 Glenroy Dr 5331 Kenilworth Dr 5341 Kenilworth Dr Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 034 13 100 163 034 14 101 163 034 15 102 Brian & Colleen Ponchak William Arlow Newton &Jonna Anderson 5351 Kenilworth Dr 5361 Kenilworth Dr 5371 Kenilworth Dr Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 034 16 103 163 034 17 104 163 034 18 105 Janice Sadler Jack&Mary Wiggins David Hamilton 5381 Kenilworth Dr 5492 Meadow Cir 5401 Kenilworth Dr Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 034 19 106 163 034 20 107 163 035 01 108 Novak Roeder George &June Ross 5421 Kenilworth Dr 5431 Kenilworth Dr 5472 Kenilworth Dr Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 035 02 109 163 035 03 110 163 035 04 111 Rocha Donald Keppler Jennifer Thomas 5452 Kenilworth Dr 5442 Kenilworth Dr 5432 Kenilworth Dr Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 035 05 112 163 035 06 113 163 035 07 114 Brian & Francine Shell Shoy Kong Priscilla Wolz 5422 Kenilworth Dr 5402 Kenilworth Dr 5392 Kenilworth Dr Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 035 08 115 163 035 09 116 163 035 10 117 Charles David Dildine Salvatore Coccaro William Blake 5382 Kenilworth Dr 5372 Kenilworth Dr 5362 Kenilworth Dr Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 035 11 118 163 035 12 119 163 035 13 120 Donald & Dolores Beal Douglas Stewart Larry Eaton 5352 Kenilworth Dr 5342 Kenilworth Dr 5332 Kenilworth Dr Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 6/1�/�T- zj�!/�lq i-i 163 032 40 61 163 032 41 62 163 032 42 63 Gary Mueller Gary Roy Chrisman David &C Beran 17132 Camelot Cir 17122 Camelot Cir 17112 Camelot Cir Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 032 43 64 163 032 44 65 163 032 45 66 Spencer&Jennifer Letourneau Kunihei Kawasaki Michael &Linda Wendt 17102 Camelot Cu 17092 Camelot Cir 17082 Camelot Car Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 032 46 67 163 032 47 68 163 032 48 69 D Alessandro Frank Bess Luke Weston Gary &J Morrill 17072 Camelot Cir 17071 Camelot Cir 17081 Camelot Cir Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 032 49 70 163 032 50 71 163 032 51 72 Joseph Johnson Joseph Brunnworth Steven &Nina Fosdick 17091 Camelot Cir 17101 Camelot Cir 17111 Camelot Cir Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 032 52 73 163 032 53 74 163 032 54 75 Sharon Richter Donald Pichovich Michael &Lon Kamola 17121 Camelot Cir 17131 Camelot Cir 17141 Camelot Cir Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 032 55 76 163 033 01 77 163 033 02 78 Ngoc Oanh Tran Fred DeNucao Douglas Bacon Jr 17151 Camelot Cir 17092 Saint Andrews Ln 17102 Saint Andrews Ln Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 033 03 79 163 033 04 80 163 033 05 81 Cyrus Hardiman Kenneth Cobb Michael Bouma 17112 Saint Andrews Ln 17122 Saint Andrews Ln 17132 Saint Andrews Ln Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 033 06 82 163 033 07 83 163 033 08 84 Richard Gregory Vets Affairs Dept Rupert Yoshikawa 706 E Chapman Ave 17152 Saint Andrews Ln 17172 Saint Andrews Ln Fullerton CA 92831 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 033 09 85 163 033 10 86 163 033 11 87 Roderick& Rebecca Jones Dale McBride Kevin Petrimoulx 17182 Saint Andrews Ln 17192 Saint Andrews Ln 17202 Saint Andrews Ln Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 034 01 88 163 034 02 89 163 034 03 90 Randy & Michelle Matusoff Michael Bailey Peter LeFort 543Z Glenroy Dr 5422 Glenroy Dr 5402 Glenroy Dr Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 032 10 31 163 032 11 32 163 032 12 33 Geraldine Curtis Reed Linda Cates Joseph & G A Kgewski 17051 Saint Andrews Ln 17071 Saint Andrews Ln 17081 Saint Andrews Ln Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 032 13 34 163 032 14 35 163 032 15 36 Janis Newsome D Dean Nelson William Simpson 17091 Saint Andrews Ln 719 Whimbrel Ct 17111 Saint Andrews Ln Huntington Beach CA 92649 Nipomo CA 93444 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 032 16 37 163 032 17 38 163 032 18 39 Mary Anderson Hymavathi Atlun Carlos Diaz 1111 S Coast Dr#D202 17131 Saint Andrews Ln 1011 SE 5th Ave Costa Mesa CA 92626 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Pompano Beach FL 33060 163 032 19 40 163 032 20 41 163 032 21 42 Blokdyk William Panzich Robert Sutton 17151 Saint Andrews Ln 17152 Pleasant Cir 17142 Pleasant Cir Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 032 22 43 163 032 23 44 163 032 24 45 Daniel Laprelle Leander Kelter Anthony Patalano 17132 Pleasant Cir 17122 Pleasant Cir 17112 Pleasant Cir Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 032 25 46 163 032 26 47 163 032 27 48 Richard Reinhart Thomas Campbell Dennis & Debra Hashin 17102 Pleasant Cir 17092 Pleasant Cir 17151 Pleasant Cir Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 032 28 49 163 032 29 50 163 032 30 51 Joseph Feliciani Louis Harrigan Stuart Nicol 17072 Pleasant Cir 17071 Pleasant Cir 17081 Pleasant Cir Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 032 31 52 163 032 32 53 163 032 33 54 Tom Glavas A J &Jenness Schic Schickling Owen Larson 17091 Pleasant Cir 17101 Pleasant Cir 17111 Pleasant Cir Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 032 34 55 163 032 35 56 163 032 36 57 Kievman William & J Curran William &Vicki Resch 17121 Pleasant Cir 17131 Pleasant Cir 17141 Pleasant Cir Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 032 37 58 163 032 38 59 163 032 39 60 Dennis Hashin Martin Annenberg Kevin Frers 17151 Pleasant Cir 17152 Camelot Cir 14142 Camelot Cir Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 6//&/0 'r - Z--C/W / -06 110 016 11 1 110 016 12 2 110 016 15 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA CALIFORNIA ST LANDS COMMISSI Landmark Signal 100 Howe Ave 100 Howe Ave#100 6 Executive Cir#250 Sacramento CA 95825 Sacramento CA 95825 Irvine CA 92614 11001616 4 11001618 5 11001619 6 SIGNAL COMPANIES INC Donald Goodell SHEA HOMES LIMITED 6 Executive Cir 16571 Channel Ln PO Box 487 Irvine CA 92614 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Walnut CA 91788 11001620 7 1100&FLIF-QRNIA 8 11001622 9 SHEA HOMES LIMITED STATE STATE LANDS COMMISSION 655 Brea Canyon Rd 100 H 100 Howe Ave Walnut CA 91789 Sacramento M95825 Sacramento CA 95825 110014HS 10 1100162 11 11001625 12 SHEA LIMIT D Lan( S I STATE LIF655 Brn tl 6 Exec 50 100 H e ff'' Walnut CA 91789 Irvine CA 9261 Sacramento A 95825 110016 A 13 11001630 14 11001633 15 STAT F)"FIA STATE OF CALIFORNIA CITY OF TINGTON BEACH 100 HSacramento 2000 Main St Sacramento Sacramento CA 95825 Huntington Beach C 2648 110 01 16 110 016 36 17 110 016 18 Land rk nal Lee Land k n 6 Ex Cl 250 17302 Tidaindge Ln 6 Ex uti C1 0 Irvine CA 9 1 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Irvine CA 9 163 031 01 19 163 031 02 20 163 031 03 21 Jeffrey Murdock Patricia Johnson Carlo Magno Leal 17072 Saint Andrews Ln 17052 Saint Andrews Ln 17042 Saint Andrews Ln Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 032 01 22 163 032 02 23 163 032 03 24 Chris Roza Durbin McGregor 5342 El Dorado Dr 5352 El Dorado Dr 5362 El Dorado Dr Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 032 04 25 163 032 05 26 163 032 06 27 Kenneth & Denise Obnen Gerrit& Susan Smouse Carleen Ono 5372 El Dorado Dr 5382 El Dorado Dr 5392 El Dorado Dr Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 032 07 28 163 032 08 29 163 032 09 30 Huan Hoang Sharon Cops Jeffrey Alan Windle 5412 El Dorado Dr 5422 El Dorado Dr 17041 Saint Andrews Ln Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 AH3AV 09 008 L uoilmilsui p 1u8ua86ae43 ap suaS ,w0965®AH3AV liaege6 al zaslllln wo3 Aiane mmm A&i RAKdayHCATION CHECKLIST'B" a ,salad a same}sauanbq California Coastal Commission 25 Clark Hamp n 32 Sally Graham 39 Theresa Henry Westminster School District Meadowlark a e South Coast Area Office 14121 Ce ood Avenue 5161 Gelding Circle 200 Oceangate 10th Floor Westmmste CA 92683 Huntington ach CA 92649 Long Beach CA 92802 4302 California Coastal Commission 25 Stephen Ri er 33 Cheryle Brow g 39 South Coast Area Office HB Uniongh School Disnct Meadowlark I rea 200 Oceangate loth Floor 5832 Bo sa 16771 Roosev k Lane Long Beach CA 92802 4302 Huntington Beach CA 92646 Huntington B tach,CA 92649 Ryan P Chi berlam 26 Hearthside Homes 40 Caltrans Dist ct 12 6 Executive Circle Smte 250 3337 Michels n Drive Suite 380 Irvine CA92614 Irvine CA 9 12 1699 Director 27 Goldenwest College 35 Bolsa Chica Land Trust 41 Local Solid ante Enf Agy Ann Fred ens 5200 Warner Avenue Ste 108 O C.Health e Agency 15744 Gold nwest St Huntington Beach CA 92649 P O Box 35f Huntington Beach CA 92647 Santa Ana, 92702 New Gro Coordinator 28 OC County Harbors Beach 36 Bolsa Chica Land Trust 41 Huntington each Post Office and Parks Dept Evan Henry President 6771 Warne Ave P O Box 4048 1812 Port Tiffin Place Huntington each CA 92647 Santa Ana,CA 92702 4048 Newport Beach CA 92660 Marc Ecker 29 Huntington B ach Mall 37 StevtBox er Cyr rson 42 Fountain V ey Elem School Dist Ann Pat Rog rs Laude SEH 10055 Slater venue 7777 Edinger We #300 P O 6 Fountain V ey CA 92708 Huntington B ach CA 92647 Hun Beach 92615 Dr Gary R herford Super 30 Country View Estates HOA 38 OC Samtau n Distnct 42 HB CaryEle entary School Dist Came Tho 10844 Ellis venue 20451 r Lane 6642 Trotter I)nve Fountain Vd Rey CA 92708 Huntington each CA 92648 Huntington B ach CA 92648 David Perry 30 Country Vie Estates HOA 38 Eric Pende t Plant Manager 42 HB City Ele entary School Dist Gerald Chap an AES Hunt on Beach LLC 20451 Crain r Lane 6742 Shire cle 21730 Newland Street Huntmgton each CA 92648 Huntington B ach CA 92648 Huntington 3each CA 92646 Richard Loy 42 Huntington each Girls Softball 47 AYSO Region 56 47 9062 Kahului nve Mike Encks Comnnssio r John Gray Huntington Be ach CA 92646 P O Box 3943 9522 Smoke Circle Huntington each CA 92605 3943 Huntington 3each CA 92646 John Ely 42 AYSO Region 117 AYSO Regi n 55 47 22102 Rockport Lane John Almanza Cominission r Russ Marlow Huntington ch CA 92646 19961 B � k �� 18111 Bren ell Circle F alley CA 92708 PrW Huntington each CA 92647 paw T ainlea3 laid Ase3 ao; ® waded paid,� wi0965 31V1dW31 @AjanV asn i i laayS umpnilsul aaS ® e i slagel load Ase3 AH3AV 09 008 L umpnalsui p luawa61e4:)ap sua5 ,W096S®Ab3AV luege6 a1 zes4i;n wok AjaAe mmm i' j JWSU&YfICATION CHECKLIST"B e salad a salnel sallanbil3 President 1 Huntington Harbor POA 10 Sue Johnson 16 HB Chamber of Commerce P O Box 791 19671 Qwet Bay Lane 19891 Beach Blvd Ste 140 Sunset Beach CA 90742 Huntington Beach C>9264t',,�' Huntington Beach CA 92648 Dave Stefanides 2 W Holman 11 Gary Brown 49 Orange County Assoc of Realtors PLC Coastkeepers 25552 La Paz Road 19 Corporate Plaza 3151 Airway Ave Suite F 110 Laguna Hills CA 92653 Newport Beach CA 92660 2 Costa Mesa,CA 92663 President 3 JeffreyM_Oderman 12 Pacific Coast haeological 18 Amigos De Bolsa Chica RUTAN&TUCKER,LLP Society Inc P O Box 1563 611 Anton Blvd 14th Floor P O Box 1092 Huntington Beach CA 92647 Costa Mesa CA 92626 1950 Costa Mesa, 92627 Arm Jane Got Id Ski is Beach Community Assoc 4 PM I�B t Society 13 Director 19 Pat Thies 790742 nt C10 Newland Museum O C.Ping &D v Services Dept PO Box 215 19820 Beach Blvd P O Box 4048 Sunset Beach 0 Huntington Beach CA 926 Santa Ana,CA 9 Z702 4048 President 5 Co Services Dept 14 Bryan Speegle 19 Huntington Beach Tomorrow Cknairperson O C.Resources Develop Mgt Dept PO Box 865 Hiistoncal Resources B P O Box 4048 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Santa Ana,CA 9 02 4048 J dermost 6 Council on 15 Planning Director, 20 BIA OC 1706 Orange Ave City of Costa Mes 17744 Sky Park Ern 170 Huntington Beach CA 9 P O Box 1200 Irvine CA 92614 4441 Costa Mesa,CA 9,'I628 1200 hard Spicer 7 Jeff M:HA 16 Planning Director 21 SCA Seaclif Cary of Fountain ey 818 West 7th loor 19391 y Harbor Circle 10200 Slater Ave Los Angeles CA 9001Huntin Beach CA 92648 Fountain Valley 92708 an Kimbrell 8 John 16 Planning Director 22 c/ rral 100 Seachff HOA City of Newport Bech 20292 Eastwoo 19382 Surfdale Lane P O Box 1768 Huntington Beach CA 9 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Newport Beach 92663 8915 Craig Justice 9 Lou Maunone 16 Planning Director 23 Environmental Board Chairman Seachff HOA City of Westminst r 8711 Sqwres Circle 19821 Ocean Bluff Carc 8200 WestmunisteA lvd Huntington Beach CA 92646 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Westminster CA 2683 Plannm erector 24 Mary I ouUzcJSQan 31 HB Hamptons H A 38 Cary of Seal e Ocean View Elemen chool District Progressive Co unity Mgmt 211 Eight St 17200 Pinehurst Lane 27405 Puerta Re #300 Seal Beach CA 90740 Huntington Beach CA 92647 Mission Viejo CA 92691 p Tc i aan;ea�laid�(se3 ao} ® waded paa3T w1096S 31VldW31®AjaAV ash W,L S®AHAbQ Rltv law uoq nAsul as� 45 S ® ® i ad slagel laid Ase3 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING f BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE Huntington Beach Independent has been adjudged a newspaper of gen CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH I circulation in Huntington Beach and Orange County by Decree of the Supe NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Monday June 16 2008 at 6 00 p m in the City Council Court of Orange County State of California under date of Aug 24 1994 c Chambers 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach the City Council will hold a public hearing A50479 on the following planning and zoning items LOCALCOASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO 1 06(PARKSIDEESTATE$j Ap IID cant l� City of Huntington Beach Re uest 1)To accept modifications to the Huntington Beach PROOF OF Local Coastal Program Coastal Element approved by the California Coastal Commission on May 7 2008 for LCPA No 1 06 2)To amend the City s Local Coastal Program Coastal I Element to reflect the California Coastal Commissions modifications Location ,The PUBLICATI®N Parkside Estates project is proposed for 17301 Graham St (west side of Graham south of Kenilworth adjacent to the East Garden Grove Wintersburg Channel) The California Coastal Commission also approved modifications that have applicability to all properties STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) in the coastal zone Project Planner Mary Beth Broeren NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Item No 1 affects property located in the appealable SS jurisdiction of the Coastal Zone and includes a Local Coastal Program Amendment that has been approved by the California Coastal Commission The City Councils action on I COUNTY OF ORANGE ) Item No 1 will be forwarded to the California Coastal Commission for Executive Director Determination am the Citizen Of the United States and a NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the preparation and approval of Local Coastal Program Amendment No 1 06 is exempt from the requirements of CEQA pursuant to Section I resident of the County aforesaid, I am over 210809 of CEQA and Sections 15251(f) and 15265 of Title 14 California Code of the age of eighteen years, and not a party Regulations In any event Local Coastal Program Amendment No 1 06 is covered by to or interested in the below entitled matter Environmental Impact Report No 97 2 certified by the City Council on October 21 2002 in accordance with CEQA requirements as well as the California Coastal Commissions am a principal clerk of the HUNTINGTON approval of the Local Coastal Program Coastal Element on November 141.2007 pursuant to Section 21080 5 of CEQA >j �� BEACH INDEPENDENT a newspaper of � �t general circulation printed and published in ON FILE A copy of the proposed request is on file in the Planning Department 2000 Main g , p ran p Street Huntington Beach California 92648 for inspection by the public A copy of the the City of Huntington Beach County Of staff report will be available to interested parties at the City Clerks Office on Thursday Orange State of California, and the June 12 2008 attached Notice is a true and complete copy ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above If you challenge the City i as was printed and published On the Councils action in court you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone following date(s) else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City at or prior to the public hearing If there are any further questions please call the Planning Department at 536 5271 and refer to the above items Direct your written communications to the City Clerk r � n Joan L Flynn City Clerk t City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street 2nd Floor Huntington Beach California 92648 714 536 5227 , June 5 2008 1 declare, under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct Executed on June 6, 2008 at Huntington Beach California f Uri Signat e NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE - Huntington Beach Independent has been adjudged a newspaper of get CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH circulation in Huntington Belch and Orange County by Decree of the Sup NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Monday June 16 2008 at 6 00 p m in the City Council Court of Orange County State of California under date of Aug 24 1994 Chambers 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach the City Council will hold a public hearing A50479 on the following planning and zoning items I LOCALCOASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO 1 06(PARKSIDEESTATES7 Applicant City of Huntington Beach Re u st 1)To accept modifications to the Huntington Beach PROOFOF Local Coastal Program Coastal Element approved by the California Coastal Commission on May 7 2008 for LCPA No 1 06 2)To amend the City s Local Coastal Program Coastal PUBLICATIONElement to reflect the California Coastal Commissions modifications' Location The Parkside Estates project is proposed for 17301 Graham St (west side of Graham south of Kenilworth adjacent to the East Garden Grove Wintersburg Channel) The California Coastal Commission also approved modifications that have applicability to all properties STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) in the coastal zone Proilect Planner Mary Beth Broeren 1 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Item No 1 affects property located in the appealable SS jurisdiction of the Coastal Zone and includes a Local Coastal Program Amendment that has been approved by the California Coastal Commission The City Councils action on e COUNTY OF ORAN GE ) Item No 1 will be forwarded to the California Coastal Commission for Executive Director Determination am the Citizen of the United States and a NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the preparation and approval of Local Coastal Program Amendment No 1 06 is exempt from the requirements of CEQA pursuantAo Section resident of the County aforesaid I am over 210809 of CEQA and Sections 15251(f) and 15265 of Title 14 California Code of the age of eighteen years, and not a party Regulations In any event Local Coastal Program Amendment No 1 06 is covered by Environmental Impact Report No 97 2 certified by the City Council on October 21 2002 ? to or interested in the below entitled matter in accordance with CEQA requirements as well as the California Coastal Commissions am a principal clerk of the HUNTINGTON approval of the Local Coastal Program Coastal Element on November 314 200�7 pursuant } BEACH INDEPENDENT, a newspaper of to Section 21080 5 of CEQA general circulation ranted and published in ON FILE A copy of the proposed request is on file in the Planning Department 20QO Main I g p p Street Huntington Beach California 92648 for inspection by the publiieA�`A copy of the the City of Huntington Beach, County of staff report will be available to interested parties at the City Clerks Office on Thursday 0 12 208 Orange, State of California and the June e attached Notice is a true and complete co ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or p copy submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above If you challenge the City as was printed and published on the Councils action in court you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone date S else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence following � delivered to the City at or prior to the public hearing If there are any further questions please call the Planning Department at 536 5271 and refer to the above items rDirect your written communications to the City Clerk Joan L Flynn City Clerk City of Huntington Beach ` 2000 Main Street 2nd Floor Huntington Beach California 92648 714 36 5227 June 5, 2008 1 declare, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct Executed on June 6 2008 at Huntington Beach, California 4 Signature Citizen Communitations on Agenda Item D-2 LCPA 1 -06 6/ 16/08 Parkside Estates Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From Flynn Joan Sent Thursday June 05 2008 1 37 PM To sandygog lobe @yahoo com city clerk@surfcity hb org Cc Esparza Patty Subject RE YES on Parkside Estates LCP Amendment Sandy thank you for your correspondence Your email will be added to the file as part of the official record Joan Flynn City Clerk From sandygoglobe@yahoo com [mailto sandygoglobe@yahoo com] Sent Thursday, June 05, 2008 12 49 PM To city clerk@surfcity hb org Subject YES on Parkside Estates, LCP Amendment Dear Mayor Cook, I am writing to express my support of Shea Homes' Parkside Estates, and to strongly encourage a "YES" vote by City Council in support of the changes the California Coastal Commission made to Huntington Beach's Local Coastal Program at its hearing last November on Parkside Estates This is a very well planned project that provides great benefits for our city We will get the flood protection and water quality benefits we need so much,plus nearly half of the site will now be conservation open space and wetlands And because the amount of development was cut by the Commission, we will get all these benefits with less traffic and fewer new students in our schools Vote YES on June 161 Thank you Sandy Alonzo Huntington Beach, CA 92647 sandygoglobe@yahoo com CC Keith Bohr, Mayor Pro Tem Joe Carchio, Council Member Cathy Green, Council Member Don Hansen, Council Member Jill Hardy, Council Member Gil Coerper, Council Member Scott Hess, Director of Planning 6/5/2008 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From Flynn Joan Sent Thursday June 05 2008 1 42 PM To cbarsh@verizon net Cc Esparza Patty Subject RE YES on Parkside Estates LCP Amendment Thank you for your correspondence Your email will be added to the file as part of the official record Joan Flynn City Clerk From cbarsh@verizon net [mailto cbarsh@verizon net] Sent Thursday, June 05, 2008 1 25 PM To city clerk@surfcity hb org Subject YES on Parkside Estates, LCP Amendment Dear Mayor Cook, I am writing to express my support of Shea Homes' Parkside Estates, and to strongly encourage a "YES" vote by City Council in support of the changes the California Coastal Commission made to Huntington Beach's Local Coastal Program at its hearing last November on Parkside Estates This is a very well planned project that provides great benefits for our city We will get the flood protection and water quality benefits we need so much,plus nearly half of the site will now be conservation open space and wetlands And because the amount of development was cut by the Commission, we will get all these benefits with less traffic and fewer new students in our schools Vote YES on June 161 Thank you Chris Barsh huntington beach, ca 92647 cbarsh@verizon net 714-841-3953 CC Keith Bohr, Mayor Pro Tem Joe Carchio, Council Member Cathy Green, Council Member Don Hansen, Council Member Jill Hardy, Council Member Gil Coerper, Council Member Scott Hess, Director of Planning 6/5/2008 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From Flynn Joan Sent Friday June 06 2008 9 01 AM To bb@socal rr com Cc Esparza Patty Subject RE YES on Parkside Estates LCP Amendment Thank you for your correspondence Your email will be added to the file as part of the official record Joan Flynn City Clerk From bb@socal rr com [mailto bb@socal rr com] Sent Thursday, June 05, 2008 8 19 PM To city clerk@surfcity hb org Sub]ect YES on Parkside Estates, LCP Amendment Dear Mayor Cook, I am writing to express my support of Shea Homes' Parkside Estates, and to strongly encourage a "YES" vote by City Council in support of the changes the California Coastal Commission made to Huntington Beach's Local Coastal Program at its hearing last November on Parkside Estates This is a very well planned project that provides great benefits for our city We will get the flood protection and water quality benefits we need so much, plus nearly half of the site will now be conservation open space and wetlands And because the amount of development was cut by the Commission, we will get all these benefits with less traffic and fewer new students in our schools Vote YES on June 161 Thank you Bernard Bendow Huntington Beach, CA 92647 bb@socal rr com 7148477006 CC Keith Bohr, Mayor Pro Tern Joe Carchio, Council Member Cathy Green, Council Member Don Hansen, Council Member Jill Hardy, Council Member Gil Coerper, Council Member Scott Hess, Director of Planning 6/9/2008 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From Flynn Joan Sent Thursday June 05 2008 4 50 PM To robinrbowen@venzon net Cc Esparza Patty Subject RE YES on Parkside Estates LCP Amendment Thank you for your correspondence Your email will be added to the file as part of the official record Joan Flynn City Clerk From robmrbowen@verizon net [mailto robinrbowen@verizon net] Sent Thursday, June 05, 2008 1 47 PM To city clerk@surfcity hb org Subject YES on Parkside Estates, LCP Amendment Dear Mayor Cook, I am writing to express my support of Shea Homes' Parkside Estates, and to strongly encourage a "YES" vote by City Council in support of the changes the California Coastal Commission made to Huntington Beach's Local Coastal Program at its hearing last November on Parkside Estates This is a very well planned project that provides great benefits for our city We will get the flood protection and water quality benefits we need so much,plus nearly half of the site will now be conservation open space and wetlands And because the amount of development was cut by the Commission, we will get all these benefits with less traffic and fewer new students in our schools Vote YES on June 161 Thank you Robin Bowen Huntington Beach, CA 92647 robmrbowen@verizon net (714) 842-1519 CC Keith Bohr, Mayor Pro Tem Joe Carchio, Council Member Cathy Green, Council Member Don Hansen Council Member Jill Hardy, Council Member Gil Coerper, Council Member Scott Hess, Director of Planning 6/5/2008 Page 1 of 1 lEsparza, Patty From Flynn Joan Sent Monday June 09 2008 11 57 AM To gbuley@aol com Cc Esparza Patty Subject RE YES on Parkside Estates LCP Amendment Thank you for your correspondence Your email will be added to the file as part of the official record Joan Flynn City Clerk From gbuley@aol com [mailto gbuley@aol com] Sent Saturday, June 07, 2008 1 21 PM To city clerk@surfcity hb org Subject YES on Parkside Estates, LCP Amendment Dear Mayor Cook, I am writing to express my support of Shea Homes' Parkside Estates, and to strongly encourage a "YES" vote by City Council in support of the changes the California Coastal Commission made to Huntington Beach's Local Coastal Program at its hearing last November on Parkside Estates This is a very well planned project that provides great benefits for our city We will get the flood protection and water quality benefits we need so much,plus nearly half of the site will now be conservation open space and wetlands And because the amount of development was cut by the Commission, we will get all these benefits with less traffic and fewer new students in our schools Vote YES on June 161 Thank you Joe & Geri Buley Huntington Beach, CA 92649 gbuley@aol com 714-840-9764 CC Keith Bohr, Mayor Pro Tem Joe Carchio, Council Member Cathy Green, Council Member Don Hansen, Council Member Jill Hardy, Council Member Gil Coerper, Council Member Scott Hess, Director of Planning 6/9/2008 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From Flynn Joan Sent Friday June 06 2008 8 59 AM To kcallahan001 @socal rr com Cc Esparza Patty Subject RE YES on Parkside Estates LCP Amendment Thank you for your correspondence Your email will be added to the file as part of the official record Joan Flynn City Clerk From kcallahan001@socal rr com [mailto kcallahan001@socal rr com] Sent Friday, June 06, 2008 8 13 AM To city clerk@surfcity hb org Subject YES on Parkside Estates, LCP Amendment Dear Mayor Cook, I am writing to express my support of Shea Homes' Parkside Estates, and to strongly encourage a "YES" vote by City Council in support of the changes the California Coastal Commission made to Huntington Beach's Local Coastal Program at its hearing last November on Parkside Estates This is a very well planned project that provides great benefits for our city We will get the flood protection and water quality benefits we need so much, plus nearly half of the site will now be conservation open space and wetlands And because the amount of development was cut by the Commission, we will get all these benefits with less traffic and fewer new students in our schools Vote YES on June 161 Thank you Kathleen Callahan Huntington Beach, CA 92647 kcallahan001 @Local rr com 714-847 3071 CC Keith Bohr, Mayor Pro Tem. Joe Carchio, Council Member Cathy Green, Council Member Don Hansen, Council Member Jill Hardy, Council Member Gil Coerper, Council Member Scott Hess, Director of Planning 6/9/2008 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From Flynn Joan Sent Friday June 06 2008 9 01 AM To quevyngreen@msn com Cc Esparza Patty Subject RE YES on Parkside Estates LCP Amendment Thank you for your correspondence Your email will be added to the file as part of the official record Joan Flynn City Clerk From quevyngreen@msn com [mailto quevyngreen@msn com] Sent Thursday, June 05, 2008 8 56 PM To city clerk@surfcity-hb org Subject YES on Parkside Estates, LCP Amendment Dear Mayor Cook, I am writing to express my support of Shea Homes' Parkside Estates, and to strongly encourage a "YES" vote by City Council in support of the changes the California Coastal Commission made to Huntington Beach's Local Coastal Program at its hearing last November on Parkside Estates This is a very well planned project that provides great benefits for our city We will get the flood protection and water quality benefits we need so much, plus nearly half of the site will now be conservation open space and wetlands And because the amount of development was cut by the Commission, we will get all these benefits with less traffic and fewer new students in our schools Vote YES on June 161 Thank you Kevin Green Huntington Beach, CA 92647 quevyngreen@msn com (714) 8463649 CC Keith Bohr, Mayor Pro Tem Joe Carchio, Council Member Cathy Green, Council Member Don Hansen, Council Member Jill Hardy, Council Member Gil Coerper, Council Member Scott Hess, Director of Planning 6/9/2008 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From Flynn Joan Sent Thursday June 05 2008 143 PM To swballoons@verizon net Cc Esparza Patty Subject RE YES on Parkside Estates LCP Amendment Thank you for your correspondence Your email will be added to the file as part of the official record Joan Flynn City Clerk From swballoons@verizon net [mailto swballoons@verizon net] Sent Thursday, June 05, 2008 12 34 PM To city clerk@surfcity hb org Subject YES on Parkside Estates, LCP Amendment Dear Mayor Cook, I am writing to express my support of Shea Homes' Parkside Estates, and to strongly encourage a "YES" vote by City Council in support of the changes the California Coastal Commission made to Huntington Beach's Local Coastal Program at its hearing last November on Parkside Estates This is a very well planned project that provides great benefits for our city We will get the flood protection and water quality benefits we need so much, plus nearly half of the site will now be conservation open space and wetlands And because the amount of development was cut by the Commission, we will get all these benefits with less traffic and fewer new students in our schools Vote YES on June 161 Thank you Cheri Hoffman Hunt Bch , CA 92647 swballoons@verizon net CC Keith Bohr, Mayor Pro Tem Joe Carchio, Council Member Cathy Green, Council Member Don Hansen, Council Member Jill Hardy, Council Member Gil Coerper, Council Member Scott Hess, Director of Planning 6/5/2008 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From Flynn Joan Sent Friday June 06 2008 9 00 AM To timi143@venzon net Cc Esparza Patty Subject RE YES on Parkside Estates LCP Amendment Thank you for your correspondence Your email will be added to the file as part of the official record Joan Flynn City Clerk From timi143@verizon net [mailto timi143@verizon net] Sent Thursday, June 05, 2008 it 24 PM To city clerk@surfcity hb org Subject YES on Parkside Estates, LCP Amendment Dear Mayor Cook, I am writing to express my support of Shea Homes' Parkside Estates, and to strongly encourage a "YES" vote by City Council in support of the changes the California Coastal Commission made to Huntington Beach's Local Coastal Program at its hearing last November on Parkside Estates This is a very well planned project that provides great benefits for our city We will get the flood protection and water quality benefits we need so much, plus nearly half of the site will now be conservation open space and wetlands And because the amount of development was cut by the Commission, we will get all these benefits with less traffic and fewer new students in our schools Vote YES on June 161 Thank you Tim and Therese Imhoff Huntington Beach, CA 92647 time 143 @verizon net CC Keith Bohr, Mayor Pro Tem Joe Carchio Council Member Cathy Green, Council Member Don Hansen, Council Member Jill Hardy, Council Member Gil Coerper, Council Member Scott Hess, Director of Planning 6/9/2008 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Pafty From Flynn Joan Sent Monday June 09 2008 11 36 AM To grammakamp@verizon net Cc Esparza Patty Subject RE YES on Parkside Estates LCP Amendment Thank you for your correspondence Your email will be added to the file as part of the official record Joan Flynn City Clerk From grammakamp@verizon net [mailto grammakamp@verizon net] Sent Friday, June 06, 2008 7 06 PM To city clerk@surfcity hb org Sub]ect YES on Parkside Estates, LCP Amendment Dear Mayor Cook, I am writing to express my support of Shea Homes' Parkside Estates, and to strongly encourage a "YES" vote by City Council in support of the changes the California Coastal Commission made to Huntington Beach's Local Coastal Program at its hearing last November on Parkside Estates This is a very well planned project that provides great benefits for our city We will get the flood protection and water quality benefits we need so much, plus nearly half of the site will now be conservation open space and wetlands And because the amount of development was cut by the Commission, we will get all these benefits with less traffic and fewer new students in our schools Vote YES on June 161 Thank you Virginia Kamp Huntington Beach, Ca 92647 grammakamp@verizon net N/A CC Keith Bohr, Mayor Pro Tem Joe Carchio, Council Member Cathy Green, Council Member Don Hansen, Council Member Jill Hardy, Council Member Gil Coerper, Council Member Scott Hess, Director of Planning 6/9/2008 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From Flynn Joan Sent Monday June 09 2008 11 57 AM To vkoble@verizon net Cc Esparza Patty Subject RE YES on Parkside Estates LCP Amendment Thank you for your correspondence Your email will be added to the file as part of the official record Joan Flynn City Clerk From vkoble@verizon net [mailto vkoble@verizon net] Sent Saturday, June 07, 2008 8 57 PM To city clerk@surfaty hb org Subject YES on Parkside Estates, LCP Amendment Dear Mayor Cook, I am writing to express my support of Shea Homes' Parkside Estates, and to strongly encourage a "YES" vote by City Council in support of the changes the California Coastal Commission made to Huntington Beach's Local Coastal Program at its hearing last November on Parkside Estates This is a very well planned project that provides great benefits for our city We will get the flood protection and water quality benefits we need so much,plus nearly half of the site will now be conservation open space and wetlands And because the amount of development was cut by the Commission, we will get all these benefits with less traffic and fewer new students in our schools Vote YES on June 161 Thank you Vanessa Koble Huntington Beach, CA 92647 vkoble@verizon net CC Keith Bohr, Mayor Pro Tem. Joe Carchio, Council Member Cathy Green, Council Member Don Hansen, Council Member Jill Hardy, Council Member Gil Coerper, Council Member Scott Hess, Director of Planning 6/9/2008 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From Flynn Joan Sent Monday June 09 2008 5 46 PM To flyinlion@socal rr com Cc Esparza Patty Subject RE YES on Parkside Estates LCP Amendment Thank you for your correspondence Your email will be added to the file as part of the official record Joan Flynn City Clerk From flyinlion@socal rr com [mailto flyinlion@socal rr com] Sent Monday, June 09, 2008 4 38 PM To city clerk@surfcity-hb org Subject YES on Parkside Estates, LCP Amendment Dear Mayor Cook, I am writing to express my support of Shea Homes' Parkside Estates, and to strongly encourage a "YES" vote by City Council in support of the changes the California Coastal Commission made to Huntington Beach's Local Coastal Program at its hearing last November on Parkside Estates This is a very well planned project that provides great benefits for our city We will get the flood protection and water quality benefits we need so much, plus nearly half of the site will now be conservation open space and wetlands And because the amount of development was cut by the Commission, we will get all these benefits with less traffic and fewer new students in our schools Vote YES on June 161 Thank you Charles Leech Huntington Beach, CA 92647-5629 flymlion@socal rr com CC Keith Bohr, Mayor Pro Tem Joe Carchio, Council Member Cathy Green, Council Member Don Hansen, Council Member Jill Hardy, Council Member Gil Coerper, Council Member Scott Hess, Director of Planning 6/10/2008 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From Flynn Joan Sent Friday June 06 2008 9 01 AM To mlewis2005@msn com Cc Esparza Patty Subject RE YES on Parkside Estates LCP Amendment Thank you for your correspondence Your email will be added to the file as part of the official record Joan Flynn City Clerk From mlewis2005@msn com [mailto mlewis2005@msn com] Sent Thursday, June 05, 2008 6 10 PM To city clerk@surfcity hb org Subject YES on Parkside Estates, LCP Amendment Dear Mayor Cook, I am writing to express my support of Shea Homes' Parkside Estates, and to strongly encourage a "YES" vote by City Council in support of the changes the Califorma Coastal Commission made to Huntington Beach's Local Coastal Program at its hearing last November on Parkside Estates This is a very well planned project that provides great benefits for our city We will get the flood protection and water quality benefits we need so much, plus nearly half of the site will now be conservation open space and wetlands And because the amount of development was cut by the Commission, we will get all these benefits with less traffic and fewer new students in our schools Vote YES on June 161 Thank you Maya Lewis Huntington Beach, CA 92649 mlewis2005@msn com 714-377-7629 CC Keith Bohr, Mayor Pro Tem Joe Carchio Council Member Cathy Green, Council Member Don Hansen, Council Member Jill Hardy, Council Member Gil Coerper Council Member Scott Hess, Director of Planning 6/9/2008 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From Flynn Joan Sent Monday June 09 2008 11 58 AM To saylorcat22@hotmail com Cc Esparza Patty Subject RE YES on Parkside Estates LCP Amendment Thank you for your correspondence Your email will be added to the file as part of the official record Joan Flynn City Clerk From saylorcat22@hotmail com [mailto saylorcat22@hotmail com] Sent Sunday, June 08, 2008 7 27 PM To city clerk@surfcity hb org Subject YES on Parkside Estates, LCP Amendment Dear Mayor Cook, I am writing to express my support of Shea Homes' Parkside Estates, and to strongly encourage a "YES" vote by City Council in support of the changes the California Coastal Commission made to Huntington Beach's Local Coastal Program at its hearing last November on Parkside Estates This is a very well planned project that provides great benefits for our city We will get the flood protection and water quality benefits we need so much, plus nearly half of the site will now be conservation open space and wetlands And because the amount of development was cut by the Commission, we will get all these benefits with less traffic and fewer new students in our schools Vote YES on June 161 Thank you Frederick Marsh Huntington Beach, ca 92647 saylorcat22@hotmail com CC Keith Bohr, Mayor Pro Tem Joe Carchio, Council Member Cathy Green, Council Member Don Hansen, Council Member Jill Hardy, Council Member Gil Coerper, Council Member Scott Hess, Director of Planning 6/9/2008 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From Flynn Joan Sent Thursday June 05 2008451 PM To mirtleman@yahoo com Cc Esparza Patty Subject RE YES on Parkside Estates LCP Amendment Thank you for your correspondence Your email will be added to the file as part of the official record Joan Flynn City Clerk From mirtleman@yahoo com [mailto mirtleman@yahoo com] Sent Thursday, June 05, 2008 1 52 PM To city clerk@surfcity hb org Subject YES on Parkside Estates, LCP Amendment Dear Mayor Cook, I am writing to express my support of Shea Homes' Parkside Estates, and to strongly encourage a "YES" vote by City Council in support of the changes the California Coastal Commission made to Huntington Beach's Local Coastal Program at its hearing last November on Parkside Estates This is a very well planned project that provides great benefits for our city We will get the flood protection and water quality benefits we need so much, plus nearly half of the site will now be conservation open space and wetlands And because the amount of development was cut by the Commission, we will get all these benefits with less traffic and fewer new students in our schools Vote YES on June 161 Thank you Scott Mirtle Huntington Beach, ca 92646 mirtleman@yahoo com 714-964-5340 CC Keith Bohr, Mayor Pro Tem Joe Carchio, Council Member Cathy Green, Council Member Don Hansen, Council Member Jill Hardy, Council Member Gil Coerper, Council Member Scott Hess, Director of Planning 6/5/2008 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From Flynn Joan Sent Friday June 06 2008 9 00 AM To sdmuntz@yahoo com Cc Esparza Patty Subject RE YES on Parkside Estates LCP Amendment Thank you for your correspondence Your email will be added to the file as part of the official record Joan Flynn City Clerk From sdmuntz@yahoo com [mailto sdmuntz@yahoo com] Sent Thursday, June 05, 2008 1132 PM To city clerk@surfcity hb org Subject YES on Parkside Estates, LCP Amendment DearA Mayor Cook, I am writing to express my support of Shea Homes' Parkside Estates, and to strongly encourage a "YES" vote by City Council in support of the changes the California Coastal Commission made to Huntington Beach's Local Coastal Program at its hearing last November on Parkside Estates This is a very well planned project that provides great benefits for our city We will get the flood protection and water quality benefits we need so much,plus nearly half of the site will now be conservation open space and wetlands And because the amount of development was cut by the Commission we will get all these benefits with less traffic and fewer new students in our schools Vote YES on June 161 Thank you SeanA Muntz Huntington Beach,A A CAA A A A 92647 sdmuntz@yahoo com 714 840-5990 CC Keith Bohr, Mayor Pro Tem Joe Carchio, Council Member Cathy Green, Council Member Don Hansen Council Member Jill Hardy, Council Member Gil Coerper, Council Member Scott Hess, Director of Planning 6/9/2008 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From Flynn Joan Sent Thursday June 05 2008 1 42 PM To canhng2004@yahoo com Cc Esparza Patty Subject RE YES on Parkside Estates LCP Amendment Thank you for your correspondence Your email will be added to the file as part of the official record Joan Flynn City Clerk From canhng2004@yahoo com [mailto canhng2004@yahoo com] Sent Thursday, June 05, 2008 1 20 PM To city clerk@surfcity hb org Sub]ect YES on Parkside Estates, LCP Amendment Dear Mayor Cook, I am writing to express my support of Shea Homes' Parkside Estates, and to strongly encourage a "YES" vote by City Council in support of the changes the California Coastal Commission made to Huntington Beach's Local Coastal Program at its hearing last November on Parkside Estates This is a very well planned project that provides great benefits for our city We will get the flood protection and water quality benefits we need so much, plus nearly half of the site will now be conservation open space and wetlands And because the amount of development was cut by the Commission, we will get all these benefits with less traffic and fewer new students in our schools Vote YES on June 161 Thank you Vivian Nguyen Huntington Beach, CA 92648 canhng2004@yahoo com CC Keith Bohr, Mayor Pro Tem Joe Carchio, Council Member Cathy Green, Council Member Don Hansen, Council Member Jill Hardy, Council Member Gil Coerper, Council Member Scott Hess, Director of Planning 6/5/2008 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From Flynn Joan Sent Thursday June 05 2008 1 42 PM To ogilviesQuno corn Cc Esparza Patty Subject RE YES on Parkside Estates LCP Amendment Thank you for your correspondence Your email will be added to the file as part of the official record Joan Flynn City Clerk From ogilvies@Juno corn [mailto ogilvies@Juno com] Sent Thursday, June 05, 2008 12 37 PM To city clerk@surfcity hb org Subject YES on Parkside Estates, LCP Amendment Dear Mayor Cook, I am writing to express my support of Shea Homes' Parkside Estates, and to strongly encourage a "YES" vote by City Council in support of the changes the California Coastal Commission made to Huntington Beach's Local Coastal Program at its hearing last November on Parkside Estates This is a very well planned project that provides great benefits for our city We will get the flood protection and water quality benefits we need so much, plus nearly half of the site will now be conservation open space and wetlands And because the amount of development was cut by the Commission, we will get all these benefits with less traffic and fewer new students in our schools Vote YES on June 161 Thank you Eugenie Ogilvie Huntington Beach, CA 92647 ogilvies@Juno com 714-375-1472 CC Keith Bohr, Mayor Pro Tem Joe Carchio, Council Member Cathy Green, Council Member Don Hansen, Council Member Jill Hardy, Council Member Gil Coerper, Council Member Scott Hess, Director of Planning 6/5/2008 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From Flynn Joan Sent Thursday June 05 2008 1 43 PM To ogilviesQuno com Cc Esparza Patty Subject RE YES on Parkside Estates LCP Amendment Thank you for your correspondence Your email will be added to the file as part of the official record Joan Flynn City Clerk From ogilvies@Juno com [mailto ogilvies@Juno com] Sent Thursday, June 05, 2008 12 35 PM To city clerk@surfcity hb org Subject YES on Parkside Estates, LCP Amendment Dear Mayor Cook, I am writing to express my support of Shea Homes' Parkside Estates, and to strongly encourage a"YES" vote by City Council in support of the changes the California Coastal Commission made to Huntington Beach's Local Coastal Program at its hearing last November on Parkside Estates This is a very well planned project that provides great benefits for our city We will get the flood protection and water quality benefits we need so much, plus nearly half of the site will now be conservation open space and wetlands And because the amount of development was cut by the Commission, we will get all these benefits with less traffic and fewer new students in our schools Vote YES on June 161 Thank you Stuart Ogilvie Huntington Beach, CA 92647 ogilvies@juno com 714-375-1472 CC Keith Bohr, Mayor Pro Tern Joe Carchio, Council Member Cathy Green, Council Member Don Hansen, Council Member Jill Hardy, Council Member Gil Coerper, Council Member Scott Hess, Director of Planning 6/5/2008 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From Flynn Joan Sent Thursday June 05 2008 1 43 PM To dave@toolalliance com Cc Esparza Patty Subject RE YES on Parkside Estates LCP Amendment Thank you for your correspondence Your email will be added to the file as part of the official record Joan Flynn City Clerk From dave@toolalliance com [mailto dave@toolalliance com] Sent Thursday, June 05, 2008 12 37 PM To city clerk@surfcity hb org Subject YES on Parkside Estates, LCP Amendment DearA Mayor Cook, I am writing to express my support of Shea Homes' Parkside Estates, and to strongly encourage a "YES" vote by City Council in support of the changes the California Coastal Commission made to Huntington Beach's Local Coastal Program at its hearing last November on Parkside Estates This is a very well planned project that provides great benefits for our city We will get the flood protection and water quality benefits we need so much, plus nearly half of the site will now be conservation open space and wetlands And because the amount of development was cut by the Commission, we will get all these benefits with less traffic and fewer new students in our schools Vote YES on June 161 Thank you DavidA Povich Huntington Beach,A A CAA A AA 92649 dave@toolalliance com 714 898-9224 CC Keith Bohr, Mayor Pro Tem Joe Carchio, Council Member Cathy Green, Council Member Don Hansen, Council Member Jill Hardy, Council Member Gil Coerper, Council Member Scott Hess, Director of Planning 6/5/2008 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From Flynn Joan Sent Thursday June 05 2008 4 50 PM To cawendl@corecon com Cc Esparza Patty Subject RE YES on Parkside Estates LCP Amendment Thank you for your correspondence Your email will be added to the file as part of the official record Joan Flynn City Clerk From cawendl@corecon com [mailto cawendl@corecon com] Sent Thursday, June 05, 2008 3 09 PM To city clerk@surfcity hb org Subject YES on Parkside Estates, LCP Amendment Dear Mayor Cook, I am writing to express my support of Shea Homes' Parkside Estates, and to strongly encourage a "YES" vote by City Council in support of the changes the California Coastal Commission made to Huntington Beach's Local Coastal Program at its hearing last November on Parkside Estates This is a very well planned project that provides great benefits for our city We will get the flood protection and water quality benefits we need so much, plus nearly half of the site will now be conservation open space and wetlands And because the amount of development was cut by the Commission, we will get all these benefits with less traffic and fewer new students in our schools Vote YES on June 161 Thank you Christine Wendl Huntington Beach, CA 92647 cawendl@corecon com CC Keith Bohr, Mayor Pro Tem Joe Carchio, Council Member Cathy Green, Council Member Don Hansen, Council Member Jill Hardy, Council Member Gil Coerper, Council Member Scott Hess, Director of Planning 6/5/2008 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From Flynn Joan Sent Thursday June 05 2008 6 05 PM To wholr@verizon net Cc Esparza Patty Subject RE YES on Parkside Estates LCP Amendment Thank you for your correspondence Your email will be added to the file as part of the official record Joan Flynn City Clerk From wholr@verizon net [mailto wholr@verizon net] Sent Thursday, June 05, 2008 5 09 PM To city clerk@surfcity hb org Subject YES on Parkside Estates, LCP Amendment Dear Mayor Cook I am writing to express my support of Shea Homes' Parkside Estates, and to strongly encourage a "YES" vote by City Council in support of the changes the California Coastal Commission made to Huntington Beach's Local Coastal Program at its hearing last November on Parkside Estates This is a very well planned project that provides great benefits for our city We will get the flood protection and water quality benefits we need so much, plus nearly half of the site will now be conservation open space and wetlands And because the amount of development was cut by the Commission, we will get all these benefits with less traffic and fewer new students in our schools Vote YES on June 161 Thank you William Oram Huntington Beach, Ca 92647 whojr@verizon net 714-848-8554 CC Keith Bohr, Mayor Pro Tem Joe Carchio, Council Member Cathy Green, Council Member Don Hansen, Council Member Jill Hardy, Council Member Gil Coerper, Council Member Scott Hess, Director of Planning 6/9/2008 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From Flynn Joan Sent Monday June 09 2008 11 57 AM To adamrodell@aol com Cc Esparza Patty Subject RE YES on Parkside Estates LCP Amendment Thank you for your correspondence Your email will be added to the file as part of the official record Joan Flynn City Clerk From adamrodell@aol com [mailto adamrodell@aol com] Sent Saturday, June 07, 2008 10 06 PM To city clerk@surfcity hb org Sub'ect YES on Parkside Estates, LCP Amendment Dear Mayor Cook, I am writing to express my support of Shea Homes' Parkside Estates, and to strongly encourage a "YES" vote by City Council in support of the changes the California Coastal Commission made to Huntington Beach's Local Coastal Program at its hearing last November on Parkside Estates This is a very well planned project that provides great benefits for our city We will get the flood protection and water quality benefits we need so much, plus nearly half of the site will now be conservation open space and wetlands And because the amount of development was cut by the Commission, we will get all these benefits with less traffic and fewer new students in our schools Vote YES on June 161 Thank you Adam Rodell Huntington Beach, CA 92647 adamrodell@aol com CC Keith Bohr, Mayor Pro Tem Joe Carchio, Council Member Cathy Green, Council Member Don Hansen, Council Member Jill Hardy, Council Member Gil Coerper, Council Member Scott Hess, Director of Planning 6/9/2008 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From Flynn Joan Sent Tuesday June 10 2008 10 31 AM To christinerodell@earthlink net Cc Esparza Patty Subject RE YES on Parkside Estates LCP Amendment Thank you for your correspondence Your email will be added to the file as part of the official record Joan Flynn City Clerk From christinerodell@earthlink net [mailto christinerodell@earthlink net] Sent Monday, June 09, 2008 7 50 PM To city clerk@surfcity hb org Subject YES on Parkside Estates, LCP Amendment Dear Mayor Cook, I am writing to express my support of Shea Homes' Parkside Estates, and to strongly encourage a"YES" vote by City Council in support of the changes the California Coastal Commission made to Huntington Beach's Local Coastal Program at its hearing last November on Parkside Estates This is a very well planned project that provides great benefits for our city We will get the flood protection and water quality benefits we need so much plus neatly half of the site will now be conservation open space and wetlands And because the amount of development was cut by the Commission we will get all these benefits with less traffic and fewer new students in our schools Vote YES on June 161 Thank you Christine Rodell Huntington Beach, CA 92647 christinerodell@earthhnk net (714) 747 3069 CC Keith Bohr, Mayor Pro Tem Joe Carchio Council Member Cathy Green Council Member Don Hansen Council Member Jill Hardy Council Member Gil Coerper, Council Member Scott Hess Director of Planning 6/10/2008 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From Flynn Joan Sent Monday June 09 2008 11 59 AM To rsaitman@socal rr com Cc Esparza Patty Subject RE YES on Parkside Estates LCP Amendment Thank you for your correspondence Your email will be added to the file as part of the official record Joan Flynn City Clerk From rsaitman@socal rr com [mailto rsaitman@socal rr com] Sent Monday, June 09, 2008 8 18 AM To city clerk@surfcity hb org Subject YES on Parkside Estates, LCP Amendment Dear Mayor Cook, I am writing to express my support of Shea Homes' Parkside Estates, and to strongly encourage a "YES" vote by City Council in support of the changes the California Coastal Commission made to Huntington Beach's Local Coastal Program at its hearing last November on Parkside Estates This is a very well planned project that provides great benefits for our city We will get the flood protection and water quality benefits we need so much, plus nearly half of the site will now be conservation open space and wetlands And because the amount of development was cut by the Commission, we will get all these benefits with less traffic and fewer new students in our schools Vote YES on June 161 Thank you Robert Saitman Huntington Beach, Ca 92647 rsaitman@socal rr com CC Keith Bohr, Mayor Pro Tem Joe Carchio, Council Member Cathy Green, Council Member Don Hansen, Council Member Jill Hardy, Council Member Gil Coerper, Council Member Scott Hess, Director of Planning 6/9/2008 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From Flynn Joan Sent Monday June 09 2008 11 58 AM To Idsavage11@yahoo com Cc Esparza Patty Subject RE YES on Parkside Estates LCP Amendment Thank you for your correspondence Your email will be added to the file as part of the official record Joan Flynn City Clerk From Idsavagell@yahoo com [mailto Idsavagell@yahoo com] Sent Sunday, June 08, 2008 4 12 PM To city clerk@surfcity hb org Subject YES on Parkside Estates, LCP Amendment Dear Mayor Cook, I am writing to express my support of Shea Homes' Parkside Estates, and to strongly encourage a "YES" vote by City Council in support of the changes the California Coastal Commission made to Huntington Beach's Local Coastal Program at its hearing last November on Parkside Estates This is a very well planned project that provides great benefits for our city We will get the flood protection and water quality benefits we need so much, plus nearly half of the site will now be conservation open space and wetlands And because the amount of development was cut by the Commission, we will get all these benefits with less traffic and fewer new students in our schools Vote YES on June 161 Thank you Lisa Savage Huntington Beach, CA 92647 ldsavage 11 @yahoo com CC Keith Bohr, Mayor Pro Tem Joe Carchio, Council Member Cathy Green, Council Member Don Hansen, Council Member Jill Hardy, Council Member Gil Coerper, Council Member Scott Hess, Director of Planning 6/9/2008 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From Flynn Joan Sent Monday June 09 2008 11 58 AM To tandj56@verizon net Cc Esparza Patty Subject RE YES on Parkside Estates LCP Amendment Thank you for your correspondence Your email will be added to the file as part of the official record Joan Flynn City Clerk From tandj56@verizon net [mailto tand]56@verizon net] Sent Sunday, June 08, 2008 10 02 AM To city clerk@surfcity hb org Subject YES on Parkside Estates, LCP Amendment Dear Mayor Cook, I am writing to express my support of Shea Homes' Parkside Estates, and to strongly encourage a"YES" vote by City Council in support of the changes the California Coastal Commission made to Huntington Beach's Local Coastal Program at its hearing last November on Parkside Estates This is a very well planned project that provides great benefits for our city We will get the flood protection and water quality benefits we need so much, plus nearly half of the site will now be conservation open space and wetlands And because the amount of development was cut by the Commission, we will get all these benefits with less traffic and fewer new students in our schools Vote YES on June 161 Thank you Timothy Storer Huntington Beach, CA 92647 tandj56@verizon net 714-841-6193 CC Keith Bohr, Mayor Pro Tern Joe Carchio, Council Member Cathy Green, Council Member Don Hansen, Council Member Jill Hardy, Council Member Gil Coerper, Council Member Scott Hess, Director of Planning 6/9/2008 Page I of 1 Esparza, Patty From Flynn Joan Sent Thursday June 05 2008451 PM To jvognn@socal rr com Cc Esparza Patty Subject RE YES on Parkside Estates LCP Amendment Thank you for your correspondence Your email will be added to the file as part of the official record Joan Flynn City Clerk From ]vogrin@local rr com [mailto jvogrin@socal rr com] Sent Thursday, June 05, 2008 1 41 PM To city clerk@surfcity hb org Subject YES on Parkside Estates, LCP Amendment Dear Mayor Cook, I am writing to express my support of Shea Homes' Parkside Estates, and to strongly encourage a "YES" vote by City Council in support of the changes the California Coastal Commission made to Huntington Beach's Local Coastal Program at its hearing last November on Parkside Estates This is a very well planned project that provides great benefits for our city We will get the flood protection and water quality benefits we need so much, plus nearly half of the site will now be conservation open space and wetlands And because the amount of development was cut by the Commission, we will get all these benefits with less traffic and fewer new students in our schools Vote YES on June 161 Thank you Joseph Vogrin Huntington Beach, CA 92647 jvogrin@socal rr com 714-846-6713 CC Keith Bohr, Mayor Pro Tern Joe Carchio, Council Member Cathy Green, Council Member Don Hansen, Council Member Jill Hardy, Council Member Gil Coerper, Council Member Scott Hess, Director of Planning 6/5/2008 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From Flynn Joan Sent Thursday June 05 2008451 PM To nik other2@venzon net Cc Esparza Patty Subject RE YES on Parkside Estates LCP Amendment Thank you for your correspondence Your email will be added to the file as part of the official record Joan Flynn City Clerk From nik other2@verizon net [mailto nik other2@verizon net] Sent Thursday, June 05, 2008 2 08 PM To city clerk@surfcity-hb org Subjlect YES on Parkside Estates, LCP Amendment Dear Mayor Cook, I am writing to express my support of Shea Homes' Parkside Estates, and to strongly encourage a "YES" vote by City Council in support of the changes the California Coastal Commission made to Huntington Beach's Local Coastal Program at its hearing last November on Parkside Estates This is a very well planned project that provides great benefits for our city We will get the flood protection and water quality benefits we need so much, plus nearly half of the site will now be conservation open space and wetlands And because the amount of development was cut by the Commission, we will get all these benefits with less traffic and fewer new students in our schools Vote YES on June 16f Thank you nik von gundell huntmgton beach, ca 92647 nik other2@verizon net CC Keith Bohr, Mayor Pro Tem Joe Carchio, Council Member Cathy Green, Council Member Don Hansen, Council Member Jill Hardy Council Member Gil Coerper, Council Member Scott Hess, Director of Planning 6/5/2008 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Pafty From Flynn Joan Sent Monday June 09 2008 5 47 PM To cweiner@coopervision com Cc Esparza Patty Subject RE YES on Parkside Estates LCP Amendment Thank you for your correspondence Your email will be added to the file as part of the official record Joan Flynn City Clerk From cweiner@coopervision com [madto cweiner@coopervision com] Sent Monday, June 09, 2008 5 03 PM To city clerk@surfcity hb org Subject YES on Parkside Estates, LCP Amendment Dear Mayor Cook, I am writing to express my support of Shea Homes' Parkside Estates, and to strongly encourage a "YES" vote by City Council in support of the changes the California Coastal Commission made to Huntington Beach's Local Coastal Program at its hearing last November on Parkside Estates This is a very well planned project that provides great benefits for our city We will get the flood protection and water quality benefits we need so much,plus nearly half of the site will now be conservation open space and wetlands And because the amount of development was cut by the Commission, we will get all these benefits with less traffic and fewer new students in our schools Vote YES on June 161 Thank you Carole Weiner Huntington Beach, CA, CA 92647 cweiner@coopervision com CC Keith Bohr, Mayor Pro Tem Joe Carchio, Council Member Cathy Green, Council Member Don Hansen, Council Member Jill Hardy, Council Member Gil Coerper, Council Member Scott Hess, Director of Planning 6/10/2008 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From Flynn Joan Sent Monday June 09 2008 11 58 AM To davidr white@verizon net Cc Esparza Patty Subject RE YES on Parkside Estates LCP Amendment Thank you for your correspondence Your email will be added to the file as part of the official record Joan Flynn City Clerk From davidr white@verizon net [mailto davidr white@verizon net] Sent Sunday, June 08, 2008 4 47 PM To city clerk@surfcity hb org Subject YES on Parkside Estates, LCP Amendment Dear Mayor Cook, I am writing to express my support of Shea Homes' Parkside Estates, and to strongly encourage a "YES" vote by City Council in support of the changes the California Coastal Commission made to Huntington Beach's Local Coastal Program at its hearing last November on Parkside Estates This is a very well planned project that provides great benefits for our city We will get the flood protection and water quality benefits we need so much, plus nearly half of the site will now be conservation open space and wetlands And because the amount of development was cut by the Commission, we will get all these benefits with less traffic and fewer new students in our schools Vote YES on June 161 Thank you DAVID WHITE Huntington Beach, CA 92547 davidr white@verizon net 714-305-2593 CC Keith Bohr, Mayor Pro Tem Joe Carchio, Council Member Cathy Green, Council Member Don Hansen Council Member Jill Hardy, Council Member Gil Coerper, Council Member Scott Hess, Director of Planning 6/9/2008 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From Flynn Joan Sent Friday June 06 2008 9 00 AM To jim@lemoncarhelp corn Cc Esparza Patty Subject RE YES on Parkside Estates LCP Amendment Thank you for your correspondence Your email will be added to the file as part of the official record Joan Flynn City Clerk From Jim@lemoncarhelp com [mailto Jim@lemoncarhelp com] Sent Thursday, June 05, 2008 9 28 PM To city clerk@surfcity hb org Subject YES on Parkside Estates, LCP Amendment Dear Mayor Cook, I am writing to express my support of Shea Homes' Parkside Estates, and to strongly encourage a"YES" vote by City Council in support of the changes the California Coastal Commission made to Huntington Beach's Local Coastal Program at its hearing last November on Parkside Estates This is a very well planned project that provides great benefits for our city We will get the flood protection and water quality benefits we need so much, plus nearly half of the site will now be conservation open space and wetlands And because the amount of development was cut by the Commission, we will get all these benefits with less traffic and fewer new students in our schools Vote YES on June 161 Thank you Jim Whitworth Huntington Beach , ca 92647 Jim@lemoncarhelp com 714-375-0488 CC Keith Bohr, Mayor Pro Tem Joe Carchio, Council Member Cathy Green, Council Member Don Hansen Council Member Jill Hardy, Council Member Gil Coerper, Council Member Scott Hess, Director of Planning 6/9/2008 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From Flynn Joan Sent Friday June 06 2008 9 00 AM To donna@cga net Cc Esparza Patty Subject RE YES on Parkside Estates LCP Amendment Thank you for your correspondence Your email will be added to the file as part of the official record Joan Flynn City Clerk From donna@cga net [mailto donna@cga net] Sent Thursday, June 05, 2008 9 48 PM To city clerk@surfcity hb org Subject YES on Parkside Estates, LCP Amendment Dear Mayor Cook, I am writing to express my support of Shea Homes' Parkside Estates, and to strongly encourage a "YES" vote by City Council in support of the changes the California Coastal Commission made to Huntington Beach's Local Coastal Program at its hearing last November on Parkside Estates This is a very well planned project that provides great benefits for our city We will get the flood protection and water quality benefits we need so much, plus nearly half of the site will now be conservation open space and wetlands And because the amount of development was cut by the Commission, we will get all these benefits with less traffic and fewer new students in our schools Vote YES on June 161 Thank you Donna Witteborn Huntington Beach, Ca 92647 donna@cga net CC Keith Bohr, Mayor Pro Tem. Joe Carchio, Council Member Cathy Green, Council Member Don Hansen, Council Member Jill Hardy, Council Member Gil Coerper, Council Member Scott Hess, Director of Planning 6/9/2008 3 Yr r i r a i h- eit,�, f, Iv �n t' ,�.- ; �" 4",.�'" �' ^ �` ti�+�*a �•, i;}✓r � �WSP' a^ ��71 y3�6 ,� ", ��.,° �, ?Y Sz s�r�„.. A_,:.`�.Y to y�'fi.�.. tk �_. X' h ".r f Y_ �" �4 .z, .- �`Y 3�'� �• r �- r1�' °§ s,�",,�s, a-�•x � — '�; �" ,;rr :ram` �� v ��.Y�+ •, `;�ti� "'�' ye" � 's��` +� sr 't" akk MY �. fix.£is a a'r�� •��# �� '� Ir4 j:�R 41 .a s+y .,,.ak.` fad 4.,r - � S fr °8 >c" x� -+�s,�'•,,:. .�d,. �s,r�'+ �. ,,.� -� - �� 8 ,y � ����1.-,� y � - "'�.. '` " � �'s~v �-� ,.d'' � `t'� ,4. -Y, •ru,-•�3Lj �v�• 7"'� r# 4 5 ,� �i a t's~c.; 'fit�'F{ � � � ' F S li+d.�� � s xt'�:.` �q � Y k R ,i•.. A•�' S'� ,4' .2`�' E �ry E - i"�} fig y � E '�.t�` d . �u",r 1 Pia !r"s' _ �c ',3 '�,r " 4,•y,>�a'k.' i � � � ��w, �ate,..y ° d 1�... � .kc '�� � � -.k �" .< ^ �i �x" Aga s �'� -s "�,'"'` •s�a 'sS � . etdM 'fia ' • Purpose of City ' s LCPA ReAew ❑ Accept Coastal Commission's suggested modifications to the Land Use Plan portion of the Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program Other permits to follow LCPA certification: [a Revised Tentative Tract Map o Revised Conditional Use Permit Coasta � Comm '� ss'Mn Approva � Process ( 2002 = 2008 ) 20+ meetings with Coastal and City staff Lr Multiple Coastal Commission public hearings 0 30+ scientific studies evaluated u Wetlands E3 Raptors u ESHA 13 Groundwater L3 Hydrology E3 Seismic El "Normal farming practices" Comrniss � on . No 4 .ol o Mifigation 711 s t " 1 � M , Dillingham. Flo wetland vegetation mapped � M , Shapiro- H@ wetland vegetation mapped � 98 � , CDFG 6 H(M presently functioning as a wetland" � g o 7, Sanders: "Uplands nod wetlands," but adopted Bilhorn � 987, Bilhorn. EPA area only a "candidate" for A04 status � 9891 EPA: EPA a wetland based on its now-ffs'aded 7-day standard � M , Sanders "H@ wetland functions or values" � 992, Corps: H@ farmed wetlands � 9971 Hovore [Mod even 66remnant wetland resources" � 997, Kegarice Flo wetlands � 998, NRCS H@ farmed wetlands � 998, CDFG- "Does nod meet wetland criteria" 1 2006, GLA. Flo wetlands k 2006, Dixon- wetland map did nW include EPA wetland Benef o s to City V� � o �J'J a a �2 i o A CASvU' DQ[� 9�3 @ 94 C�6a��o� V aW 41 3 7 acres OS-C 23 aCpG?z 05-C (0ndudung 06- agVe pazzu 00 ee pup[ ) u 8 4 acres OS-P -j � A -ucvs uduea park ('On RQ Lj 0 4 acre wetland preserved a 3.3 ac Tes WAUndz Levee repair/enhancement -j Levee repair/enhancement * Tidal flood protection barrier tj Tidal flood protection barrier Lj Enlarged storm drains --a Enlarged storm drains Two new Slater pumps -j Two new Slater pumps Li New sewer lift station & force main j New sewer lift station & force main Lj Bike/pedestrian trails, overlook j Bike/pedestrian trails, overlook a New traffic signal -j New traffic signal Graham St restriping � Graham St restriping ii Mechanical water treatment -1 HU�UTUO VTCaa�man[ 5YOOM i I � x ` a. � �� '�� •�� � {�, I�r � �� � nt '"�RPe 6r r ..•{ 1� "Aw"'�'2 eh s� to"' i.� 1 Y a"�,� =i R� � � £k - r Y Pu � :!♦ � � +.�; i l � }n����s:I r� � � ��r'�� �t f�< ���•t trR r� }'[lam � '�� �` r§ !'}�'�v r 7 `� •� R � i (f .� �al€}' ff.c �r rr �nr�}� �=w r r & r f R t. r y . Benefits t® City ® bf r r ctur 12 r Existing Lift Stati*n Proposed Sewage x Lift Station and Wet Well Proposed Storm ®rains F � r r r r v e�eG 06) I, Natural Vey ' Vegetated Treatment 000 c � Flood System -s Protection Feature w CDS 0 SiaferChannQl = '� 2 New Pumps Changes to Plan, 2002 to 2008 77 Ake ca v n oc 0sa K t RL w ti RL OS_C r � � f y � M® LEGEND ,yt+ ES DEN At 3 3 C LEGEND ®S c S S G - S REMENT. 26 5 AC KS DPOSED 3 9 C O Etl S C 1COP SER O 23 0 C g OP SP CE ON E TO 3 C 0 po& TI-OF C7VEAND-$,VE U9lIC P RK AND E G ORHOOD P R Our Requested Actmn Support your Staff's recommendations ® Accept Coastal Commission suggested modifications to the Land Use Plan portion of Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA) 1 - 6 ® Amend the City's Land Use Plan for the Parkside property accordingly Parkside Estates Consulfing Team LJ Civil engineering, planning: Hunsaker & Associates Flood protection, hydrology and FEMA: Exponent Water quality: Geosyntec Consultants vi Wetlands, biology: Glenn Lukos Associates Wetlands, biology: LSA Associates Wetlands, biology: WRA Wetlands, biology: Dr. Dana Sanders Geotechnical and seismic: Pacific Soils Groundwater: Foothill Engineering Coastal regulatory process: Richards, Watson, Gershon Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From Flynn Joan Sent Wednesday June 11 2008 5 10 PM To marcelle2005@earthlink net Cc Esparza Patty Subject RE YES on Parkside Estates LCP Amendment Thank you for your correspondence Your email will be added to the file as part of the official record Joan Flynn City Clerk From marcelle2005@earthlink net [mailto marcelle2005@earthlink net] Sent Wednesday, June 11, 2008 4 14 PM To city clerk@surfcity hb org Subject YES on Parkside Estates, LCP Amendment Dear Mayor Cook, I am writing to express my support of Shea Homes' Parkside Estates, and to strongly encourage a "YES" vote by City Council in support of the changes the California Coastal Commission made to Huntington Beach's Local Coastal Program at its hearing last November on Parkside Estates This is a very well planned project that provides great benefits for our city We will get the flood protection and water quality benefits we need so much, plus nearly half of the site will now be conservation open space and wetlands And because the amount of development was cut by the Commission, we will get all these benefits with less traffic and fewer new students in our schools Vote YES on June 161 Thank you marcelle aube Huntington Beach, ca 92649 marcelle2005@earthlink net CC Keith Bohr, Mayor Pro Tem Joe Carchio Council Member Cathy Green, Council Member Don Hansen, Council Member Jill Hardy, Council Member Gil Coerper, Council Member Scott Hess, Director of Planning 6/11/2008 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From Flynn Joan Sent Wednesday June 11 2008 12 27 PM To raube1111@earthlink net Cc Esparza Patty Subject RE YES on Parkside Estates LCP Amendment Thank you for your correspondence Your email will be added to the file as part of the official record Joan Flynn City Clerk From raube1111@earthlink net [madto raube1111@earthlink net] Sent Wednesday, June 11, 2008 12 24 PM To city clerk@surfcity hb org Subject YES on Parkside Estates, LCP Amendment Dear Mayor Cook, I am writing to express my support of Shea Homes' Parkside Estates, and to strongly encourage a "YES" vote by City Council in support of the changes the California Coastal Commission made to Huntington Beach's Local Coastal Program at its hearing last November on Parkside Estates This is a very well planned project that provides great benefits for our city We will get the flood protection and water quality benefits we need so much,plus nearly half of the site will now be conservation open space and wetlands And because the amount of development was cut by the Commission, we will get all these benefits with less traffic and fewer new students in our schools Vote YES on June 161 Thank you raymond aube huntington beach, ca 92649 raube 11 I I @earthlink net CC Keith Bohr, Mayor Pro Tem Joe Carchio Council Member Cathy Green, Council Member Don Hansen, Council Member Jill Hardy, Council Member Gil Coerper, Council Member Scott Hess, Director of Planning 6/11/2008 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From Flynn Joan Sent Thursday June 12 2008 5 31 PM To barr1939@aol com Cc Esparza Patty Subject RE YES on Parkside Estates LCP Amendment Thank you for your correspondence Your email will be added to the file as part of the official record Joan Flynn City Clerk From barr1939@aol com [mailto barr1939@aol com] Sent Thursday, June 12, 2008 4 00 PM To city clerk@surfcity hb org Subject YES on Parkside Estates, LCP Amendment Dear Mayor Cook, I am writing to express my support of Shea Homes' Parkside Estates, and to strongly encourage a "YES" vote by City Council in support of the changes the California Coastal Commission made to Huntington Beach's Local Coastal Program at its hearing last November on Parkside Estates This is a very well planned project that provides great benefits for our city We will get the flood protection and water quality benefits we need so much, plus nearly half of the site will now be conservation open space and wetlands And because the amount of development was cut by the Commission, we will get all these benefits with less traffic and fewer new students in our schools Vote YES on June 161 Thank you John Barrett Huntington Beach, CA 92647 barr1939@aol com 714-848-8553 CC Keith Bohr, Mayor Pro Tem Joe Carchio, Council Member Cathy Green, Council Member Don Hansen, Council Member Jill Hardy Council Member Gil Coerper, Council Member Scott Hess Director of Planning 6/13/2008 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From Flynn Joan Sent Thursday June 12 2008 5 31 PM To valbarr@aol com Cc Esparza Patty Subject RE YES on Parkside Estates LCP Amendment Thank you for your correspondence Your email will be added to the file as part of the official record Joan Flynn City Clerk From valbarr@aol com [mailto valbarr@aol com] Sent Thursday, June 12, 2008 4 11 PM To city clerk@surfcity hb org Sub]ect YES on Parkside Estates, LCP Amendment Dear Mayor Cook, I am writing to express my support of Shea Homes' Parkside Estates, and to strongly encourage a "YES" vote by City Council in support of the changes the California Coastal Commission made to Huntington Beach's Local Coastal Program at its hearing last November on Parkside Estates This is a very well planned project that provides great benefits for our city We will get the flood protection and water quality benefits we need so much, plus nearly half of the site will now be conservation open space and wetlands And because the amount of development was cut by the Commission, we will get all these benefits with less traffic and fewer new students in our schools Vote YES on June 161 Thank you Valerie Barrett Huntington Beach, CA 92647 valbarr@aol com CC Keith Bohr, Mayor Pro Tem Joe Carchio, Council Member Cathy Green, Council Member Don Hansen, Council Member Jill Hardy, Council Member Gil Coerper, Council Member Scott Hess Director of Planning 6/13/2008 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From Flynn Joan Sent Thursday June 12 2008 2 59 PM To buckcarms@yahoo com Cc Esparza Patty Subject RE YES on Parkside Estates LCP Amendment Thank you for your correspondence Your email will be added to the file as part of the official record Joan Flynn City Clerk From buckcarms@yahoo com [mailto buckcarms@yahoo com] Sent Thursday, June 12, 2008 1 43 PM To city clerk@surfcity hb org Subject YES on Parkside Estates, LCP Amendment Dear Mayor Cook I am writing to express my support of Shea Homes' Parkside Estates and to strongly encourage a "YES" vote by City Council in support of the changes the California Coastal Commission made to Huntington Beach's Local Coastal Program at its hearing last November on Parkside Estates This is a very well planned project that provides great benefits for our city We will get the flood protection and water quality benefits we need so much, plus nearly half of the site will now be conservation open space and wetlands And because the amount of development was cut by the Commission, we will get all these benefits with less traffic and fewer new students in our schools Vote YES on June 161 Thank you John Carmody Huntington Beach, CA 92647 buckcarms@yahoo com CC Keith Bohr Mayor Pro Tem Joe Carchio, Council Member Cathy Green, Council Member Don Hansen, Council Member Jill Hardy Council Member Gil Coerper, Council Member Scott Hess, Director of Planning 6/12/2008 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From Flynn Joan Sent Thursday June 12 2008 5 31 PM To FredBelen@AOL corn Cc Esparza Patty Subject RE YES on Parkside Estates LCP Amendment Thank you for your correspondence Your email will be added to the file as part of the official record Joan Flynn City Clerk From FredBelen@AOL com [mailto FredBelen@AOL com] Sent Thursday, June 12, 2008 4 25 PM To city clerk@surfcity hb org Subject YES on Parkside Estates, LCP Amendment Dear Mayor Cook, I am writing to express my support of Shea Homes' Parkside Estates, and to strongly encourage a "YES" vote by City Council in support of the changes the California Coastal Commission made to Huntington Beach's Local Coastal Program at its hearing last November on Parkside Estates This is a very well planned project that provides great benefits for our city We will get the flood protection and water quality benefits we need so much plus nearly half of the site will now be conservation open space and wetlands And because the amount of development was cut by the Commission, we will get all these benefits with less traffic and fewer new students in our schools Vote YES on June 161 Thank you Fred and Belen Cordova Huntington Beach, ca 92647 5617 FredBelen@AOL com 714-842 9829 CC Keith Bohr, Mayor Pro Tem Joe Carchio, Council Member Cathy Green, Council Member Don Hansen, Council Member Jill Hardy, Council Member Gil Coerper, Council Member Scott Hess, Director of Planning 6/13/2008 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From Flynn Joan Sent Thursday June 12 2008 2 59 PM To steve crowley@alcoa com Cc Esparza Patty Subject RE YES on Parkside Estates LCP Amendment Thank you for your correspondence Your email will be added to the file as part of the official record Joan Flynn City Clerk From steve crowley@alcoa com [mailto steve crowley@alcoa com] Sent Thursday, June 12, 2008 1 46 PM To city clerk@surfcity hb org Subject YES on Parkside Estates, LCP Amendment Dear Mayor Cook, I am writing to express my support of Shea Homes' Parkside Estates and to strongly encourage a "YES" vote by City Council in support of the changes the California Coastal Commission made to Huntington Beach's Local Coastal Program at its hearing last November on Parkside Estates This is a very well planned project that provides great benefits for our city We will get the flood protection and water quality benefits we need so much, plus nearly half of the site will now be conservation open space and wetlands And because the amount of development was cut by the Commission, we will get all these benefits with less traffic and fewer new students in our schools Vote YES on June 161 Thank you Steve Crowley Huntington Beach, CA 92647 steve crowley@alcoa com 714 863-3173 CC Keith Bohr, Mayor Pro Tem Joe Carchio Council Member Cathy Green, Council Member Don Hansen, Council Member Jill Hardy, Council Member Gil Coerper Council Member Scott Hess, Director of Planning 6/12/2008 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From Flynn Joan Sent Wednesday June 11 2008 12 15 PM To diane csiky@century2l com Cc Esparza Patty Subject RE YES on Parkside Estates LCP Amendment Thank you for your correspondence Your email will be added to the file as part of the official record Joan Flynn City Clerk From diane csiky@century2l com [mailto diane csiky@century2l com] Sent Tuesday, June 10, 2008 2 49 PM To city clerk@surfcity hb org Subject YES on Parkside Estates, LCP Amendment Dear Mayor Cook, I am writing to express my support of Shea Homes' Parkside Estates, and to strongly encourage a "YES" vote by City Council in support of the changes the California Coastal Commission made to Huntington Beach's Local Coastal Program at its hearing last November on Parkside Estates This is a very well planned project that provides great benefits for our city We will get the flood protection and water quality benefits we need so much plus nearly half of the site will now be conservation open space and wetlands And because the amount of development was cut by the Commission, we will get all these benefits with less traffic and fewer new students in our schools Vote YES on June 161 Thank you Diane Csiky Huntington Beach Ca 92649 diane csiky@century2l com CC Keith Bohr, Mayor Pro Tem Joe Carchio Council Member Cathy Green, Council Member Don Hansen Council Member Jill Hardy, Council Member Gil Coerper, Council Member Scott Hess, Director of Planning 6/11/2008 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From Flynn Joan Sent Thursday June 12 2008 2 59 PM To bcuppy@homesoc com Cc Esparza Patty Subject RE YES on Parkside Estates LCP Amendment Thank you for your correspondence Your email will be added to the file as part of the official record Joan Flynn City Clerk From bcuppy@homesoc com [mailto bcuppy@homesoc com] Sent Thursday, June 12, 2008 2 16 PM To city clerk@surfcity hb org Sub]ect YES on Parkside Estates, LCP Amendment Dear Mayor Cook, I am writing to express my support of Shea Homes' Parkside Estates, and to strongly encourage a "YES" vote by City Council in support of the changes the California Coastal Commission made to Huntington Beach's Local Coastal Program at its hearing last November on Parkside Estates This is a very well planned project that provides great benefits for our city We will get the flood protection and water quality benefits we need so much, plus nearly half of the site will now be conservation open space and wetlands And because the amount of development was cut by the Commission, we will get all these benefits with less traffic and fewer new students in our schools Vote YES on June 161 Thank you Bill Cuppy Huntington Beach, CA 92648 bcuppy@homesoc com 714 473-1118 CC Keith Bohr Mayor Pro Tem Joe Carchio, Council Member Cathy Green, Council Member Don Hansen Council Member Jill Hardy, Council Member Gil Coerper, Council Member Scott Hess, Director of Planning 6/12/2008 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From Flynn Joan Sent Wednesday June 11 2008 12 13 PM To brittany4efren@yahoo com Cc Esparza Patty Subject RE YES on Parkside Estates LCP Amendment Thank you for your correspondence Your email will be added to the file as part of the official record Joan Flynn City Clerk From brittany4efren@yahoo com [mailto brittany4efren@yahoo com] Sent Wednesday, June 11, 2008 8 29 AM To city clerk@surfcity hb org Subject YES on Parkside Estates, LCP Amendment Dear Mayor Cook, I am writing to express my support of Shea Homes'Parkside Estates, and to strongly encourage a "YES" vote by City Council in support of the changes the California Coastal Commission made to Huntington Beach's Local Coastal Program at its hearing last November on Parkside Estates This is a very well planned project that provides great benefits for our city We will get the flood protection and water quality benefits we need so much, plus nearly half of the site will now be conservation open space and wetlands And because the amount of development was cut by the Commission, we will get all these benefits with less traffic and fewer new students in our schools Vote YES on June 161 Thank you Ian Dooley Huntington Beach CA 92649 brrttany4efren@yahoo com 7149288046 CC Keith Bohr Mayor Pro Tem Joe Carchio, Council Member Cathy Green Council Member Don Hansen, Council Member Jill Hardy, Council Member Gil Coerper Council Member Scott Hess, Director of Planning 6/11/2008 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From Flynn Joan Sent Thursday June 12 2008 11 58 AM To peterevans@socal rr corn Cc Esparza Patty Subject RE YES on Parkside Estates LCP Amendment Thank you for your correspondence Your email will be added to the file as part of the official record Joan Flynn City Clerk From peterevans@socal rr corn [mailto peterevans@socal rr com] Sent Wednesday, June 11, 2008 7 30 PM To city clerk@surfcity hb org Subject YES on Parkside Estates, LCP Amendment Dear Mayor Cook, I am writing to express my support of Shea Homes' Parkside Estates, and to strongly encourage a "YES" vote by City Council in support of the changes the California Coastal Commission made to Huntington Beach's Local Coastal Program at its hearing last November on Parkside Estates This is a very well planned project that provides great benefits for our city We will get the flood protection and water quality benefits we need so much,plus nearly half of the site will now be conservation open space and wetlands And because the amount of development was cut by the Commission, we will get all these benefits with less traffic and fewer new students in our schools Vote YES on June 161 Thank you Peter Evans Huntington Beach, CA 92649 peterevans@socal rr com 5625921579 CC Keith Bohr, Mayor Pro Tem Joe Carchio, Council Member Cathy Green, Council Member Don Hansen, Council Member Jill Hardy, Council Member Gil Coerper, Council Member Scott Hess, Director of Planning 6/12/2008 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From Flynn Joan Sent Wednesday June 11 2008 5 09 PM To kevie230@hotmail com Cc Esparza Patty Subject RE YES on Parkside Estates LCP Amendment Thank you for your correspondence Your email will be added to the file as part of the official record Joan Flynn City Clerk From kevie230@hotmail com [mailto kevie230@hotmail com] Sent Wednesday, June 11, 2008 4 11 PM To city clerk@surfcity hb org Subject YES on Parkside Estates, LCP Amendment Dear Mayor Cook, I am writing to express my support of Shea Homes' Parkside Estates, and to strongly encourage a "YES" vote by City Council in support of the changes the California Coastal Commission made to Huntington Beach's Local Coastal Program at its hearing last November on Parkside Estates This is a very well planned project that provides great benefits for our city We will get the flood protection and water quality benefits we need so much, plus nearly half of the site will now be conservation open space and wetlands And because the amount of development was cut by the Commission, we will get all these benefits with less traffic and fewer new students in our schools Vote YES on June 161 Thank you kevm firers huntington beach, ca 92649 kevie230@hotmail com 714 840-9638 CC Keith Bohr, Mayor Pro Tern Joe Carchio, Council Member Cathy Green, Council Member Don Hansen, Council Member Jill Hardy, Council Member Gil Coerper, Council Member Scott Hess, Director of Planning 6/11/2008 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From Flynn Joan Sent Wednesday June 11 2008 2 24 PM To virgiegabelman@verizon net Cc Esparza Patty Subject RE YES on Parkside Estates LCP Amendment Thank you for your correspondence Your email will be added to the file as part of the official record Joan Flynn City Clerk From virgiegabelman@verizon net [mailto virgiegabelman@verizon net] Sent Wednesday, June 11, 2008 2 04 PM To city clerk@surfcity hb org Subject YES on Parkside Estates, LCP Amendment Dear Mayor Cook, I am writing to express my support of Shea Homes' Parkside Estates, and to strongly encourage a "YES" vote by City Council in support of the changes the California Coastal Commission made to Huntington Beach's Local Coastal Program at its hearing last November on Parkside Estates This is a very well planned project that provides great benefits for our city We will get the flood protection and water quality benefits we need so much, plus nearly half of the site will now be conservation open space and wetlands And because the amount of development was cut by the Commission, we will get all these benefits with less traffic and fewer new students in our schools Vote YES on June 161 Thank you Dale and Virgie Gabelman Huntington Beach, Ca 92649 virgiegabelman@verizon net CC Keith Bohr, Mayor Pro Tem Joe Carchio, Council Member Cathy Green, Council Member Don Hansen Council Member Jill Hardy, Council Member Gil Coerper, Council Member Scott Hess, Director of Planning 6/11/2008 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From Flynn Joan Sent Wednesday June 11 2008 5 08 PM To pastorfam@verizon net Cc Esparza Patty Subject RE YES on Parkside Estates LCP Amendment Thank you for your correspondence Your email will be added to the file as part of the official record Joan Flynn City Clerk From pastorfam@verizon net [mailto pastorfam@verizon net] Sent Wednesday, June 11, 2008 4 59 PM To city clerk@surfcity hb org Subject YES on Parkside Estates, LCP Amendment Dear Mayor Cook, I am writing to express my support of Shea Homes' Parkside Estates, and to strongly encourage a "YES" vote by City Council in support of the changes the California Coastal Commission made to Huntington Beach's Local Coastal Program at its hearing last November on Parkside Estates This is a very well planned project that provides great benefits for our city We will get the flood protection and water quality benefits we need so much, plus nearly half of the site will now be conservation open space and wetlands And because the amount of development was cut by the Commission, we will get all these benefits with less traffic and fewer new students in our schools Vote YES on June 161 Thank you Kathryne Gibson Huntington Beach, CA 92647 pastorfam@verizon net CC Keith Bohr, Mayor Pro Tern Joe Carchio, Council Member Cathy Green, Council Member Don Hansen, Council Member Jill Hardy, Council Member Gil Coerper, Council Member Scott Hess, Director of Planning 6/11/2008 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From Flynn Joan Sent Wednesday June 11 2008 5 08 PM To pastorfam@yahoo com Cc Esparza Patty Subject RE YES on Parkside Estates LCP Amendment Thank you for your correspondence Your email will be added to the file as part of the official record Joan Flynn City Clerk From pastorfam@yahoo com [mailto pastorfam@yahoo com] Sent Wednesday, June 11, 2008 5 00 PM To city clerk@surfcity hb org Subject YES on Parkside Estates, LCP Amendment Dear Mayor Cook, I am writing to express my support of Shea Homes' Parkside Estates, and to strongly encourage a "YES" vote by City Council in support of the changes the California Coastal Commission made to Huntington Beach's Local Coastal Program at its hearing last November on Parkside Estates This is a very well planned project that provides great benefits for our city We will get the flood protection and water quality benefits we need so much,plus nearly half of the site will now be conservation open space and wetlands And because the amount of development was cut by the Commission, we will get all these benefits with less traffic and fewer new students in our schools Vote YES on June 161 Thank you Michael Gibson Huntington Beach, CA 92647 pastorfam@yahoo com CC Keith Bohr, Mayor Pro Tem Joe Carchio, Council Member Cathy Green, Council Member Don Hansen, Council Member Jill Hardy, Council Member Gil Coerper, Council Member Scott Hess, Director of Planning 6/11/2008 Esparza, Patty From Flynn Joan Sent Friday June 13 2008 2 14 PM To zach@haloindustries com Cc Esparza Patty Subject Re Oppose item D 2 Your correspondence will be entered into the official record as part of the council communication for this item Joan L Flynn CMC Huntington Beach City Clerk ----- Original Message ----- From Zach Halopoff <zach@haloindustries com> To city clerk@surfcity-hb org CITY COUNCIL Sent Fri Jun 13 13 35 48 2008 Subject Oppose item D-2 Mayor Cook and Council Members I urge a NO vote on item D-2 or at least continue it per staff s alternative recommendation Shea says that all they are doing on their property is normal farming , yet Coastal Commission staff have found that Shea obliterated a federal wetland Shea has never explained how the Coastal Act allows a wetland to be destroyed by normal farming -- because it DOESN T allow it ' The findings omit 4 1 mitigation for loss or destruction of wetlands even though the Commissioners NEVER voted to remove that requirement from the staff report they were using at the November hearing Cities and projects up and down the coast all require 4 1 mitigation-- doesn't it seem STRANGE that Huntington Beach wouldn t be the same as everybody else? Shea sold this project to the City by promising $15 million in flood control improvements Now the County is paying for most of the work with Shea sitting on the sidelines That proves you can have flood protection WITHOUT building any houses ' Sincerely Juli & Zach Halopoff 4801 Los Patos Ave Huntington Beach CA 92649 1 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From Flynn Joan Sent Thursday June 12 2008 11 56 AM To ddyjm@uno com Cc Esparza Patty Subject RE YES on Parkside Estates LCP Amendment Thank you for your correspondence Your email will be added to the file as part of the official record Joan Flynn City Clerk From ddyjm@Juno com [mailto ddyjm@Juno com] Sent Wednesday, June 11, 2008 5 49 PM To city clerk@surfcity hb org Subject YES on Parkside Estates, LCP Amendment Dear Mayor Cook I am writing to express my support of Shea Homes' Parkside Estates, and to strongly encourage a "YES" vote by City Council in support of the changes the California Coastal Commission made to Huntington Beach's Local Coastal Program at its hearing last November on Parkside Estates This is a very well planned project that provides great benefits for our city We will get the flood protection and water quality benefits we need so much, plus nearly half of the site will now be conservation open space and wetlands And because the amount of development was cut by the Commission, we will get all these benefits with less traffic and fewer new students in our schools Vote YES on June 161 Thank you James Hanna Huntington Beach CA 92647 ddyjm*uno com 7148462989 CC Keith Bohr, Mayor Pro Tem Joe Carchio, Council Member Cathy Green, Council Member Don Hansen, Council Member Jill Hardy, Council Member Gil Coerper, Council Member Scott Hess Director of Planning 6/12/2008 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From Flynn Joan Sent Thursday June 12 2008 2 58 PM To bridgettharris@hotmail com Cc Esparza Patty Subject RE YES on Parkside Estates LCP Amendment Thank you for your correspondence Your email will be added to the file as part of the official record Joan Flynn City Clerk From bridgettharris@hotmail com [mailto bridgettharris@hotmail com] Sent Thursday, June 12, 2008 12 34 PM To city clerk@surfcity hb org Subject YES on Parkside Estates, LCP Amendment Dear Mayor Cook I am writing to express my support of Shea Homes' Parkside Estates, and to strongly encourage a "YES" vote by City Council in support of the changes the California Coastal Commission made to Huntington Beach's Local Coastal Program at its hearing last November on Parkside Estates This is a very well planned project that provides great benefits for our city We will get the flood protection and water quality benefits we need so much, plus nearly half of the site will now be conservation open space and wetlands And because the amount of development was cut by the Commission, we will get all these benefits with less traffic and fewer new students in our schools Vote YES on June 161 Thank you Bridgett Harris Huntington Beach CA 92647 bridgettharris@hotmail com 714 658 6084 CC Keith Bohr, Mayor Pro Tern Joe Carchio, Council Member Cathy Green, Council Member Don Hansen Council Member Jill Hardy, Council Member Gil Coerper, Council Member Scott Hess, Director of Planning 6/12/2008 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From Flynn Joan Sent Thursday June 12 2008 11 57 AM To candy Ih@verizon net Cc Esparza Patty Subject RE YES on Parkside Estates LCP Amendment Thank you for your correspondence Your email will be added to the file as part of the official record Joan Flynn City Clerk From candy Ih@verizon net [mailto candy Ih@verizon net] Sent Wednesday, June 11, 2008 6 01 PM To city clerk@surfcity hb org Sub]ect YES on Parkside Estates, LCP Amendment Dear Mayor Cook, I am writing to express my support of Shea Homes' Parkside Estates, and to strongly encourage a "YES" vote by City Council in support of the changes the California Coastal Commission made to Huntington Beach's Local Coastal Program at its hearing last November on Parkside Estates This is a very well planned project that provides great benefits for our city We will get the flood protection and water quality benefits we need so much,plus nearly half of the site will now be conservation open space and wetlands And because the amount of development was cut by the Commission, we will get all these benefits with less traffic and fewer new students in our schools Vote YES on June 161 Thank you Cindy Hunt Huntington Beach, CA 92647 curdy lh@verizon net 714 840-8141 CC Keith Bohr, Mayor Pro Tem Joe Carchio, Council Member Cathy Green Council Member Don Hansen, Council Member Jill Hardy, Council Member Gil Coerper, Council Member Scott Hess, Director of Planning 6/12/2008 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From Flynn Joan Sent Friday June 13 2008 7 49 AM To ivettedeshon@sbcglobal net Cc Esparza Patty Subject Re YES on Parkside Estates LCP Amendment Your correspondence will be entered into the official record as part of the council communication for this item Joan L Flynn CIVIC Huntington Beach City Clerk From ivettedeshon@sbcglobal net To city clerk@surfcity hb org Sent Fri Jun 13 07 30 32 2008 Subject YES on Parkside Estates, LCP Amendment Dear Mayor Cook, I am writing to express my support of Shea Homes' Parkside Estates and to strongly encourage a "YES" vote by City Council in support of the changes the California Coastal Commission made to Huntington Beach's Local Coastal Program at its hearing last November on Parkside Estates This is a very well planned project that provides great benefits for our city We will get the flood protection and water quality benefits we need so much, plus nearly half of the site will now be conservation open space and wetlands And because the amount of development was cut by the Commission we will get all these benefits with less traffic and fewer new students in our schools Vote YES on June 161 Thank you Ivette Iha Garden Grove CA 92840 ivettedeshon@sbcglobal net (714)740-2526 CC Keith Bohr, Mayor Pro Tem Joe Carchio, Council Member Cathy Green, Council Member Don Hansen, Council Member Jill Hardy, Council Member Gil Coerper, Council Member Scott Hess, Director of Planning 6/13/2008 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From Flynn Joan Sent Wednesday June 11 2008 3 32 PM To jkacinl@venzon net Cc Esparza Patty Subject RE YES on Parkside Estates LCP Amendment Thank you for your correspondence Your email will be added to the file as part of the official record Joan Flynn City Clerk From jkacinl@verizon net [mailto jkacinl@verizon net] Sent Wednesday, June 11, 2008 2 31 PM To city clerk@surfcity hb org Subject YES on Parkside Estates, LCP Amendment Dear Mayor Cook, I am writing to express my support of Shea Homes' Parkside Estates, and to strongly encourage a "YES" vote by City Council in support of the changes the California Coastal Commission made to Huntington Beach's Local Coastal Program at its hearing last November on Parkside Estates This is a very well planned project that provides great benefits for our city We will get the flood protection and water quality benefits we need so much, plus nearly half of the site will now be conservation open space and wetlands And because the amount of development was cut by the Commission, we will get all these benefits with less traffic and fewer new students in our schools Vote YES on June 161 Thank you donna kacm huntmgton beach, ca 92648 lkacml @verizon net 714-600-4757 CC Keith Bohr, Mayor Pro Tern. Joe Carchio Council Member Cathy Green, Council Member Don Hansen, Council Member Jill Hardy, Council Member Gil Coerper, Council Member Scott Hess, Director of Planning 6/11/2008 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From Flynn Joan Sent Thursday June 12 2008 5 32 PM To ckemplin@outpatientsurgery net Cc Esparza Patty Subject RE YES on Parkside Estates LCP Amendment Thank you for your correspondence Your email will be added to the file as part of the official record Joan Flynn City Clerk From ckem pl in @outpatients u rgery net [mailto ckemplin@outpatientsurgery net] Sent Thursday, June 12, 2008 3 38 PM To city clerk@surfcity hb org Sub]ect YES on Parkside Estates, LCP Amendment Dear Mayor Cook, I am writing to express my support of Shea Homes' Parkside Estates, and to strongly encourage a "YES" vote by City Council in support of the changes the California Coastal Commission made to Huntington Beach's Local Coastal Program at its hearing last November on Parkside Estates This is a very well planned project that provides great benefits for our city We will get the flood protection and water quality benefits we need so much, plus nearly half of the site will now be conservation open space and wetlands And because the amount of development was cut by the Commission, we will get all these benefits with less traffic and fewer new students in our schools Vote YES on June 161 Thank you Kyle Kemplin Huntington Beach, CA 92647 ckemplm@outpatientsurgery net CC Keith Bohr, Mayor Pro Tem Joe Carchio Council Member Cathy Green Council Member Don Hansen, Council Member Jill Hardy, Council Member Gil Coerper, Council Member Scott Hess, Director of Planning 6/13/2008 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From Flynn Joan Sent Thursday June 12 2008 5 31 PM To darrank@verizon net Cc Esparza Patty Subject RE YES on Parkside Estates LCP Amendment Thank you for your correspondence Your email will be added to the file as part of the official record Joan Flynn City Clerk From darrank@verizon net [mailto darrank@verizon net] Sent Thursday, June 12, 2008 4 29 PM To city clerk@surfcity hb org Subject YES on Parkside Estates, LCP Amendment Dear Mayor Cook, I am writing to express my support of Shea Homes' Parkside Estates, and to strongly encourage a "YES" vote by City Council in support of the changes the California Coastal Commission made to Huntington Beach's Local Coastal Program at its hearing last November on Parkside Estates This is a very well planned project that provides great benefits for our city We will get the flood protection and water quality benefits we need so much, plus nearly half of the site will now be conservation open space and wetlands And because the amount of development was cut by the Commission, we will get all these benefits with less traffic and fewer new students in our schools Vote YES on June 161 Thank you Darran Knight Huntington Beach, ca 92647 darrank@verizon net 714-848-4401 CC Keith Bohr Mayor Pro Tern Joe Carchio, Council Member Cathy Green, Council Member Don Hansen, Council Member Jill Hardy, Council Member Gil Coerper Council Member Scott Hess, Director of Planning 6/13/2008 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From Flynn Joan Sent Thursday June 12 2008 5 31 PM To darrank@verizon net Cc Esparza Patty Subject RE YES on Parkside Estates LCP Amendment Thank you for your correspondence Your email will be added to the file as part of the official record Joan Flynn City Clerk From darrank@verizon net [mailto darrank@verizon net] Sent Thursday, June 12, 2008 4 38 PM To city clerk@surfcity hb org Subject YES on Parkside Estates, LCP Amendment Dear Mayor Cook, I am writing to express my support of Shea Homes' Parkside Estates, and to strongly encourage a "YES" vote by City Council in support of the changes the California Coastal Commission made to Huntington Beach's Local Coastal Program at its hearing last November on Parkside Estates This is a very well planned project that provides great benefits for our city We will get the flood protection and water quality benefits we need so much, plus nearly half of the site will now be conservation open space and wetlands And because the amount of development was cut by the Commission, we will get all these benefits with less traffic and fewer new students in our schools Vote YES on June 161 Thank you Diana Knight Huntington Beach, ca 92647 darrank@verizon net 714-848-4401 CC Keith Bohr, Mayor Pro Tem Joe Carchio, Council Member Cathy Green, Council Member Don Hansen, Council Member Jill Hardy, Council Member Gil Coerper Council Member Scott Hess, Director of Planning 6/13/2008 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From Flynn Joan Sent Thursday June 12 2008 11 57 AM To rlafey@msn com Cc Esparza Patty Subject RE YES on Parkside Estates LCP Amendment Thank you for your correspondence Your email will be added to the file as part of the official record Joan Flynn City Clerk From rlafey@msn com [mailto rlafey@msn com] Sent Wednesday, June 11, 2008 5 55 PM To city clerk@surfcity hb org Subject YES on Parkside Estates, LCP Amendment Dear Mayor Cook, I am writing to express my support of Shea Homes' Parkside Estates, and to strongly encourage a "YES" vote by City Council in support of the changes the California Coastal Commission made to Huntington Beach's Local Coastal Program at its hearing last November on Parkside Estates This is a very well planned project that provides great benefits for our city We will get the flood protection and water quality benefits we need so much, plus nearly half of the site will now be conservation open space and wetlands And because the amount of development was cut by the Commission, we will get all these benefits with less traffic and fewer new students in our schools Vote YES on June 161 Thank you Robert Lafey Huntington Beach, Ca 92647 rlafey@msn com CC Keith Bohr, Mayor Pro Tern, Joe Carchio, Council Member Cathy Green, Council Member Don Hansen Council Member Jill Hardy, Council Member Gil Coerper Council Member Scott Hess, Director of Planning 6/12/2008 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From Flynn Joan Sent Thursday June 12 2008 11 11 PM To yellow coupe@verizon net Esparza Patty Subject Re YES on Parkside Estates LCP Amendment Your correspondence will be entered into the official record as part of the council communication for this item Joan L Flynn CIVIC Huntington Beach City Clerk From yellow coupe@verizon net To city clerk@surfcity hb org Sent Thu Jun 12 22 06 27 2008 Subject YES on Parkside Estates, LCP Amendment Dear Mayor Cook I am writing to express my support of Shea Homes' Parkside Estates, and to strongly encourage a "YES" vote by City Council in support of the changes the California Coastal Commission made to Huntington Beach's Local Coastal Program at its hearing last November on Parkside Estates This is a very well planned project that provides great benefits for our city We will get the flood protection and water quality benefits we need so much, plus nearly half of the site will now be conservation open space and wetlands And because the amount of development was cut by the Commission we will get all these benefits with less traffic and fewer new students in our schools Vote YES on June 161 Thank you Ellen LaMotte Huntington Beach, CA 92647 yellow coupe ,verizon net CC Keith Bohr, Mayor Pro Tem Joe Carchio Council Member Cathy Green, Council Member Don Hansen, Council Member Jill Hardy, Council Member Gil Coerper, Council Member Scott Hess Director of Planning 6/13/2008 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From Flynn Joan Sent Wednesday June 11 2008 12 14 PM To Joan home@tiempoescrowinc com Cc Esparza Patty Subject RE YES on Parkside Estates LCP Amendment Thank you for your correspondence Your email will be added to the file as part of the official record Joan Flynn City Clerk From Joan home@tiempoescrowinc com [mailto Joan home@tiempoescrowinc com] Sent Tuesday, June 10, 2008 11 45 AM To city clerk@surfcity hb org Subject YES on Parkside Estates, LCP Amendment Dear Mayor Cook, I am writing to express my support of Shea Homes' Parkside Estates, and to strongly encourage a "YES" vote by City Council in support of the changes the California Coastal Commission made to Huntington Beach's Local Coastal Program at its hearing last November on Parkside Estates This is a very well planned project that provides great benefits for our city We will get the flood protection and water quality benefits we need so much, plus nearly half of the site will now be conservation open space and wetlands And because the amount of development was cut by the Commission, we will get all these benefits with less traffic and fewer new students in our schools Vote YES on June 161 Thank you loan lasher huntmgton beach , ca 92648 loan-home@tiempoescrowmc com CC Keith Bohr, Mayor Pro Tern Joe Carchio, Council Member Cathy Green, Council Member Don Hansen, Council Member Jill Hardy, Council Member Gil Coerper, Council Member Scott Hess, Director of Planning 6/11/2008 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From Flynn Joan Sent Thursday June 12 2008 12 00 PM To jlippold@socal rr com Cc Esparza Patty Subject RE YES on Parkside Estates LCP Amendment Thank you for your correspondence Your email will be added to the file as part of the official record Joan Flynn City Clerk From jlippold@socal rr com [mallto Jlippold@socal rr com] Sent Thursday, June 12, 2008 10 23 AM To city clerk@surfcity hb org Subject YES on Parkside Estates, LCP Amendment Dear Mayor Cook, I am writing to express my support of Shea Homes' Parkside Estates, and to strongly encourage a "YES" vote by City Council in support of the changes the California Coastal Commission made to Huntington Beach's Local Coastal Program at its hearing last November on Parkside Estates This is a very well planned project that provides great benefits for our city We will get the flood protection and water quality benefits we need so much, plus nearly half of the site will now be conservation open space and wetlands And because the amount of development was cut by the Commission, we will get all these benefits with less traffic and fewer new students in our schools Vote YES on June 161 Thank you John Lippold Huntington Beach CA 92647 llippold@socal rr com 714 842-4094 CC Keith Bohr, Mayor Pro Tern. Joe Carchio Council Member Cathy Green, Council Member Don Hansen, Council Member Jill Hardy, Council Member Gil Coerper, Council Member Scott Hess Director of Planning 6/12/2008 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From Flynn Joan Sent Wednesday June 11 2008 3 32 PM To jkacin1@verizon net Cc Esparza Patty Subject RE YES on Parkside Estates LCP Amendment Thank you for your correspondence Your email will be added to the file as part of the official record Joan Flynn City Clerk From jkacinl@verizon net [mailto jkacinl@verizon net] Sent Wednesday, June 11, 2008 2 31 PM To city clerk@surfcity hb org Subject YES on Parkside Estates, LCP Amendment Dear Mayor Cook, I am writing to express my support of Shea Homes' Parkside Estates, and to strongly encourage a "YES" vote by City Council in support of the changes the California Coastal Commission made to Huntington Beach's Local Coastal Program at its hearing last November on Parkside Estates This is a very well planned project that provides great benefits for our city We will get the flood protection and water quality benefits we need so much, plus nearly half of the site will now be conservation open space and wetlands And because the amount of development was cut by the Commission, we will get all these benefits with less traffic and fewer new students in our schools Vote YES on June 161 Thank you donna kacin huntington beach, ca 92648 lkacml@verizon net 714-600-4757 CC Keith Bohr, Mayor Pro Tem Joe Carchio Council Member Cathy Green, Council Member Don Hansen Council Member Jill Hardy, Council Member Gil Coerper, Council Member Scott Hess, Director of Planning 6/12/2008 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From Flynn Joan Sent Wednesday June 11 2008 3 34 PM To Jlaw916@Yahoo com Cc Esparza Patty Subject RE YES on Parkside Estates LCP Amendment Thank you for your correspondence Your email will be added to the file as part of the official record Joan Flynn City Clerk From 3Iaw916@Yahoo com [mailto JIaw916@Yahoo com] Sent Wednesday, June 11, 2008 3 07 PM To city clerk@surfcity hb org Subject YES on Parkside Estates, LCP Amendment Dear Mayor Cook, I am writing to express my support of Shea Homes' Parkside Estates, and to strongly encourage a "YES" vote by City Council in support of the changes the California Coastal Commission made to Huntington Beach's Local Coastal Program at its hearing last November on Parkside Estates This is a very well planned project that provides great benefits for our city We will get the flood protection and water quality benefits we need so much, plus nearly half of the site will now be conservation open space and wetlands And because the amount of development was cut by the Commission, we will get all these benefits with less traffic and fewer new students in our schools Vote YES on June 161 Thank you Joanne La Huntington Beach, CA 82647 Jlaw9164Yahoo com CC Keith Bohr Mayor Pro Tem Joe Carchio, Council Member Cathy Green, Council Member Don Hansen, Council Member Jill Hardy, Council Member Gil Coerper, Council Member Scott Hess, Director of Planning 6/12/2008 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From Flynn Joan Sent Wednesday June 11 2008 12 19 PM To dargolis@socal rr com Cc Esparza Patty Subject RE YES on Parkside Estates LCP Amendment Thank you for your correspondence Your email will be added to the file as part of the official record Joan Flynn City Clerk From dargolis@socal rr com [mailto dargolis@socal rr com] Sent Wednesday, June 11, 2008 11 39 AM To city clerk@surfcity hb org Subject YES on Parkside Estates, LCP Amendment Dear Mayor Cook, I am writing to express my support of Shea Homes' Parkside Estates, and to strongly encourage a "YES" vote by City Council in support of the changes the California Coastal Commission made to Huntington Beach's Local Coastal Program at its hearing last November on Parkside Estates This is a very well planned project that provides great benefits for our city We will get the flood protection and water quality benefits we need so much, plus nearly half of the site will now be conservation open space and wetlands And because the amount of development was cut by the Commission, we will get all these benefits with less traffic and fewer new students in our schools Vote YES on June 161 Thank you David Margolis Huntington Beach, CA 92647 dmargolis@socal rr com CC Keith Bohr, Mayor Pro Tem Joe Carchio, Council Member Cathy Green, Council Member Don Hansen, Council Member Jill Hardy, Council Member Gil Coerper, Council Member Scott Hess, Director of Planning 6/11/2008 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From Flynn Joan Sent Thursday June 12 2008 11 57 AM To rmarnett@verizon net Cc Esparza Patty Subject RE YES on Parkside Estates LCP Amendment Thank you for your correspondence Your email will be added to the file as part of the official record Joan Flynn City Clerk From rmarnett@verizon net [mailto rmarnett@verizon net] Sent Wednesday, June 11, 2008 7 03 PM To city clerk@surfcity hb org Subject YES on Parkside Estates, LCP Amendment DearA Mayor Cook, I am writing to express my support of Shea Homes' Parkside Estates, and to strongly encourage a "YES" vote by City Council in support of the changes the California Coastal Commission made to Huntington Beach's Local Coastal Program at its hearing last November on Parkside Estates This is a very well planned project that provides great benefits for our city We will get the flood protection and water quality benefits we need so much, plus nearly half of the site will now be conservation open space and wetlands And because the amount of development was cut by the Commission, we will get all these benefits with less traffic and fewer new students in our schools Vote YES on June 161 Thank you RobertA Marnett Huntington Beach,A A CAA A A A 92647 4403 rmarnett@verizon net CC Keith Bohr, Mayor Pro Tem Joe Carchio, Council Member Cathy Green, Council Member Don Hansen, Council Member Jill Hardy Council Member Gil Coerper, Council Member Scott Hess, Director of Planning 6/12/2008 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From Flynn Joan Sent Friday June 13 2008 2 19 PM To clsyldy2@Juno com Cc Esparza Patty Subject Re YES on Parkside Estates LCP Amendment Your correspondence will be entered into the official record as part of the council communication for this item Joan L Flynn CIVIC Huntington Beach City Clerk From clsyldy2@Juno com To city clerk@surfcity hb org Sent Fri Jun 13 11 44 44 2008 Subject YES on Parkside Estates, LCP Amendment Dear Mayor Cook, I am writing to express my support of Shea Homes' Parkside Estates, and to strongly encourage a "YES" vote by City Council in support of the changes the California Coastal Commission made to Huntington Beach's Local Coastal Program at its hearing last November on Parkside Estates This is a very well planned project that provides great benefits for our city We will get the flood protection and water quality benefits we need so much, plus nearly half of the site will now be conservation open space and wetlands And because the amount of development was cut by the Commission, we will get all these benefits with less traffic and fewer new students in our schools Vote YES on June 161 Thank you Helen Monteleone Huntington Beach, CA 92646 clsyldy2*uno com 714-969 4921 CC Keith Bohr, Mayor Pro Tem Joe Carchio, Council Member Cathy Green, Council Member Don Hansen, Council Member Jill Hardy, Council Member Gil Coerper, Council Member Scott Hess, Director of Planning 6/13/2008 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From Flynn Joan Sent Thursday June 12 2008 11 11 PM To richardguy@aol com Esparza Patty Subject Re Oppose item D 2 Your correspondence will be entered into the official record as part of the council communication for this item Joan L Flynn CMC Huntington Beach City Clerk From Richard Moore To city clerk@surfcity hb org Cc CITY COUNCIL Sent Thu Jun 12 23 07 07 2008 Subject Oppose item D 2 Please -- it's time to get this vote right You represent the people not the developers PLEASE oppose Item D-2 ,! , Richard K Moore InfoSherpa Huntington Beach CA To be educated in any true sense of the word one must use the library and master the experiences of mankind -- William T Harris 1893 Get the Moviefone Toolbar Showtimes theaters movie news & more' 6/13/2008 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From Flynn Joan Sent Wednesday June 11 2008 3 34 PM To dougnichols@socal rr com Cc Esparza Patty Subject RE YES on Parkside Estates LCP Amendment Thank you for your correspondence Your email will be added to the file as part of the official record Joan Flynn City Clerk From dougnichols@socal rr com [mailto dougnichols@socal rr com] Sent Wednesday, June 11, 2008 3 05 PM To city clerk@surfcity hb org Subject YES on Parkside Estates, LCP Amendment Dear Mayor Cook I am writing to express my support of Shea Homes' Parkside Estates, and to strongly encourage a "YES" vote by City Council in support of the changes the California Coastal Commission made to Huntington Beach's Local Coastal Program at its hearing last November on Parkside Estates This is a very well planned project that provides great benefits for our city We will get the flood protection and water quality benefits we need so much, plus nearly half of the site will now be conservation open space and wetlands And because the amount of development was cut by the Commission we will get all these benefits with less traffic and fewer new students in our schools Vote YES on June 161 Thank you Doug Nichols Huntington Beach, CA 92649 dougmchols@socal rr com 714 356-9596 CC Keith Bohr, Mayor Pro Tem Joe Carchio, Council Member Cathy Green, Council Member Don Hansen, Council Member Jill Hardy, Council Member Gil Coerper, Council Member Scott Hess, Director of Planning 6/12/2008 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From Flynn Joan Sent Thursday June 12 2008 11 58 AM To Brentnkim@aol corn Cc Esparza Patty Subject RE YES on Parkside Estates LCP Amendment Thank you for your correspondence Your email will be added to the file as part of the official record Joan Flynn City Clerk From Brentnkim@aol com [mailto Brentnkim@aol com] Sent Wednesday, June 11, 2008 7 15 PM To city clerk@surfcity hb org Subject YES on Parkside Estates, LCP Amendment DearA Mayor Cook, I am writing to express my support of Shea Homes' Parkside Estates, and to strongly encourage a "YES" vote by City Council in support of the changes the California Coastal Commission made to Huntington Beach's Local Coastal Program at its hearing last November on Parkside Estates This is a very well planned project that provides great benefits for our city We will get the flood protection and water quality benefits we need so much,plus nearly half of the site will now be conservation open space and wetlands And because the amount of development was cut by the Commission, we will get all these benefits with less traffic and fewer new students in our schools Vote YES on June 161 Thank you BrentA Oldham Huntington Beach,A A CAA A A A 92649 Brentnkim@aol com CC Keith Bohr, Mayor Pro Tern Joe Carchio, Council Member Cathy Green, Council Member Don Hansen, Council Member Jill Hardy, Council Member Gil Coerper, Council Member Scott Hess, Director of Planning 6/12/2008 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From Flynn Joan Sent Thursday June 12 2008 11 58 AM To Brentnkim@aol com Cc Esparza Patty Subject RE YES on Parkside Estates LCP Amendment Thank you for your correspondence Your email will be added to the file as part of the official record Joan Flynn City Clerk From Brentnkim@aol com [mailto Brentnkim@aol com] Sent Wednesday, June 11, 2008 7 15 PM To city clerk@surfcity hb org Subject YES on Parkside Estates, LCP Amendment DearA Mayor Cook, I am writing to express my support of Shea Homes' Parkside Estates, and to strongly encourage a "YES" vote by City Council in support of the changes the California Coastal Commission made to Huntington Beach's Local Coastal Program at its hearing last November on Parkside Estates This is a very well planned project that provides great benefits for our city We will get the flood protection and water quality benefits we need so much, plus nearly half of the site will now be conservation open space and wetlands And because the amount of development was cut by the Commission, we will get all these benefits with less traffic and fewer new students in our schools Vote YES on June 161 Thank you Kimberly A Oldham Huntington Beach A A CAA A A A 92649 Brentnkim@aol com CC Keith Bohr, Mayor Pro Tem Joe Carchio, Council Member Cathy Green, Council Member Don Hansen, Council Member Jill Hardy, Council Member Gil Coerper, Council Member Scott Hess, Director of Planning 6/12/2008 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From Flynn Joan Sent Friday June 13 2008 2 19 PM To sigridortega@sbcglobal net Cc Esparza Patty Subject Re YES on Parkside Estates LCP Amendment Your correspondence will be entered into the official record as part of the council communication for this item Joan L Flynn CIVIC Huntington Beach City Clerk From sigridortega@sbcglobal net To city clerk@surfcity hb org Sent Fri Jun 13 1141 43 2008 Subject YES on Parkside Estates, LCP Amendment Dear Mayor Cook, I am writing to express my support of Shea Homes' Parkside Estates, and to strongly encourage a "YES" vote by City Council in support of the changes the California Coastal Commission made to Huntington Beach's Local Coastal Program at its hearing last November on Parkside Estates This is a very well planned project that provides great benefits for our city We will get the flood protection and water quality benefits we need so much, plus nearly half of the site will now be conservation open space and wetlands And because the amount of development was cut by the Commission, we will get all these benefits with less traffic and fewer new students in our schools Vote YES on June 161 Thank you Sigrid Ortega Huntington Beach, CA 92648 sigridortega@sbcglobal net CC Keith Bohr, Mayor Pro Tem Joe Carchio, Council Member Cathy Green, Council Member Don Hansen, Council Member Jill Hardy, Council Member Gil Coerper, Council Member Scott Hess, Director of Planning 6/13/2008 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From Flynn Joan Sent Thursday June 12 2008 11 12 PM To Ipaul193@earthlink net Esparza Patty Subject Re YES on Parkside Estates LCP Amendment Your correspondence will be entered into the official record as part of the council communication for this item Joan L Flynn CIVIC Huntington Beach City Clerk From Ipaul193@earthlink net To city clerk@surfcity hb org Sent Thu Jun 12 20 35 37 2008 Subject YES on Parkside Estates, LCP Amendment Dear Mayor Cook, I am writing to express my support of Shea Homes' Parkside Estates, and to strongly encourage a "YES" vote by City Council in support of the changes the California Coastal Commission made to Huntington Beach's Local Coastal Program at its hearing last November on Parkside Estates This is a very well planned project that provides great benefits for our city We will get the flood protection and water quality benefits we need so much, plus nearly half of the site will now be conservation open space and wetlands And because the amount of development was cut by the Commission, we will get all these benefits with less traffic and fewer new students in our schools Vote YES on June 161 Thank you Lois & Leonard Paul Huntington Beach, CA 92647 1pau1193@earthlmk net CC Keith Bohr, Mayor Pro Tern Joe Carchio, Council Member Cathy Green, Council Member Don Hansen, Council Member Jill Hardy, Council Member Gil Coerper, Council Member Scott Hess, Director of Planning 6/13/2008 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From Flynn Joan Sent Thursday June 12 2008 11 56 AM To bobrichterc21 @msn com Cc Esparza Patty Subject RE YES on Parkside Estates LCP Amendment Thank you for your correspondence Your email will be added to the file as part of the official record Joan Flynn City Clerk From bobrichterc2l@msn com [mailto bobrichterc2l@msn com] Sent Wednesday, June 11, 2008 5 27 PM To city clerk@surfcity hb org Subject YES on Parkside Estates, LCP Amendment Dear Mayor Cook, I am writing to express my support of Shea Homes' Parkside Estates, and to strongly encourage a "YES" vote by City Council in support of the changes the California Coastal Commission made to Huntington Beach's Local Coastal Program at its hearing last November on Parkside Estates This is a very well planned project that provides great benefits for our city We will get the flood protection and water quality benefits we need so much, plus nearly half of the site will now be conservation open space and wetlands And because the amount of development was cut by the Commission, we will get all these benefits with less traffic and fewer new students in our schools Vote YES on June 161 Thank you Robert and Trina Richter Huntington Beach, CA 92649 bobrichterc2l @msn com CC Keith Bohr, Mayor Pro Tem Joe Carchio, Council Member Cathy Green, Council Member Don Hansen, Council Member Jill Hardy, Council Member Gil Coerper, Council Member Scott Hess, Director of Planning 6/12/2008 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From Flynn Joan Sent Thursday June 12 2008 11 59 AM To jdrinde@verizon net Cc Esparza Patty Subject RE YES on Parkside Estates LCP Amendment Thank you for your correspondence Your email will be added to the file as part of the official record Joan Flynn City Clerk From jdrinde@verizon net [mailto jdrinde@verizon net] Sent Wednesday, June 11, 2008 5 21 PM To city clerk@surfcity hb org Subject YES on Parkside Estates, LCP Amendment Dear Mayor Cook I am writing to express my support of Shea Homes' Parkside Estates, and to strongly encourage a "YES" vote by City Council in support of the changes the California Coastal Commission made to Huntington Beach's Local Coastal Program at its hearing last November on Parkside Estates This is a very well planned project that provides great benefits for our city We will get the flood protection and water quality benefits we need so much, plus nearly half of the site will now be conservation open space and wetlands And because the amount of development was cut by the Commission, we will get all these benefits with less traffic and fewer new students in our schools Vote YES on June 161 Thank you John Rmde Huntington Beach, CA 92647 ldrmde@verizon net CC Keith Bohr, Mayor Pro Tern Joe Carchio, Council Member Cathy Green Council Member Don Hansen, Council Member Jill Hardy, Council Member Gil Coerper Council Member Scott Hess, Director of Planning 6/12/2008 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From Flynn Joan Sent Thursday June 12 2008 8 11 PM To Esparza Patty Subject Fw Oppose Item D 2 Joan L Flynn CIVIC Huntington Beach City Clerk From Daniel Rocha To city clerk@surfcity hb org Cc CITY COUNCIL Sent Thu Jun 12 18 22 34 2008 Subject Oppose Item D 2 Huntington Beach City Council and staff I am a home owner in Huntington Beach and I feel that Shea Parkside is a bad idea and is being pushed through by big business once again this city staff is being used by Shea My home abuts the Parkside property and while I know you and your staff don t seem care it will have negative effect on me and my family s way of life if Shea is allowed to proceed with Packside, so in the name of decency do not allow them to build the god awful number of oversized homes in the last of the wet lands known as the bean field I just hope this does not fall on deaf ears I have all but lost all hope that the system will work for homeowner/voter but is only for the benefit of those in power I do not understand why this project has been allowed to proceed this land is of the one of last open space s in the city and Shea is once again is trying to cover it up with homes, god help us all with globe warming and all we just don t seem care about anything but MONEY Please do not allow Shea to pull yet another underhanded trick like they did at CCC hearing Thank for allowing me to vent my feeling on this matter Dan Rocha 6/13/2008 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From Flynn Joan Sent Wednesday June 11 2008 2 22 PM To frroose269@earthlink net Cc Esparza Patty Subject RE YES on Parkside Estates LCP Amendment Thank you for your correspondence Your email will be added to the file as part of the official record Joan Flynn City Clerk From frroose269@earthlink net [mailto frroose269@earthlink net] Sent Wednesday, June 11, 2008 2 18 PM To city clerk@surfcity hb org Subject YES on Parkside Estates, LCP Amendment Dear Mayor Cook, I am writing to express my support of Shea Homes' Parkside Estates, and to strongly encourage a "YES" vote by City Council in support of the changes the California Coastal Commission made to Huntington Beach's Local Coastal Program at its hearing last November on Parkside Estates This is a very well planned project that provides great benefits for our city We will get the flood protection and water quality benefits we need so much, plus nearly half of the site will now be conservation open space and wetlands And because the amount of development was cut by the Commission, we will get all these benefits with less traffic and fewer new students in our schools Vote YES on June 161 Thank you frets roosen huntmgton beach, ca 92647 frroose269@earthlink net CC Keith Bohr, Mayor Pro Tem Joe Carchio, Council Member Cathy Green, Council Member Don Hansen, Council Member Jill Hardy, Council Member Gil Coerper, Council Member Scott Hess, Director of Planning 6/11/2008 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From Flynn Joan Sent Thursday June 12 2008 11 57 AM To earrmr@yahoo com Cc Esparza Patty Subject RE YES on Parkside Estates LCP Amendment Thank you for your correspondence Your email will be added to the file as part of the official record Joan Flynn City Clerk From earrmr@yahoo com [mailto earrmr@yahoo com] Sent Wednesday, June 11, 2008 6 28 PM To city clerk@surfcity hb org Subject YES on Parkside Estates, LCP Amendment Dear Mayor Cook, I am writing to express my support of Shea Homes' Parkside Estates, and to strongly encourage a "YES" vote by City Council in support of the changes the California Coastal Commission made to Huntington Beach's Local Coastal Program at its hearing last November on Parkside Estates This is a very well planned project that provides great benefits for our city We will get the flood protection and water quality benefits we need so much, plus nearly half of the site will now be conservation open space and wetlands And because the amount of development was cut by the Commission, we will get all these benefits with less traffic and fewer new students in our schools Vote YES on June 161 Thank you Elaine Roth Huntington Beach, Ca 92647 earrmr@yahoo com CC Keith Bohr, Mayor Pro Tem Joe Carchio Council Member Cathy Green, Council Member Don Hansen, Council Member Jill Hardy, Council Member Gil Coerper, Council Member Scott Hess, Director of Planning 6/12/2008 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From Flynn Joan Sent Thursday June 12 2008 11 59 AM To tsavage@savagetechnlogy com Cc Esparza Patty Subject RE YES on Parkside Estates LCP Amendment Thank you for your correspondence Your email will be added to the file as part of the official record Joan Flynn City Clerk From tsavage@savagetechnlogy com [mailto tsavage@savagetechnlogy com] Sent Wednesday, June 11, 2008 9 21 PM To city clerk@surfcity hb org Subject YES on Parkside Estates, LCP Amendment Dear Mayor Cook, I am writing to express my support of Shea Homes' Parkside Estates, and to strongly encourage a "YES" vote by City Council in support of the changes the California Coastal Commission made to Huntington Beach's Local Coastal Program at its hearing last November on Parkside Estates This is a very well planned project that provides great benefits for our city We will get the flood protection and water quality benefits we need so much, plus nearly half of the site will now be conservation open space and wetlands And because the amount of development was cut by the Commission, we will get all these benefits with less traffic and fewer new students in our schools Vote YES on June 161 Thank you Tom Savage Huntington Bech, CA 92647 tsavage@savagetechnlogy com 714-843-9041 CC Keith Bohr, Mayor Pro Tem Joe Carchio, Council Member Cathy Green, Council Member Don Hansen Council Member Jill Hardy, Council Member Gil Coerper, Council Member Scott Hess, Director of Planning 6/12/2008 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From Flynn Joan Sent Wednesday June 11 2008 5 07 PM To doro1928@yahoo com Cc Esparza Patty Subject RE YES on Parkside Estates LCP Amendment Thank you for your correspondence Your email will be added to the file as part of the official record Joan Flynn City Clerk From doro1928@yahoo com [mailto doro1928@yahoo com] Sent Wednesday, June 11, 2008 4 42 PM To city clerk@surfcity hb org Subject YES on Parkside Estates, LCP Amendment Dear Mayor Cook, I am writing to express my support of Shea Homes' Parkside Estates, and to strongly encourage a "YES" vote by City Council in support of the changes the California Coastal Commission made to Huntington Beach's Local Coastal Program at its hearing last November on Parkside Estates This is a very well planned project that provides great benefits for our city We will get the flood protection and water quality benefits we need so much, plus nearly half of the site will now be conservation open space and wetlands And because the amount of development was cut by the Commission, we will get all these benefits with less traffic and fewer new students in our schools Vote YES on June 161 Thank you Doris Schoonmaker Huntington Beach, CA 92647 dorol928@yahoo com CC Keith Bohr, Mayor Pro Tern Joe Carchio, Council Member Cathy Green, Council Member Don Hansen, Council Member Jill Hardy, Council Member Gil Coerper, Council Member Scott Hess, Director of Planning 6/11/2008 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From Flynn Joan Sent Wednesday June 11 2008 5 07 PM To doro1928@yahoo corn Cc Esparza Patty Subject RE YES on Parkside Estates LCP Amendment Thank you for your correspondence Your email will be added to the file as part of the official record Joan Flynn City Clerk From cloro1928@yahoo com [mailto doro1928@yahoo com] Sent Wednesday, June 11, 2008 4 43 PM To city clerk@surfcity-hb org Subject YES on Parkside Estates, LCP Amendment Dear Mayor Cook, I am writing to express my support of Shea Homes' Parkside Estates, and to strongly encourage a "YES" vote by City Council in support of the changes the California Coastal Commission made to Huntington Beach's Local Coastal Program at its hearing last November on Parkside Estates This is a very well planned project that provides great benefits for our city We will get the flood protection and water quality benefits we need so much, plus nearly half of the site will now be conservation open space and wetlands And because the amount of development was cut by the Commission, we will get all these benefits with less traffic and fewer new students in our schools Vote YES on June 161 Thank you Ronald Schoonmaker Huntington Beach, CA 92647 dorol928@yahoo com CC Keith Bohr, Mayor Pro Tem Joe Carchio, Council Member Cathy Green, Council Member Don Hansen, Council Member Jill Hardy, Council Member Gil Coerper Council Member Scott Hess, Director of Planning 6/11/2008 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From Flynn Joan Sent Thursday June 12 2008 2 59 PM To s selby62@verizon net Cc Esparza Patty Subject RE YES on Parkside Estates LCP Amendment Thank you for your correspondence Your email will be added to the file as part of the official record Joan Flynn City Clerk From s selby62@verizon net [mailto s selby62@verizon net] Sent Thursday, June 12, 2008 1 59 PM To city clerk@surfcity hb org Subject YES on Parkside Estates, LCP Amendment Dear Mayor Cook, I am writing to express my support of Shea Homes' Parkside Estates, and to strongly encourage a "YES" vote by City Council in support of the changes the California Coastal Commission made to Huntington Beach's Local Coastal Program at its hearing last November on Parkside Estates This is a very well planned project that provides great benefits for our city We will get the flood protection and water quality benefits we need so much, plus nearly half of the site will now be conservation open space and wetlands And because the amount of development was cut by the Commission, we will get all these benefits with less traffic and fewer new students in our schools Vote YES on June 161 Thank you Stephen Selby Huntington Beach, CA 92647 s selby62@verizon net 714-846-5208 CC Keith Bohr, Mayor Pro Tern. Joe Carchio, Council Member Cathy Green, Council Member Don Hansen, Council Member Jill Hardy, Council Member Gil Coerper, Council Member Scott Hess Director of Planning 6/12/2008 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From Flynn Joan Sent Thursday June 12 2008 2 54 PM To georginasoto@sbcglobal net Cc Esparza Patty Subject RE YES on Parkside Estates LCP Amendment Thank you for your correspondence Your email will be added to the file as part of the official record Joan Flynn City Clerk From georginasoto@sbcglobal net [mailto georginasoto@sbcglobal net] Sent Thursday, June 12, 2008 12 54 PM To city clerk@surfcity hb org Subject YES on Parkside Estates, LCP Amendment Dear Mayor Cook, I am writing to express my support of Shea Homes' Parkside Estates, and to strongly encourage a "YES" vote by City Council in support of the changes the California Coastal Commission made to Huntington Beach's Local Coastal Program at its hearing last November on Parkside Estates This is a very well planned project that provides great benefits for our city We will get the flood protection and water quality benefits we need so much, plus nearly half of the site will now be conservation open space and wetlands And because the amount of development was cut by the Commission we will get all these benefits with less traffic and fewer new students in our schools Vote YES on June 161 Thank you Gina Soto Huntington Beach ca 92648 georgmasoto@sbcglobal net CC Keith Bohr, Mayor Pro Tern Joe Carchio, Council Member Cathy Green, Council Member Don Hansen, Council Member Jill Hardy Council Member Gil Coerper, Council Member Scott Hess, Director of Planning 6/12/2008 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From Flynn Joan Sent Thursday June 12 2008 11 12 PM To ethanisun@yahoo com Cc Esparza Patty Subject Re YES on Parkside Estates LCP Amendment Your correspondence will be entered into the official record as part of the council communication for this item Joan L Flynn CIVIC Huntington Beach City Clerk From ethanisun@yahoo com To city clerk@surfcity hb org Sent Thu Jun 12 19 40 58 2008 Subject YES on Parkside Estates, LCP Amendment Dear Mayor Cook, I am writing to express my support of Shea Homes' Parkside Estates, and to strongly encourage a "YES" vote by City Council in support of the changes the California Coastal Commission made to Huntington Beach's Local Coastal Program at its hearing last November on Parkside Estates This is a very well planned project that provides great benefits for our city We will get the flood protection and water quality benefits we need so much, plus nearly half of the site will now be conservation open space and wetlands And because the amount of development was cut by the Commission, we will get all these benefits with less traffic and fewer new students in our schools Vote YES on June 161 Thank you Ethan Sun FOUNTAIN VLY, CA 92708 ethanisun@yahoo com CC Keith Bohr, Mayor Pro Tem Joe Carchio, Council Member Cathy Green, Council Member Don Hansen, Council Member Jill Hardy, Council Member Gil Coerper, Council Member Scott Hess, Director of Planning 6/13/2008 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From Flynn Joan Sent Wednesday June 11 2008 12 15 PM To crystalsuzuk12@yahoo corn Cc Esparza Patty Subject RE YES on Parkside Estates LCP Amendment Thank you for your correspondence Your email will be added to the file as part of the official record Joan Flynn City Clerk From crystalsuzuk12@yahoo com [mailto crystalsuzuk12@yahoo com] Sent Tuesday, June 10, 2008 3 40 PM To city clerk@surfcity hb org Subject YES on Parkside Estates, LCP Amendment Dear Mayor Cook, I am writing to express my support of Shea Homes' Parkside Estates, and to strongly encourage a "YES" vote by City Council in support of the changes the California Coastal Commission made to Huntington Beach's Local Coastal Program at its hearing last November on Parkside Estates This is a very well planned project that provides great benefits for our city We will get the flood protection and water quality benefits we need so much plus nearly half of the site will now be conservation open space and wetlands And because the amount of development was cut by the Commission, we will get all these benefits with less traffic and fewer new students in our schools Vote YES on June 161 Thank you Crystal Suzuki Huntington Beach, CA 92647 crystalsuzuk12@yahoo com CC Keith Bohr, Mayor Pro Tem Joe Carchio, Council Member Cathy Green, Council Member Don Hansen Council Member Jill Hardy, Council Member Gil Coerper, Council Member Scott Hess, Director of Planning 6/11/2008 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From Flynn Joan Sent Thursday June 12 2008 2 59 PM To dswee1971 @aol com Cc Esparza Patty Subject RE YES on Parkside Estates LCP Amendment Thank you for your correspondence Your email will be added to the file as part of the official record Joan Flynn City Clerk From dswee1971@aol com [mailto dswee1971@aol com] Sent Thursday, June 12, 2008 12 03 PM To city clerk@surfcity hb org Subject YES on Parkside Estates, LCP Amendment Dear Mayor Cook I am writing to express my support of Shea Homes' Parkside Estates and to strongly encourage a "YES" vote by City Council in support of the changes the California Coastal Commission made to Huntington Beach's Local Coastal Program at its hearing last November on Parkside Estates This is a very well planned project that provides great benefits for our city We will get the flood protection and water quality benefits we need so much, plus nearly half of the site will now be conservation open space and wetlands And because the amount of development was cut by the Commission, we will get all these benefits with less traffic and fewer new students in our schools Vote YES on June 161 Thank you denms sweeney huntmgton beach, ca 92647 dswee 1971 gaol com CC Keith Bohr, Mayor Pro Tern. Joe Carchio Council Member Cathy Green, Council Member Don Hansen, Council Member Jill Hardy, Council Member Gil Coerper Council Member Scott Hess, Director of Planning 6/12/2008 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From Flynn Joan Sent Wednesday June 11 2008 5 11 PM To strenka@verizon net Cc Esparza Patty Subject RE YES on Parkside Estates LCP Amendment Thank you for your correspondence Your email will be added to the file as part of the official record Joan Flynn City Clerk From strenka@verizon net [mailto strenka@verizon net] Sent Wednesday, June 11, 2008 3 13 PM To city clerk@surfcity hb org Subject YES on Parkside Estates, LCP Amendment Dear Mayor Cook, I am writing to express my support of Shea Homes' Parkside Estates, and to strongly encourage a "YES" vote by City Council in support of the changes the California Coastal Commission made to Huntington Beach's Local Coastal Program at its hearing last November on Parkside Estates This is a very well planned project that provides great benefits for our city We will get the flood protection and water quality benefits we need so much, plus nearly half of the site will now be conservation open space and wetlands And because the amount of development was cut by the Commission we will get all these benefits with less traffic and fewer new students in our schools Vote YES on June 161 Thank you Stephen and Sharon Trenka Huntington Beach, CA 92647 strenka@verizon net CC Keith Bohr, Mayor Pro Tern. Joe Carchio, Council Member Cathy Green, Council Member Don Hansen, Council Member Jill Hardy, Council Member Gil Coerper, Council Member Scott Hess, Director of Planning 6/11/2008 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From Flynn Joan Sent Thursday June 12 2008 11 59 AM To celldat@verizon net Cc Esparza Patty Subject RE YES on Parkside Estates LCP Amendment Thank you for your correspondence Your email will be added to the file as part of the official record Joan Flynn City Clerk From celldat@verizon net [mailto celldat@verizon net] Sent Wednesday, June 11, 2008 10 49 PM To city clerk@surfcity hb org Subject YES on Parkside Estates, LCP Amendment Dear Mayor Cook, I am writing to express my support of Shea Homes' Parkside Estates, and to strongly encourage a "YES" vote by City Council in support of the changes the California Coastal Commission made to Huntington Beach's Local Coastal Program at its hearing last November on Parkside Estates This is a very well planned project that provides great benefits for our city We will get the flood protection and water quality benefits we need so much, plus nearly half of the site will now be conservation open space and wetlands And because the amount of development was cut by the Commission,we will get all these benefits with less traffic and fewer new students in our schools Vote YES on June 161 Thank you Charles Vranek Huntington Beach, Calif 92647 celldat@verizon net 714-842 4557 CC Keith Bohr, Mayor Pro Tern Joe Carchio, Council Member Cathy Green, Council Member Don Hansen, Council Member Jill Hardy Council Member Gil Coerper, Council Member Scott Hess Director of Planning 6/12/2008 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From Flynn Joan Sent Wednesday June 11 2008 5 11 PM To johnwanghb@aol com Cc Esparza Patty Subject RE YES on Parkside Estates LCP Amendment Thank you for your correspondence Your email will be added to the file as part of the official record Joan Flynn City Clerk From Johnwanghb@aol com [mailto Johnwanghb@aol com] Sent Wednesday, June 11, 2008 3 11 PM To city clerk@surfcity hb org Sub]ect YES on Parkside Estates, LCP Amendment Dear Mayor Cook, I am writing to express my support of Shea Homes' Parkside Estates, and to strongly encourage a "YES" vote by City Council in support of the changes the California Coastal Commission made to Huntington Beach's Local Coastal Program at its hearing last November on Parkside Estates This is a very well planned project that provides great benefits for our city We will get the flood protection and water quality benefits we need so much, plus nearly half of the site will now be conservation open space and wetlands And because the amount of development was cut by the Commission, we will get all these benefits with less traffic and fewer new students in our schools Vote YES on June 161 Thank you John Wang Huntington Beach CA 92647 lohnwanghb@aol com CC Keith Bohr, Mayor Pro Tern. Joe Carchio, Council Member Cathy Green, Council Member Don Hansen, Council Member Jill Hardy, Council Member Gil Coerper, Council Member Scott Hess Director of Planning 6/11/2008 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From Flynn Joan Sent Thursday June 12 2008 11 57 AM To dougwb2@aol com Cc Esparza Patty Subject RE YES on Parkside Estates LCP Amendment Thank you for your correspondence Your email will be added to the file as part of the official record Joan Flynn City Clerk From dougwb2@aol com [mailto dougwb2@aol com] Sent Wednesday, June 11, 2008 6 50 PM To city clerk@surfcity hb org Subject YES on Parkside Estates, LCP Amendment DearA Mayor Cook, I am writing to express my support of Shea Homes' Parkside Estates, and to strongly encourage a "YES" vote by City Council in support of the changes the California Coastal Commission made to Huntington Beach's Local Coastal Program at its hearing last November on Parkside Estates This is a very well planned project that provides great benefits for our city We will get the flood protection and water quality benefits we need so much, plus nearly half of the site will now be conservation open space and wetlands And because the amount of development was cut by the Commission, we will get all these benefits with less traffic and fewer new students in our schools Vote YES on June 161 Thank you DouglasA Wood Huntington Beach,A A CAA A A A 92647 dougwb2@aol com CC Keith Bohr, Mayor Pro Tem Joe Carchio, Council Member Cathy Green, Council Member Don Hansen, Council Member Jill Hardy, Council Member Gil Coerper, Council Member Scott Hess, Director of Planning 6/12/2008 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From Flynn Joan Sent Sunday June 15 2008 10 57 AM To selkie csa@verizon net Cc Esparza Patty Subject Re YES on Parkside Estates LCP Amendment Your correspondence will be entered into the official record as part of the council communication for this item Joan L Flynn CIVIC Huntington Beach City Clerk From selkie csa@verizon net To city clerk@surfcity hb org Sent Sun Jun 15 09 26 02 2008 Subject YES on Parkside Estates, LCP Amendment Dear Mayor Cook I am writing to express my support of Shea Homes' Parkside Estates, and to strongly encourage a "YES" vote by City Council in support of the changes the California Coastal Commission made to Huntington Beach's Local Coastal Program at its hearing last November on Parkside Estates This is a very well planned project that provides great benefits for our city We will get the flood protection and water quality benefits we need so much, plus nearly half of the site will now be conservation open space and wetlands And because the amount of development was cut by the Commission, we will get all these benefits with less traffic and fewer new students in our schools Vote YES on June 161 Thank you Cindy Andreassen Huntington Beach, CA 92647 selkie csa@verizon net CC Keith Bohr, Mayor Pro Tem Joe Carchio, Council Member Cathy Green, Council Member Don Hansen Council Member Jill Hardy Council Member Gil Coerper, Council Member Scott Hess Director of Planning 6/16/2008 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From Flynn Joan Sent Sunday June 15 2008 10 57 AM To johneink@verizon net Cc Esparza Patty Subject Re YES on Parkside Estates LCP Amendment Your correspondence will be entered into the official record as part of the council communication for this item Joan L Flynn CIVIC Huntington Beach City Clerk From johneirik@verizon net To city clerk@surfcity hb org Sent Sun Jun 15 09 27 18 2008 Subject YES on Parkside Estates, LCP Amendment Dear Mayor Cook, I am writing to express my support of Shea Homes' Parkside Estates, and to strongly encourage a "YES" vote by City Council in support of the changes the California Coastal Commission made to Huntington Beach's Local Coastal Program at its hearing last November on Parkside Estates This is a very well planned project that provides great benefits for our city We will get the flood protection and water quality benefits we need so much, plus nearly half of the site will now be conservation open space and wetlands And because the amount of development was cut by the Commission we will get all these benefits with less traffic and fewer new students in our schools Vote YES on June 161 Thank you John E Andreassen Huntington Beach, CA 92647 lohneirik@verizon net CC Keith Bohr, Mayor Pro Tem Joe Carchio, Council Member Cathy Green, Council Member Don Hansen, Council Member Jill Hardy Council Member Gil Coerper, Council Member Scott Hess, Director of Planning 6/16/2008 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From Flynn Joan Sent Sunday June 15 2008 2 38 PM To nckless@verizon net Cc Esparza Patty Subject Re YES on Parkside Estates LCP Amendment Your correspondence will be entered into the official record as part of the council communication for this item Joan L Flynn CIVIC Huntington Beach City Clerk From nckless@verizon net To city clerk@surfcity hb org Sent Sun Jun 15 11 37 40 2008 Subject YES on Parkside Estates, LCP Amendment Dear Mayor Cook, I am writing to express my support of Shea Homes' Parkside Estates, and to strongly encourage a "YES" vote by City Council in support of the changes the California Coastal Commission made to Huntington Beach's Local Coastal Program at its hearing last November on Parkside Estates This is a very well planned project that provides great benefits for our city We will get the flood protection and water quality benefits we need so much, plus nearly half of the site will now be conservation open space and wetlands And because the amount of development was cut by the Commission we will get all these benefits with less traffic and fewer new students in our schools Vote YES on June 161 Thank you Soloman Armond Huntington Beach CA 92648 nckless@verizon net CC Keith Bohr, Mayor Pro Tem Joe Carchio, Council Member Cathy Green, Council Member Don Hansen, Council Member Jill Hardy, Council Member Gil Coerper, Council Member Scott Hess, Director of Planning 6/16/2008 Page 1 of 2 Esparza, Patty From Dapkus Pat on behalf of Coerper Gil Sent Friday June 13 2008 4 49 PM To City Clerk Agenda Subject FW CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM D 2 Pat bapkus (714) 536-5579 (714) 536-5233 (FAX) bAwSaveATree please don t print this unless you really need to From Mary Baretich [mailto mjbaretich@hotmail corn] Sent Friday, June 13, 2008 7 01 AM To Green, Cathy, Cook, Debbie, Hansen, Don, Coerper, Gil, Carchio, Joe, Hardy, Jill, Bohr, Keith Subject CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM D 2 Mayor Cook and Council Members I urge a NO vote on item D-2 or at least continue it per staffs alternative recommendation Shea says that all they are doing on their property is ' normal farming yet Coastal Commission staff have found that Shea "obliterated" a federal wetland Shea has never explained how the Coastal Act allows a wetland to be destroyed by "normal farming"-- because it DOESN'T allow itl The findings omit 4 1 mitigation for loss or destruction of wetlands even though the Commissioners NEVER voted to remove that requirement from the staff report they were using at the November hearing Cities and projects up and down the coast all require 4 1 mitigation-- doesn t it seem STRANGE that Huntington Beach wouldn't be the same as everybody else? Shea sold this project to the City by promising $15 million in flood control improvements Now the County is paying for most of the work with Shea sitting on the sidelines That proves you can have flood protection WITHOUT building any housesl Thank you Sincerely May J-C) B/,}RETICr+ 6/16/2008 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From Flynn Joan Sent Sunday June 15 2008 2 38 PM To 4socalhomes@verizon net Cc Esparza Patty Subject Re YES on Parkside Estates LCP Amendment Your correspondence will be entered into the official record as part of the council communication for this item Joan L Flynn CIVIC Huntington Beach City Clerk From 4socalhomes@verizon net <4socalhomes@verizon net> To city clerk@surfcity hb org Sent Sun Jun 15 11 37 112008 Subject YES on Parkside Estates, LCP Amendment Dear Mayor Cook, I am writing to express my support of Shea Homes' Parkside Estates, and to strongly encourage a "YES" vote by City Council in support of the changes the California Coastal Commission made to Huntington Beach's Local Coastal Program at its hearing last November on Parkside Estates This is a very well planned project that provides great benefits for our city We will get the flood protection and water quality benefits we need so much, plus nearly half of the site will now be conservation open space and wetlands And because the amount of development was cut by the Commission, we will get all these benefits with less traffic and fewer new students in our schools Vote YES on June 161 Thank you Melissa Bayles Huntington Beach, CA 92648 4socalhomes@verizon net CC Keith Bohr, Mayor Pro Tem Joe Carchio, Council Member Cathy Green Council Member Don Hansen Council Member Jill Hardy, Council Member Gil Coerper, Council Member Scott Hess, Director of Planning 6/16/2008 Esparza, Patty From Flynn Joan Sent Sunday June 15 2008 2 40 PM To Siameseldy@aol com Cc Esparza Patty Subject Re June 16 Council Meeting OPPOSE item D 2 Your correspondence will be entered into the official record as part of the council communication for this item Joan L Flynn CMC Huntington Beach City Clerk From Siameseldy@aol com To city clerk@surfcity hb org, CITY COUNCIL Sent Sun Jun 15 14 31 45 2008 Subject June 16 Council Meeting OPPOSE item D 2 Mayor Cook and Council Members I urge a NO vote on item D 2 or at least continue it per staff s alternative recommendation Shea says that all they are doing on their property is normal farming yet Coastal Commission staff have found that Shea obliterated a federal wetland Shea has never explained how the Coastal Act allows a wetland to be destroyed by normal farming because it DOESN T allow iti What happened to the idea of 4 1 mitigation ? The findings omit 4 1 mitigation for loss or destruction of wetlands even though the Commissioners NEVER voted to remove that requirement from the staff report they were using at the November hearing Cities and projects up and down the coast all require 4 1 mitigation doesn t it seem STRANGE that Huntington Beach wouldn t be the same as everybody else? Why is this being allowed???? Shea sold this project to the City by promising $15 million in flood control improvements Now the County is paying for most of the work with Shea sitting on the sidelines That proves you can have flood protection WITHOUT building any housesi Shea must just be laughing at what they have pulled off The city council members have been elected to protect the city to decide what is best for the city I believe this includes protecting the property that has yet to built upon It includes protecting wetlands the few wetlands that still exist It includes punishing those who neglect to save the wetlands not allowing such invasive activities to be ignored It includes realizing that building upon this wetlands an area that has acted as a wetlands forever will cause untold problems when that area is covered with cement and asphalt Think about it city council and do what you know is right Juliann Blake 5362 Kenilworth Drive '— Huntington Beach 92649 ************** 6/16/2008 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From Flynn Joan Sent Sunday June 15 2008 10 09 PM To carlberg@ix netcom com Cc Esparza Patty Subject Re Oppose Item D 2 on June 16 Council Meeting Your correspondence will be entered into the official record as part of the council communication for this item Joan L Flynn CIVIC Huntington Beach City Clerk From David Carlberg To city clerk@surfcity hb org Sent Sun Jun 15 21 57 15 2008 Subject Oppose Item D 2 on June 16 Council Meeting To City Council The Amigos de Bolsa Chica urges you to reject Resolution No 2008-3 1, (Item D-2) and instead express your disagreement with local coastal program amendment No 1-06 as modified pertaining to the Parkside development The Coastal Commission arbitrarily set the Parkside mitigation credit ratio to I 1 without any open discussion or vote in their previous session when their findings clearly stated a 4 1 ratio In doing so, the Commission has set a dangerous precedent It means that in the future the Commission can change any requirement at the 11 th hour merely by an end run at the behest of an applicant, as it did in this case, without public notice or opportunity for public comment By rejecting this item, you will send a message to the Commission that the City of Huntington Beach will not condone this manner of doing business David Carlberg President Amigos de Bolsa Chica 6/16/2008 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From Flynn Joan Sent Sunday June 15 2008 8 21 PM To brian I foist@boeing corn Cc Esparza Patty Subject Re YES on Parkside Estates LCP Amendment Your correspondence will be entered into the official record as part of the council communication for this item Joan L Flynn CIVIC Huntington Beach City Clerk From brian I foist@boeing com To city clerk@surfcity hb org Sent Sun Jun 15 20 15 49 2008 Subject YES on Parkside Estates, LCP Amendment Dear Mayor Cook, I am writing to express my support of Shea Homes' Parkside Estates, and to strongly encourage a "YES" vote by City Council in support of the changes the California Coastal Commission made to Huntington Beach's Local Coastal Program at its hearing last November on Parkside Estates This is a very well planned project that provides great benefits for our city We will get the flood protection and water quality benefits we need so much, plus nearly half of the site will now be conservation open space and wetlands And because the amount of development was cut by the Commission, we will get all these benefits with less traffic and fewer new students in our schools Vote YES on June 161 Thank you Brian Foist Huntington Beach CA 92647-5608 brian 1 foist@boeing com 714-848 2016 CC Keith Bohr Mayor Pro Tem Joe Carchio, Council Member Cathy Green Council Member Don Hansen, Council Member Jill Hardy, Council Member Gil Coerper Council Member Scott Hess Director of Planning 6/16/2008 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From Flynn Joan Sent Saturday June 14 2008 10 28 AM To marnkjanrl @hotmail com Cc Esparza Patty Subject Re YES on Parkside Estates LCP Amendment Your correspondence will be entered into the official record as part of the council communication for this item Joan L Flynn CIVIC Huntington Beach City Clerk From marnkjanrl@hotmail com To city clerk@surfcity hb org Sent Sat Jun 14 10 02 55 2008 Subject YES on Parkside Estates, LCP Amendment Dear Mayor Cook, I am writing to express my support of Shea Homes' Parkside Estates, and to strongly encourage a "YES" vote by City Council in support of the changes the California Coastal Commission made to Huntington Beach's Local Coastal Program at its hearing last November on Parkside Estates This is a very well planned project that provides great benefits for our city We will get the flood protection and water quality benefits we need so much, plus nearly half of the site will now be conservation open space and wetlands And because the amount of development was cut by the Commission, we will get all these benefits with less traffic and fewer new students in our schools Vote YES on June 161 Thank you Jana Gersonde Huntington Beach, ca 92647 marnkjanrl@hotmail com CC Keith Bohr Mayor Pro Tem Joe Carchio, Council Member Cathy Green, Council Member Don Hansen, Council Member Jill Hardy Council Member Gil Coerper Council Member Scott Hess, Director of Planning 6/16/2008 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From Flynn Joan Sent Saturday June 14 2008 10 28 AM To marnkjanr1@hotmail com Cc Esparza Patty Subject Re YES on Parkside Estates LCP Amendment Your correspondence will be entered into the official record as part of the council communication for this item Joan L Flynn CIVIC Huntington Beach City Clerk From marnkjanrl@hotmail com To city clerk@surfcity hb org Sent Sat Jun 14 10 03 10 2008 Subject YES on Parkside Estates, LCP Amendment Dear Mayor Cook, I am writing to express my support of Shea Homes' Parkside Estates, and to strongly encourage a "YES" vote by City Council in support of the changes the California Coastal Commission made to Huntington Beach's Local Coastal Program at its hearing last November on Parkside Estates This is a very well planned project that provides great benefits for our city We will get the flood protection and water quality benefits we need so much, plus nearly half of the site will now be conservation open space and wetlands And because the amount of development was cut by the Commission, we will get all these benefits with less traffic and fewer new students in our schools Vote YES on June 161 Thank you Maj an Gersonde Huntington Beach, ca 92647 mar*anrl@hotmail com CC Keith Bohr, Mayor Pro Tern. Joe Carchio Council Member Cathy Green, Council Member Don Hansen, Council Member Jill Hardy Council Member Gil Coerper, Council Member Scott Hess, Director of Planning 6/16/2008 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From Flynn Joan Sent Saturday June 14 2008 10 27 AM To marnkjanr1@hotmail com Cc Esparza Patty Subject Re YES on Parkside Estates LCP Amendment Your correspondence will be entered into the official record as part of the council communication for this item Joan L Flynn CIVIC Huntington Beach City Clerk From marnkjanrl@hotmail com To city clerk@surfcity hb org Sent Sat Jun 14 10 02 32 2008 Subject YES on Parkside Estates, LCP Amendment Dear Mayor Cook I am writing to express my support of Shea Homes' Parkside Estates and to strongly encourage a "YES" vote by City Council in support of the changes the California Coastal Commission made to Huntington Beach's Local Coastal Program at its hearing last November on Parkside Estates This is a very well planned project that provides great benefits for our city We will get the flood protection and water quality benefits we need so much, plus nearly half of the site will now be conservation open space and wetlands And because the amount of development was cut by the Commission, we will get all these benefits with less traffic and fewer new students in our schools Vote YES on June 161 Thank you mark Gersonde Huntington Beach, ca 92647 marnkjanrIghotmail com CC Keith Bohr Mayor Pro Tem Joe Carchio, Council Member Cathy Green, Council Member Don Hansen, Council Member Jill Hardy, Council Member Gil Coerper, Council Member Scott Hess, Director of Planning 6/16/2008 Esparza, Patty From Flynn Joan Sent Saturday June 14 2008 8 25 AM To ellenhalopoff@dellmail com Cc Esparza Patty Subject Re Oppose item D 2 Your correspondence will be entered into the official record as part of the council communication for this item Joan L Flynn CMC Huntington Beach City Clerk ----- Original Message ----- From Ellen Halopoff <ellenhalopoff@dellmail com> To CITY COUNCIL Cc city clerk@surfcity-hb org Sent Sat Jun 14 07 12 54 2008 Subject Oppose item D-2 Mayor Cook and Council Members I urge a NO vote on item D-2, or at least continue it per staff s alternative recommendation Shea says that all they are doing on their property is normal farming yet Coastal Commission staff have found that Shea obliterated a federal wetland Shea has never explained how the Coastal Act allows a wetland to be destroyed by normal farming -- because it DOESN T allow it ' The findings omit 4 1 mitigation for loss or destruction of wetlands ever_ though the Commissioners NEVER voted to remove that requirement from the staff report they were using at the November hearing Cities and projects up and down the coast all require 4 1 mitigation-- doesn t it seem STRANGE that Huntington Beach wouldn t be the same as everybody else Shea sold this project to the City by promising $15 million in flood control improvements Now the County is paying for most of the work with Shea sitting on the sidelines That proves you can have flood protection WITHOUT building any houses ' Sincerely William and Ellen Halopoff 4014 Mistral Drive Huntington Beach CA 92649 Film School at Boston University Mass Learn to shoot and edit both documentary & narrative films at CDIABU http //a8-asy a8ww net/a8-ads/aditrclick?redirected=5029216a3cdb6449a48410251116fb61 1 1 ~ r HUNTINGION HACH CHAMBERa�- Tune 12 2008 MMkRCE * * * * Ntavor Delike C ook tnd N1tn1htr, of the Utv Coun,-il 2000 N1 rill SLltel iluntlrt,lon 13cU-111 C�1 92649 RL Parkside F states Huntington Beach residcnt% and busincsses Hill time millions of dollars annually w ith adoption of Huntington Beach I C P Amendments De it Ni iNoi Cool l Its Iluntul4ton Beach ( hamberot CnttlrlILrLi rtltl\ t,tkt, t po,lllolt on Ic,identidl de%elopnitnt plulcct,bit ul,e It 1, hi,hk unu,uttl loi t I1t%N nelLhborhood to h We in Iltlp 1L1 — po,ttiN,€. of nt j,,,ttj%t, -cal 1 ',R nlft�tnt part o1 €�u1 tlt4 I loxv,-%er In ths_ L r,e of Slri-1 l-lomcs la oposed Paik,t& Lst Itt,pluleLt eve 11'1X4 i tktn ihn,th0n In suppc'IL Fecau,t of th,- tsmsiderable flood €.ontrol and tconomlt benttit, it xvill brin, to llunttng4on 131-aLh re,ident, and husinesses Fullm\in!,the C'oil i Il t C€ia5t tl C onuiw ston s rcctint Lulin.,in tavoi of the proji U «e tsk the. Cit} to rdopt in full the chulpes the C oast 11 Conunisston mldr; to the Huntington Be i,,h I dial C o4,tal Piociani 101ILh would a11€t A lot 1'trkst& Lst ttt., to mots loiNN ttd took Lid rLLtl%InL I C091-t-1 Ikkelopment Permri Sh, t Fonles has c.ottllnittLcl to undeitaking at it,w, n -xptn,e a w I� million proLi un (A Itvee IILNN 110011A harliel Ilea pumps ntkr slorni dtuns and othLr�flood s untrof 1n1prr`0,tmtl1ts 1I1C,t iniprutc,nxnt,dIL not -uircritk lundtd by thi. -Itw or cotjntt ,o the inlproxenients still not K, nradL in the lore,eu thle lutuic. absent appiu, d of P itk,lde l ,t rtc, 1 N.-,t Itnpro�enitnt,will all€ xx l I N1 1 to cu111) d neu ilc)od Map th,-irbN iedutln- or Jimin iting flood iwtlranit. pienlutnls loi ,onic 7 000 h0rnLOr4nC1s rnd brlSUILY, €1vtintr, in Huntin-lon 13c Bch Ras�,d on 01-11 c,prtltnci tesidl Iti tl flood rnsulan,.L ptemILtnl, in the iltci-ts,d trey r intt tioni approvinrtttlti S S0{f to $1400 annU 111N tit tn-1 p4op14 in tht itietttd aica hvc tin ti-md intonlcs ,o thu,e sa%inr, will be puticulatty Inc tnmL-lLil to than Most home,and bu,Int,ses in the ifiecttd a%,j n,tlst u1riv flood in,utance but htLau,e them i,-qutrc,mt.nt I, I111POSLd by Ih-- mortgIOL lUldL1, 110t FF NIA not ill resident, Intl hti,llrC„ OAnil',i1tLe„aiily wrt} it Otit 1L4ILW 4hl)1N that It I,a 4et` 1..onS,.,rkdtibt 1,sarnption th it tht P o kide C,t its,Ptc►Iek t 'r�uttld it,ult In i ,jrt-r its. z,I' IIILS of ,wits) mullion dollars in llood inSUF tn(-t pion-imins aannua11) Ill 111L aica 19891 BF9.1 61 J S-1e 14U .rpglrig a strcni localeconor)j 4t n ingson%ach CA W4,448 P omorino the commurilt 1141 534 WIN 1 dl.diag oermv'kiq opp rtuni{ies I 10 d 6 4 F6t Pserrr en ing th€a in ores G J bu 1r—es%loth c nPr irT P11 Nwv tlbci.tlr hercrm OolILAI 2-11'n Pwe ? If thi,monrk could ,t�iN to our Lomniuwt� in,tead of being paid tit ul,urance cornpntc, m otlict titter, and ,t,ttL5 It G,cnthi be i grt it btnettt to I luntm,,ton Fie is It s local husmL,u, NNhtch NNould teccr«as,ales ,omc of the moncv no longcr,pent on flood in',Ur tntc Bevond matt mcc the Clt� Ctntnctl Should al,o consider the cost of flooding w htch wkould be ixoidcd or rt_dULLd to nett hborhood-, htnttitted by tltc c0111,tt unfurl of regional flood conftol tmprowments it t'atk,tdc. L,tit,-s 11tt,c benefit, v htch %ti rt c,tabltsltcd the( m ( otnicti , apptoN tl rat Parh,td,- I ,tltc4 In `002 ,till len»rn a, part of the communal , pi ui but t III 0nl4 K rcalizcd vmh idoptton of tht I CPA I unhet mov. tcductio , to the apptoticd dt�dopmunt lootprtnt b4 tht C oa,t d Conant„ton nit HIS thc,e benefit, ncgotl itcd to 002 w ill ,till be tclittN(d wait It1W�.t Ill h<tctS 10 out .trtct,and school, I lit Hunttn0on fie ith t h fmbei al C(►MIMICe htIICse, Ihstt -t Sit 0111 lac tl ct0110117r i, to ti7117{»t rttt t glut to our Cttr 4 ire-it quaht} 01 lilt tnd the Im tmct it ht no,ttt, P iik,tde 1 ,t tic, 4Nill proXtdt to Enna 19.14LItnt, hit,me,,e, uik1 till Cat} should Lair) ,l,=ntItc tilt lC the C ttN ( 01,11101 cctitt,icicts tic L CPA 'h hen VIL"td to It_,ht of the Lon,idtr thlL %voth Sht t tic+nic,h t,done to h101ct1 tl1c, piopert, , Ind tnd other cntitronn7Lnt it re,outLes VVt hcltc4c. it Lit irly merits the ,uppotI of the I luntnl-tern I3cach ( IiinIK,I of ( ammeter thcretotc �aL, t,k the Ctty C outiul to tdopt ni t u I I the pro po-tcd elt3tt-c, to the I oral C oa,t.il Ptogtant IncerLI ? l L MIke('11011Itt C hitrm to M(1fj, CL Cmcn I[all He„ C r ruiner Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From Flynn Joan Sent Friday June 13 2008 3 37 PM To deanobro@msn com Cc Esparza Patty Subject Re YES on Parkside Estates LCP Amendment Your correspondence will be entered into the official record as part of the council communication for this item Joan L Flynn CIVIC Huntington Beach City Clerk From deanobro@msn com To city clerk@surfcity hb org Sent Fri Jun 13 15 15 09 2008 Subject YES on Parkside Estates, LCP Amendment Dear Mayor Cook, I am writing to express my support of Shea Homes' Parkside Estates and to strongly encourage a "YES" vote by City Council in support of the changes the California Coastal Commission made to Huntington Beach's Local Coastal Program at its hearing last November on Parkside Estates This is a very well planned project that provides great benefits for our city We will get the flood protection and water quality benefits we need so much, plus nearly half of the site will now be conservation open space and wetlands And because the amount of development was cut by the Commission, we will get all these benefits with less traffic and fewer new students in our schools Vote YES on June 161 Thank you dean maher huntmgton bch, ca 92647 deanobro@msn com CC Keith Bohr Mayor Pro Tern Joe Carchio, Council Member Cathy Green, Council Member Don Hansen, Council Member Jill Hardy, Council Member Gil Coerper, Council Member Scott Hess Director of Planning 6/16/2008 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From Flynn Joan Sent Saturday June 14 2008 7 30 PM To dhoesly@socal rr com Cc Esparza Patty Subject Re YES on Parkside Estates LCP Amendment Your correspondence will be entered into the official record as part of the council communication for this item Joan L Flynn CIVIC Huntington Beach City Clerk From dhoesly@socal rr com To city clerk@surfcity hb org Sent Sat Jun 14 19 14 512008 Subject YES on Parkside Estates, LCP Amendment Dear Mayor Cook I am writing to express my support of Shea Homes' Parkside Estates, and to strongly encourage a "YES" vote by City Council in support of the changes the California Coastal Commission made to Huntington Beach's Local Coastal Program at its hearing last November on Parkside Estates This is a very well planned project that provides great benefits for our city We will get the flood protection and water quality benefits we need so much plus nearly half of the site will now be conservation open space and wetlands And because the amount of development was cut by the Commission we will get all these benefits with less traffic and fewer new students in our schools Vote YES on June 161 Thank you David Hoesly Huntington Beach CA 92647 dhoesly@socal rr com CC Keith Bohr, Mayor Pro Tem Joe Carchio Council Member Cathy Green Council Member Don Hansen Council Member Jill Hardy, Council Member Gil Coerper, Council Member Scott Hess, Director of Planning 6/16/2008 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From Flynn Joan Sent Friday June 13 2008 3 36 PM To enc359@socal rr com Cc Esparza Patty Subject Re YES on Parkside Estates LCP Amendment Your correspondence will be entered into the official record as part of the council communication for this item Joan L Flynn CIVIC Huntington Beach City Clerk From eric359@socal rr com To city clerk@surfcity hb org Sent Fri Jun 13 14 22 37 2008 Subject YES on Parkside Estates, LCP Amendment Dear Mayor Cook, I am writing to express my support of Shea Homes' Parkside Estates, and to strongly encourage a "YES" vote by City Council in support of the changes the California Coastal Commission made to Huntington Beach's Local Coastal Program at its hearing last November on Parkside Estates This is a very well planned project that provides great benefits for our city We will get the flood protection and water quality benefits we need so much, plus nearly half of the site will now be conservation open space and wetlands And because the amount of development was cut by the Commission, we will get all these benefits with less traffic and fewer new students in our schools Vote YES on June 161 Thank you miller eric huntmgton beach, ca 92647 eric359@Local rr com CC Keith Bohr, Mayor Pro Tem Joe Carchio, Council Member Cathy Green, Council Member Don Hansen, Council Member Jill Hardy, Council Member Gil Coerper, Council Member Scott Hess Director of Planning 6/16/2008 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From Flynn Joan Sent Sunday June 15 2008 10 58 AM To cfmartens@aol com Cc Esparza Patty Subject Re YES on Parkside Estates LCP Amendment Your correspondence will be entered into the official record as part of the council communication for this item Joan L Flynn CIVIC Huntington Beach City Clerk From cfmartens@aol com To city clerk@suricity hb org Sent Sun Jun 15 10 43 54 2008 Subject YES on Parkside Estates, LCP Amendment Dear Mayor Cook, I am writing to express my support of Shea Homes' Parkside Estates, and to strongly encourage a "YES" vote by City Council in support of the changes the California Coastal Commission made to Huntington Beach's Local Coastal Program at its hearing last November on Parkside Estates This is a very well planned project that provides great benefits for our city We will get the flood protection and water quality benefits we need so much, plus nearly half of the site will now be conservation open space and wetlands And because the amount of development was cut by the Commission, we will get all these benefits with less traffic and fewer new students in our schools Vote YES on June 161 Thank you earl martens huntmgton beach, ca 92647 cfmartens@aol com 714-842-5684 CC Keith Bohr, Mayor Pro Tem Joe Carehio, Council Member Cathy Green, Council Member Don Hansen, Council Member Jill Hardy Council Member Gil Coerper, Council Member Scott Hess, Director of Planning 6/16/2008 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From Dapkus Pat Sent Friday June 13 2008 4 55 PM To City Clerk Agenda Subject FW Oppose item D 2 Pat bnpkus (714) 536-5579 (714) 536-5233 (FAX) Save A Tree please don t print this unless you really need to From Richard Moore [mailto richardguy@aol com] Sent Thursday, June 12, 2008 11 07 PM To city clerk@surfcity hb org Cc CITY COUNCIL Subject Oppose item D 2 Please -- it's time to get this vote right You represent the people not the developers PLEASE oppose Item D-2 A', Richard K Moore InfoSherpa Huntington Beach CA To be educated in any true sense of the word one must use the library and master the experiences of mankind -- William T Harris 1893 Get the Moviefone Toolbar Showtimes theaters movie news & morel 6/16/2008 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From Flynn Joan Sent Saturday June 14 2008 7 05 PM To lucyml@earthlink net Cc Esparza Patty Subject Re YES on Parkside Estates LCP Amendment Your correspondence will be entered into the official record as part of the council communication for this item Joan L Flynn CIVIC Huntington Beach City Clerk From lucyml@earthlink net To city clerk@surfcity hb org Sent Sat Jun 14 18 25 32 2008 Subject YES on Parkside Estates, LCP Amendment Dear Mayor Cook, I am writing to express my support of Shea Homes' Parkside Estates, and to strongly encourage a "YES" vote by City Council in support of the changes the California Coastal Commission made to Huntington Beach's Local Coastal Program at its hearing last November on Parkside Estates This is a very well planned project that provides great benefits for our city We will get the flood protection and water quality benefits we need so much, plus nearly half of the site will now be conservation open space and wetlands And because the amount of development was cut by the Commission, we will get all these benefits with less traffic and fewer new students in our schools Vote YES on June 161 Thank you Dean and Lucy Mouren- Laurens Huntington Beach, CA 92647 lucyml@earthlink net 714 847 6622 CC Keith Bohr Mayor Pro Tem Joe Carchio, Council Member Cathy Green, Council Member Don Hansen, Council Member Jill Hardy, Council Member Gil Coerper Council Member Scott Hess, Director of Planning 6/16/2008 Page I of 2 Esparza, Patty From Flynn Joan Sent Sunday June 15 2008 2 39 PM To flyerlen@aol com Cc Esparza Patty Subject Re NO on Parkside Estates LCP Amendment Your correspondence will be entered into the official record as part of the council communication for this item Joan L Flynn CMC Huntington Beach City Clerk From flyerlen@aol com To CITY COUNCIL, city clerk@surfcity hb org Sent Sun Jun 15 12 13 13 2008 Subject NO on Parkside Estates, LCP Amendment Mayor Cook and Council Members, I implore the Council NOT to accept the Coastal Commission's findings for the LUPA concerning Parkside I urge a NO vote on item D-2, or at least continue it per staffs alternative recommendation Unlike the overwhelming majority of letters you've received from ' ordinary citizens" in support of Shea's destruction of the wetlands I actually live near the property,NOT miles away in 92647 I see the birds, mammals, insects, and plants that live and thrive there on a daily basis and as a degreed biologist, I know first-hand what is at stake We are talking about the destruction of one of the last open spaces in Orange County so that Shea can build a few hundred more McMansions We owe it to our children, and to every subsequent generation, to preserve this federal wetland this natural habitat once it is destroyed, it will be lost forever Shea says that all they are doing on their property is "normal farming" yet Coastal Commission staff have found that Shea "obliterated" a federal wetland Shea has never explained how the Coastal Act allows a wetland to be destroyed by "normal farming" - because it DOESN'T allow itl The findings omit 4 1 mitigation for loss or destruction of wetlands, even though the Commissioners NEVER voted to remove that requirement from the staff report they were using at the November hearing Cities and projects up and down the coast all require 4 1 mitigation, this is clearly a precedent that Huntington Beach must follow Shea sold this project to the City by promising $15 million in flood control improvements Now the County is paying for most of the work(with Shea reaping the profits), proving that flood protection can be enhanced WITHOUT building any houses Please vote NO on item D-2, REJECT the Coastal Commission's findings for the LUPA concerning 6/16/2008 Page 2 of 2 Parkside, this is a mistake that can NEVER be remedied Sincerely, Lenny Munari Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Fl_yerLenkaol com Get the Moviefone Toolbar Showtimes theaters movie news & more' 6/16/2008 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From Flynn Joan Sent Friday June 13 2008 9 46 PM To Murphyeile@aol com Cc Esparza Patty Subject Re Shea agenda item Monday night Hello Eileen Your correspondence will be entered into the official record as part of the council communication for this item Joan L Flynn CMC Huntington Beach City Clerk From Murphyeile@aol com To city clerk@surfcity hb org Sent Fri Jun 13 20 16 55 2008 Subject Re Shea agenda item Monday night Mayor Cook and Council people This Shea project is all wrong Turning the wetlands into a housing development should not be allowed The magnitude of this project removing all the dirt and replacing it with fill on wetlands should not be allowed Where will the run-off go when it is all paved over and developed'> The elevation of this project in comparison with the already established neighborhood is an invasion of privacy Wetlands are there to be the lungs of the earth and allows the lungs to breath by taking in the run-off and allowing it to saturate into the aquifer Remember what happened in New Orleans when the wetlands were destroyed Flooding followed Please deny this project Respectfully Eileen Murphy 201 21st Street HB CA 92648 Vote for your city s best dining and nightlife City s Best 2008 6/16/2008 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From Dapkus Pat on behalf of Coerper Gil Sent Friday June 13 2008 4 52 PM To City Clerk Agenda Subject FW Oppose Item D 2 Pat bapkus (714) 536-5579 (714) 536-5233 (FAX) Save A Tree please don t print this unless you really need to From Daniel Rocha [mailto dlrocha@msn com] Sent Thursday, June 12, 2008 6 23 PM To city clerk@surfcity hb org Cc CITY COUNCIL Subject Oppose Item D 2 Huntington Beach City Council and staff I am a home owner in Huntington Beach and I feel that Shea Parkside is a bad idea and is being pushed through by big business once again this city staff is being used by Shea My home abuts the Parkside property and while I know you and your staff don t seem care it will have negative effect on me and my family s way of life if Shea is allowed to proceed with Packside, so in the name of decency do not allow them to build the god awful number of oversized homes in the last of the wet lands known as the bean field I Just hope this does not fall on deaf ears I have all but lost all hope that the system will work for homeowner/voter but is only for the benefit of those in power I do not understand why this project has been allowed to proceed this land is of the one of last open space s in the city and Shea is once again is trying to cover it up with homes, god help us all with globe warming and all we Just don t seem care about anything but MONEY Please do not allow Shea to pull yet another underhanded trick like they did at CCC hearing Thank for allowing me to vent my feeling on this matter Dan Rocha 6/16/2008 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From Flynn Joan Sent Sunday June 15 2008 5 58 PM To prettyinpink272@aol com Cc Esparza Patty Subject Re YES on Parkside Estates LCP Amendment Your correspondence will be entered into the official record as part of the council communication for this item Joan L Flynn CMC Huntington Beach City Clerk From prettyinpink272@aol com To city clerk@surfcity hb org Sera Sun Jun 15 17 50 00 2008 Subject YES on Parkside Estates, LCP Amendment Dear Mayor Cook I am writing to express my support of Shea Homes' Parkside Estates, and to strongly encourage a "YES" vote by City Council in support of the changes the California Coastal Commission made to Huntington Beach's Local Coastal Program at its hearing last November on Parkside Estates This is a very well planned project that provides great benefits for our city We will get the flood protection and water quality benefits we need so much, plus nearly half of the site will now be conservation open space and wetlands And because the amount of development was cut by the Commission, we will get all these benefits with less traffic and fewer new students in our schools Vote YES on June 161 Thank you Alexa Rodell Huntington Beach CA 92649 prettyinpink272@aol com CC Keith Bohr, Mayor Pro Tem Joe Carchio, Council Member Cathy Green, Council Member Don Hansen, Council Member Jill Hardy Council Member Gil Coerper, Council Member Scott Hess Director of Planning 6/16/2008 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From Flynn Joan Sent Saturday June 14 2008 10 41 AM To rodden2@msn com Cc Esparza Patty Subject Re YES on Parkside Estates LCP Amendment Your correspondence will be entered into the official record as part of the council communication for this item Joan L Flynn CMC Huntington Beach City Clerk From rodden2@msn com To city clerk@surfcity hb org Sent Sat Jun 14 10 38 28 2008 Subject YES on Parkside Estates, LCP Amendment Dear Mayor Cook, I am writing to express my support of Shea Homes' Parkside Estates, and to strongly encourage a "YES" vote by City Council in support of the changes the California Coastal Commission made to Huntington Beach's Local Coastal Program at its hearing last November on Parkside Estates This is a very well planned project that provides great benefits for our city We will get the flood protection and water quality benefits we need so much, plus nearly half of the site will now be conservation open space and wetlands And because the amount of development was cut by the Commission, we will get all these benefits with less traffic and fewer new students in our schools Vote YES on June 161 Thank you brian Rodden HUNTINGTON BEACH, ca 92647 rodden2@msn com CC Keith Bohr, Mayor Pro Tem Joe Carchio, Council Member Cathy Green, Council Member Don Hansen Council Member Jill Hardy Council Member Gil Coerper, Council Member Scott Hess Director of Planning 6/16/2008 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From Flynn Joan Sent Sunday June 15 2008 5 58 PM To rode113@live com Cc Esparza Patty Subject Re YES on Parkside Estates LCP Amendment Your correspondence will be entered into the official record as part of the council communication for this item Joan L Flynn CIVIC Huntington Beach City Clerk From rodell3@live com To city clerk@surfcity hb org Sent Sun Jun 15 17 11 54 2008 Subject YES on Parkside Estates, LCP Amendment Dear Mayor Cook, I am writing to express my support of Shea Homes' Parkside Estates, and to strongly encourage a "YES" vote by City Council in support of the changes the California Coastal Commission made to Huntington Beach's Local Coastal Program at its hearing last November on Parkside Estates This is a very well planned project that provides great benefits for our city We will get the flood protection and water quality benefits we need so much, plus nearly half of the site will now be conservation open space and wetlands And because the amount of development was cut by the Commission, we will get all these benefits with less traffic and fewer new students in our schools Vote YES on June 161 Thank you tame rodell huntmgton beach, ca 92649 rode113@live com CC Keith Bohr, Mayor Pro Tern Joe Carchio, Council Member Cathy Green, Council Member Don Hansen, Council Member Jill Hardy, Council Member Gil Coerper, Council Member Scott Hess, Director of Planning 6/16/2008 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From Flynn Joan Sent Monday June 16 2008 8 12 AM To noelwross@hotmail com Cc Esparza Patty Subject Re Oppose item D 2 Your correspondence will be entered into the official record as part of the council communication for this item Joan L Flynn CMC Huntington Beach City Clerk From Noel Ross To city clerk@surfcity hb org, CITY COUNCIL Sent Mon Jun 16 07 40 08 2008 Subject Oppose item D 2 Mayor Cook and Council Members, We implore the Council NOT to accept the Coastal Commission's findings for the LUPA concerning Parkside We urge a NO vote on item D-2, or at least continue it per staff s alternative recommendation We live walking distance to the property and see the birds mammals, insects and plants that live and thrive there on a regular basis We are talking about the destruction of one of the last open spaces in Orange County We owe it to our children, and to every subsequent generation, to preserve this federal wetland,this natural habitat, once it is destroyed, it will be lost forever Shea says that all they are doing on their property is 'normal farming', yet Coastal Commission staff have found that Shea'obliterated' a federal wetland Shea has never explained how the Coastal Act allows a wetland to be destroyed by 'normal farming'-- because it DOESN'T allow rtl The findings omit 4 1 mitigation for loss or destruction of wetlands, even though the Commissioners NEVER voted to remove that requirement from the staff report they were using at the November hearing Cities and projects up and down the coast all require 4 1 mitigation, this is clearly a precedent that Huntington Beach must follow Shea sold this project to the City by promising $15 million in flood control improvements Now the County is paying for most of the work(with Shea reaping the profits), proving that flood protection can be enhanced WITHOUT building any houses' Please vote NO on item D-2, REJECT the Coastal Commission's findings for the LUPA concerning Parkside, this is a mistake that can NEVER be remedied Sincerely, Noel & Claudia Ross 17611 Beckwall Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92649 6/16/2008 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From Flynn Joan Sent Sunday June 15 2008 8 20 PM To Aquaprn@aol com Cc Esparza Patty Subject Re Shea property Your correspondence will be entered into the official record as part of the council communication for this item Joan L Flynn CMC Huntington Beach City Clerk From Aquaprn@aol com To CITY COUNCIL, city clerk@surfcity hb org Sent Sun Jun 15 18 15 08 2008 Subject Shea property To the City Council Please vote NO on item D 2, REJECT the Coastal Commission's findings for the LUPA concerning Parkside this is a mistake that can NEVER be remedied Why do we need more homes in HB? We don't This is a piece of property where mother nature can still be observed and appreciated And if you don't appreciated being out of doors, come live thru a winter in the MidWest The ability to be out of doors, in fresh air, no smog, no stress, is under appreciated I am one of those who live in the area, 92649, not those who really don't care or are affected, 92647 Listen to those who are nearby Come see for yourself how beautiful it is Also, have you thought about the mfrastructure999 Come by Graham between Slater and Warner any weekday before school You can't even get out the housing area, due to the cars Come by around 5- 7pm, when people are trying to get home I walk there and am almost hit by cars twice a week More homes are NOT needed and there is NOTHING to support the increase of housing Don't think of the stockholders of Shea, think about the people of our beautiful city Thank you for your time, Sharon 92649 Vote for your city s best dining and nightlife City s Best 2008 6/16/2008 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From Flynn Joan Sent Saturday June 14 2008 2 52 PM To TonyC21 @sbcglobal net Cc Esparza Patty Subject Re YES on Parkside Estates LCP Amendment Your correspondence will be entered into the official record as part of the council communication for this item Joan L Flynn CMC Huntington Beach City Clerk From TonyC21@sbcglobal net To city clerk@surfcity hb org Sent Sat Jun 14 14 23 112008 Subject YES on Parkside Estates, LCP Amendment Dear Mayor Cook, I am writing to express my support of Shea Homes' Parkside Estates and to strongly encourage a "YES" vote by City Council in support of the changes the California Coastal Commission made to Huntington Beach's Local Coastal Program at its hearing last November on Parkside Estates This is a very well planned project that provides great benefits for our city We will get the flood protection and water quality benefits we need so much, plus nearly half of the site will now be conservation open space and wetlands And because the amount of development was cut by the Commission, we will get all these benefits with less traffic and fewer new students in our schools Vote YES on June 161 Thank you Tony Shrikian Huntington Beach, CA 92646 TonyC21 @sbcglobal net CC Keith Bohr, Mayor Pro Tem Joe Carchio, Council Member Cathy Green, Council Member Don Hansen, Council Member Jill Hardy, Council Member Gil Coerper, Council Member Scott Hess Director of Planning 6/16/2008 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From Flynn Joan Sent Sunday June 15 2008 8 21 PM To ssnedeker@mac com Cc Esparza Patty Subject Re YES on Parkside Estates LCP Amendment Your correspondence will be entered into the official record as part of the council communication for this item Joan L Flynn CIVIC Huntington Beach City Clerk From ssnedeker@mac com To city clerk@surfcity hb org Sent Sun Jun 15 18 31 012008 Subject YES on Parkside Estates, LCP Amendment DearA Mayor Cook, I am writing to express my support of Shea Homes' Parkside Estates, and to strongly encourage a "YES" vote by City Council in support of the changes the California Coastal Commission made to Huntington Beach's Local Coastal Program at its hearing last November on Parkside Estates This is a very well planned project that provides great benefits for our city We will get the flood protection and water quality benefits we need so much, plus nearly half of the site will now be conservation open space and wetlands And because the amount of development was cut by the Commission, we will get all these benefits with less traffic and fewer new students in our schools Vote YES on June 161 Thank you ScottA Snedeker Westminster AA CAA A AA 92683 ssnedeker@mac com CC Keith Bohr, Mayor Pro Tem Joe Carchio, Council Member Cathy Green Council Member Don Hansen, Council Member Jill Hardy, Council Member Gil Coerper, Council Member Scott Hess, Director of Planning 6/16/2008 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From Flynn Joan Sent Sunday June 15 2008 2 39 PM To brandine@century2l com Cc Esparza Patty Subject Re YES on Parkside Estates LCP Amendment Your correspondence will be entered into the official record as part of the council communication for this item Joan L Flynn CIVIC Huntington Beach City Clerk From brandine@century2l com To city clerk@surfcity hb org Sent Sun Jun 15 11 39 012008 Subject YES on Parkside Estates, LCP Amendment Dear Mayor Cook, I am writing to express my support of Shea Homes' Parkside Estates and to strongly encourage a "YES" vote by City Council in support of the changes the California Coastal Commission made to Huntington Beach's Local Coastal Program at its hearing last November on Parkside Estates This is a very well planned project that provides great benefits for our city We will get the flood protection and water quality benefits we need so much, plus nearly half of the site will now be conservation open space and wetlands And because the amount of development was cut by the Commission, we will get all these benefits with less traffic and fewer new students in our schools Vote YES on June 161 Thank you Brandme Stand Huntington Beach CA 92648 brandme@century2l com CC Keith Bohr Mayor Pro Tern Joe Carchio, Council Member Cathy Green, Council Member Don Hansen, Council Member Jill Hardy, Council Member Gil Coerper, Council Member Scott Hess Director of Planning 6/16/2008 Shea project Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From Flynn Joan Sent Sunday June 15 2008 2 39 PM To ]todd@csudh edu Cc Esparza Patty Subject Re Shea project Your correspondence will be entered into the official record as part of the council communication for this item Joan L Flynn CIVIC Huntington Beach City Clerk From Judith Todd To city clerk@surfcity hb org Sent Sun Jun 15 14 03 53 2008 Subject Shea project This is to let the city council know of our extreme opposition to the proposed development of the Shea/Parkside property near the Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve to be considered by the council Monday night We have so little open space left around those wetlands that it is crucial to stop all development near there As an integrated ecosystem the wetlands NEED open space and dry land around them Thank you Judy Todd and Dan Kee 408 Jade Cove Seal Beach CA 90740 6/16/2008 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From Flynn Joan Sent Sunday June 15 2008 5 59 PM To dtowgood@gmail com Cc Esparza Patty Subject Re YES on Parkside Estates LCP Amendment Your correspondence will be entered into the official record as part of the council communication for this item Joan L Flynn CIVIC Huntington Beach City Clerk From dtowgood@gmail com To city clerk@surfcity hb org Sent Sun Jun 15 16 16 49 2008 Subject YES on Parkside Estates, LCP Amendment Dear Mayor Cook, I am writing to express my support of Shea Homes' Parkside Estates and to strongly encourage a "YES" vote by City Council in support of the changes the California Coastal Commission made to Huntington Beach's Local Coastal Program at its hearing last November on Parkside Estates This is a very well planned project that provides great benefits for our city We will get the flood protection and water quality benefits we need so much, plus nearly half of the site will now be conservation open space and wetlands And because the amount of development was cut by the Commission we will get all these benefits with less traffic and fewer new students in our schools Vote YES on June 161 Thank you Dennis Towgood Huntington Beach CA 92647 dtowgood@gmail com 714 842-6066 CC Keith Bohr, Mayor Pro Tem Joe Carchio, Council Member Cathy Green Council Member Don Hansen Council Member Jill Hardy Council Member Gil Coerper, Council Member Scott Hess, Director of Planning 6/16/2008 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From Flynn Joan Sent Sunday June 15 2008 5 58 PM To jeantowgood@gmail com Cc Esparza Patty Subject Re YES on Parkside Estates LCP Amendment Your correspondence will be entered into the official record as part of the council communication for this item Joan L Flynn CIVIC Huntington Beach City Clerk From Jeantowgood@gmail com To city clerk@surfcity hb org Sent Sun Jun 15 16 18 312008 Subject YES on Parkside Estates, LCP Amendment Dear Mayor Cook, I am writing to express my support of Shea Homes' Parkside Estates, and to strongly encourage a "YES" vote by City Council in support of the changes the California Coastal Commission made to Huntington Beach's Local Coastal Program at its hearing last November on Parkside Estates This is a very well planned project that provides great benefits for our city We will get the flood protection and water quality benefits we need so much, plus nearly half of the site will now be conservation open space and wetlands And because the amount of development was cut by the Commission, we will get all these benefits with less traffic and fewer new students in our schools Vote YES on June 161 Thank you Jean Towgood Huntington Beach, CA 92647 leantowgood@gmail com 714-842-6066 CC Keith Bohr, Mayor Pro Tem Joe Carchio, Council Member Cathy Green Council Member Don Hansen, Council Member Jill Hardy, Council Member Gil Coerper, Council Member Scott Hess, Director of Planning 6/16/2008 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From Flynn Joan Sent Monday June 16 2008 8 11 AM To rnevaldeshb@msn com Cc Esparza Patty Subject Re Your correspondence will be entered into the official record as part of the council communication for this item Joan L Flynn CMC Huntington Beach City Clerk From Richard Valdes To city clerk@surfcity hb org Cc city councel@surfcity hb org Sent Mon Jun 16 06 56 03 2008 Sub]ect As a nearby resident on Greenleaf Ln, 1 beg the Council NOT to accept the Coastal Commission's findings for the LUPA concerning Parkside Please vote NO on stern ®-2, or at least continue it per staffs alternative recommendation Again Please vote NO on item ®-2, REJECT the Coastal Commission's findings for the LUPA concerning Parkside, this is a mistake that can NEVER be remedied Thank you, Richard Valdes 17171 Greenleaf Ln Lunt Bch Ca 92649 6/16/2008 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From Flynn Joan Sent Saturday June 14 2008 2 51 PM To joycezo@verizon net Cc Esparza Patty Subject Re YES on Parkside Estates LCP Amendment Your correspondence will be entered into the official record as part of the council communication for this item Joan L Flynn CIVIC Huntington Beach City Clerk From joycezo@verizon net To city clerk@surfcity hb org Sent Sat Jun 14 14 03 20 2008 Sub]ect YES on Parkside Estates, LCP Amendment Dear Mayor Cook, I am writing to express my support of Shea Homes' Parkside Estates, and to strongly encourage a "YES" vote by City Council in support of the changes the California Coastal Commission made to Huntington Beach's Local Coastal Program at its hearing last November on Parkside Estates This is a very well planned project that provides great benefits for our city We will get the flood protection and water quality benefits we need so much plus nearly half of the site will now be conservation open space and wetlands And because the amount of development was cut by the Commission we will get all these benefits with less traffic and fewer new students in our schools Vote YES on June 161 Thank you Barbara Zoellner Huntington Beach, CA 92647 loycezo@verizon net CC Keith Bohr, Mayor Pro Tem Joe Carchio, Council Member Cathy Green, Council Member Don Hansen Council Member Jill Hardy, Council Member Gil Coerper, Council Member Scott Hess, Director of Planning 6/16/2008 Esparza, Patty From mlouw@aol com Sent Monday June 16 2008 1 24 AM To city clerk@surftcity hb org CITY COUNCIL Subject Oppose item D 2 1 am writing as a concerned resident who lives next to the proposed Shea development The Coastal Commission staff ecologist confirmed that this area is a wetland after years of study of evidence In the six years I have lived here I have observed the ponding that occurs after rainfall and stays the struggle of the land to return to its native vegetation and animal life after the plowing and earth moving that Shea does even though farming is not one of the seven reasons that Coastal Act section 30233 allows for filling in a wetland The commission has ruled that the EPA wetland used to exist but it does not currently exist now due to the topographic changes that have occurred since Shea bought the property Shea has destroyed the EPA wetland in violation of 30233 The Coastal Commission is illegally attempting to rewrite the history of their November decision approving the project The staff report for November called for 4 1 mitigation to make up for the loss of the EPA wetland There was NO discussion or motions or votes last November tomodify or eliminate this 4 1 mitigation ratio thus the 4 1 requirementshould still stand contrary to the commissions decision last month that they really only meant for there to be 1 1 mitigation To only require 1 1 mitigation for theUNPERMITTED illegal filling of the EPA wetland sets a terrrible policy precedent that actually encourages future illegal filling of other wetlands because the consequences of doing illegal filling are less than theconsequences of doing legal filling Insist on full 4 1 mitigation for EPA This is the last open piece of land in Huntington Beach I have lived here since 1974 and have watched the land be developed as developers make their money and move on I know that people need homes however this piece of land is a wetland and is adjacent to sensitive habitat and when left alone supports a variety of flora and fauna that live in coastal wetlands As I walk through there I see the coyote the raptor the herons and egrets and the food that supports them as well as a variety of plants and flowers This should not be eradicated in favor of crowding of homes and streets surrounding the area I respectfully request that you stop and consider that the action you take on this matter cannot be undone and the land restored once it is gone Mary Lou Watkins Moore 17672 Crestmoor Lane (SE of Graham and Slater) Huntington Beach 92649 Vote for your city's best dining and nightlife City's Best 2008 (http //citysbest aol com?ncid=aolacg00050000000102) parkside mailing list 6/16/2008 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From Flynn Joan Sent Monday June 16 2008 9 34 AM To sermitage@yahoo com Cc Esparza Patty Subject Re YES on Parkside Estates LCP Amendment Your correspondence will be entered into the official record as part of the council communication for this item Joan L Flynn CMC Huntington Beach City Clerk From sermitage@yahoo com To city clerk@surfcity hb org Sent Mon Jun 16 09 00 48 2008 Subject YES on Parkside Estates, LCP Amendment Dear Mayor Cook, I am writing to express my support of Shea Homes' Parkside Estates, and to strongly encourage a "YES" vote by City Council in support of the changes the California Coastal Commission made to Huntington Beach's Local Coastal Program at its hearing last November on Parkside Estates This is a very well planned project that provides great benefits for our city We will get the flood protection and water quality benefits we need so much,plus nearly half of the site will now be conservation open space and wetlands And because the amount of development was cut by the Commission, we will get all these benefits with less traffic and fewer new students in our schools Vote YES on June 161 Thank you Sue Hermitage Seal Beach, CA 90740 shermrtage@yahoo com CC Keith Bohr, Mayor Pro Tem Joe Carchio Council Member Cathy Green, Council Member Don Hansen, Council Member Jill Hardy, Council Member Gil Coerper, Council Member Scott Hess Director of Planning 6/16/2008 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From Flynn Joan Sent Monday June 16 2008 9 34 AM To csnedeker@lee associates com Cc Esparza Patty Subject Re YES on Parkside Estates LCP Amendment Your correspondence will be entered into the official record as part of the council communication for this item Joan L Flynn CIVIC Huntington Beach City Clerk From csnedeker@lee associates com To city clerk@surfcity hb org Sent Mon Jun 16 08 56 29 2008 Subject YES on Parkside Estates, LCP Amendment Dear Mayor Cook, I am writing to express my support of Shea Homes' Parkside Estates, and to strongly encourage a "YES" vote by City Council in support of the changes the California Coastal Commission made to Huntington Beach's Local Coastal Program at its hearing last November on Parkside Estates This is a very well planned project that provides great benefits for our city We will get the flood protection and water quality benefits we need so much, plus nearly half of the site will now be conservation open space and wetlands And because the amount of development was cut by the Commission, we will get all these benefits with less traffic and fewer new students in our schools Vote YES on June 161 Thank you Chris Snedeker Westminster, CA 92683 csnedeker@lee-associates com CC Keith Bohr, Mayor Pro Tem Joe Carchio Council Member Cathy Green, Council Member Don Hansen, Council Member Jill Hardy, Council Member Gil Coerper Council Member Scott Hess, Director of Planning 6/16/2008 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From Flynn Joan Sent Monday June 16 2008 1 47 PM To Steve Barnhart Cc Esparza Patty Subject RE Letter in support of Parkside Estates Agenda item D 2 Your correspondence will be entered into the official record as part of the council communication for this item Joan L Flynn CIVIC Huntington Beach City Clerk From Steve Barnhart [mailto SBarnhart@hunsaker com] Sent Monday, June 16, 2008 1 44 PM To city clerk@surfcity hb org Subject Letter in support of Parkside Estates, Agenda item D 2 Ms Flynn The attached letter summarizes the total count of letters generated in support of the Shea Homes Parkside Estates project and should be included in your late receipts package for tonight s hearing Thank you 6/16/2008 Esparza, Patty From Flynn Joan Sent Monday June 16 2008 2 00 PM To Dave &Gretchen Cc Esparza Patty Subject RE Shea building project Your correspondence will be entered into the official record as part of the council communication for this item Joan L Flynn CMC Huntington Beach City Clerk -----Original Message----- FromDave & Gretchen [mazlto davegretchen@verizon net] Sent Monday June 16 2008 1 53 PM To city clerk@surfcity-hb org Subject Shea building project I want to let you know I am not in favor of the Shea construction project being approved It is in a very sensitive area ecologically little space between homes and the buildings are quite high It seems to me that this has not been a properly considered project I am against it Gretchen Burton i June 12, 2008 TO City of Huntington Beach City Council From Arthur L Donahur 5321 Glenstone Drive , HB 92649 RE Shea development- Unpermitted fill I sent a letter to the City of Huntington Beach dated July 24, 1989 It is included here At that time, I was very concerned about the dump trucks that were dropping fill dirt on the property The fill that was red- tagged was 8ft high My recollection is that big dump trucks were continually dumping loads of fill Then Mr Burkett, the owner of Smoky's Stables would use a tractor to drop manure on the fill area and smooth it out for more dump trucks This went on for a long time My neighbor and I went over to talk to Mr Burkett but we were told to leave the property The fill was never removed I urge you to oppose the Shea parkside project before you on Monday Sincerely Arthur L Donahur 11tC PUNU LWID ti .L 1JlJ 1V t111 I—cs, Li 11Li1 L \11111/ L a J a c, y zq 191?i S � Rsj L �m �a c, A 5 - ,V AJctu i is fatLowea A7- sM O Kle D, k A '7- A-) 6 A T- VC A c �A i ,q 2 A rl a Au -73 s ; cS i 11: vSvAL ,v.� �S� � LDS r 5 /✓� � GL /•� Dv5 i _'/lIgT L, C 2 C N TC.p © / cu 5 , -T 14 6` 5�C. C T1 L Am D 7r!-// 5 iO,�:fem r r to i L I-Lo G F 34 f �h- y � �`q J� G E (� 1�� I� l ( /f 4 3 rest 4 j//[4 }y} {..� .je? 3 fir+ }�j� C L t 5 r/"yV( "" f f 4� -I.- -rPf P•� k Vxa LATIo ,vS or 7`klC xrs-/AC 0 u P Nv e V9 - 2 / V14R1A�JcC A) ° S1 -31 � AA)D 500C) Lll -18C- 1--e)g2.6-C7-,ED 73L IE A,vy AD 1) ( `rt0 /JAL C u F 15 Co11 S , DE eED t -rod mAu y A,UD �)o,UKEys 7"U O M A AI y S ;A E S II JU D I 4 PIDCCoN5 q,'i P11) /1 Coo PS OV �ju )oD /,'EDS or YAP-Ds or IL.LC �"ALLY I 4 A; I) AA -b DiR7- />7fJiUv2C Dvm /'E� AA) P 5 /'f-EA ON /' ND / DJ � EnrT LAAI✓ ) D Z) /vo T 1-fA *2,gA)01-C (1CmovEb Tw r 4 Gu �'cK rno37LE /10M cU � 7-H ,vo Aiol �, Cv P/) kTyS Poe-/ cc C-AL� { � >`3za .�., t � MA40,01'1, � k a � ,,� � � y k �, � fir �—� .� 4 fF Y� a t �y.ilk t �x ° t.� t S'�a 7`11.47" _57 0 L. t3 ;3 C /091V SLU 6 1Z 6' z � k Ltl f f o P/f,0 F r l r,5-,b 14 N D U 15 7-//i!�" !7 I X 7" TO X ( c QNA S ik�RC 3CC-A) 5U/=F /<f /CkJ r�u su>2 CaJC/LA�C � u � Iti�' `ANC �� ARS OF 7T8��� � (? � cam )-! y lSNT A F"ENCC RCQUr�.CA /�ROUN� -7-N15 rACIL- rTY � e.. 1i i4 � 3 J �aRC -rJ4CKE 15 7'l{C�E /4 >`t KE l�J (� /� 7` � S 7"NE /aryj pvti T` Ut /AREA \ �.CcluIPED P� 2 I-( o � SE � ivk r� 1 � rNG1 L 1 v ) �j N TNC M0 73 I LA �dMC TNA-r rlAS tiO )400K - �Ps 2670uJ2EmEAJ7:51" -rg.47- 7N,5- IAA ry ��o � d� u � "Kf+ You 7f� L� a 4 A * " c t ear � ����t $� �. ttr Y^"a� k r 5��z ....i� �f��I��¢-w, 3� r t Oy fSf '� -{ 'kit -0 fi x )`Yl.n. 1'YIJ� a. 7 i^ f J U L 2 61989 (7iq)DEPARTMENT Uh rya - 73 �S` COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT &ANNINO PIVISION Page 1 of 2 Esparza, Patty From Flynn Joan Sent Monday June 16 2008 1 23 PM To Parrottss@aol com Cc Esparza Patty Subject Re Oppose item D 2 Your correspondence will be entered into the official record as part of the council communication for this item Joan L Flynn CIVIC Huntington Beach City Clerk From Parrottss@aol com To city clerk@surfcity hb org, CITY COUNCIL Sent Mon Jun 16 13 09 41 2008 Subject Oppose item D 2 The Coastal Commission errored in deleting WP as a wetland The long history of ponding at that location plus my vegetation surveys strongly suggest that it IS a wetland as confirmed by the Coastal Commission staff ecologist after literally years of study of the evidence The farming that Shea has done over the years is really grading without a permit with the intention of moving large amounts of earth around to fill in the wetland low spots on the property Even if you accepted Shea s assertion they are only doing farming farming is not one of the seven reasons that Coastal Act section 30233 allows for filling in a wetland The commission has ruled that the EPA wetland used to exist but it does not currently exist now due to the topographic changes that have occurred since Shea bought the property Shea has destroyed the EPA wetland in violation of 30233 The Coastal Commission is illegally attempting to rewrite the history of their November decision approving the project The staff report for November called for 4 1 mitigation to make up for the loss of the EPA wetland There was NO discussion or motions or votes last November to modify or eliminate this 4 1 mitigation ratio thus the 4 1 requirement should still stand contrary to the commissions decision last month that they really only meant for there to be 1 1 mitigation 4 1 mitigation is both a Coastal Commission and city standard for the permitted filling of wetlands To only require 1 1 mitigation for the UNPERMITTED illegal filling of the EPA wetland sets a horrible policy precedent that actually encourages future illegal filling of wetlands because the consequences of doing illegal filling are less than the consequences of doing legal filling Insist on full 4 1 mitigation for EPA The commission approved much less park space (-2 acres) than was originally approved by the city in 2002 (-8 acres) The staff report 6/16/2008 Page 2 of 2 above says Shea is going to create a small active park in the northwest corner of the development envelope but it will pale in comparison to what was originally promised Given the shortage of active park land that is driving the HBCSD/ Le Bard Park controversy the city should not be allowing Shea to scale back on their park promise From Rubel Family s opinions Gas prices getting you down? Search AOL Autos for fuel efficient used cars 6/16/2008 Esparza, Patty From Flynn Joan Sent Monday June 16 2008 11 25 AM To colleen ponchak Cc Esparza Patty Subject RE Oppose item D 2 Your correspondence will be entered into the official record as part of the council communication for this item Joan L Flynn CMC Huntington Beach City Clerk -----Original Message----- Fromcolleen ponchak [mailto colleenponchak@hotmail com] Sent Monday June 16 2008 11 11 AM To city clerk@surfcity-hb org CITY COUNCIL Subject Oppose item D-2 Mayor Cook and Council Members I urge a NO vote on item D-2, or at least continue it per staff s alternative recommendation My family and I live on Kenilworth Drive adjacent to the Shea property We are very concerned about the negative impact this project will have on the environment and our neighborhood Shea says that all they are doing on their property is normal farming yet Coastal Commission staff have found that Shea obliterated a federal wetland Shea has never explained how the Coastal Act allows a wetland to be destroyed by normal farming -- because it DOESN T allow it ' The findings omit 4 1 mitigation for loss or destruction of wetlands even though the Commissioners NEVER voted to remove that requirement from the staff report they were using at the November hearing Cities and projects up and down the coast all require 4 1 mitigation-- doesn t it seem STRANGE that Huntington Beach wouldn t be the same as everybody else? Shea sold this project to the City by promising $15 million in flood control improvements Now the County is paying for most of the work with Shea sitting on the sidelines That proves you can have flood protection WITHOUT building any houses ' We are concerned about this project s negative effects on our neighborhood, including *increased traffic *risk of foundation damage due to dewatering (Who will be responsible for the damage if/when it occurs?) *increased risk of flooding due to replacing a wetland sponge with an elevated concrete slab (Where will flooding from heavy rains flow? Into our backyards) *YEARS of construction noise and pollution Sincerely Colleen Ponchak 5351 Kenilworth Drive 1 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From Flynn Joan Sent Monday June 16 2008 10 50 AM To lyndasims@hotmail com Cc Esparza Patty Subject RE YES on Parkside Estates LCP Amendment Your correspondence will be entered into the official record as part of the council communication for this item Joan L Flynn CMC Huntington Beach City Clerk From lyndasims@hotmail com [mailto lyndasims@hotmail com] Sent Monday, June 16, 2008 10 40 AM To city clerk@surfcity hb org Subject YES on Parkside Estates, LCP Amendment Dear Mayor Cook, I am writing to express my support of Shea Homes' Parkside Estates, and to strongly encourage a "YES" vote by City Council in support of the changes the California Coastal Commission made to Huntington Beach's Local Coastal Program at its hearing last November on Parkside Estates This is a very well planned project that provides great benefits for our city We will get the flood protection and water quality benefits we need so much, plus nearly half of the site will now be conservation open space and wetlands And because the amount of development was cut by the Commission we will get all these benefits with less traffic and fewer new students in our schools Vote YES on June 161 Thank you Lynda Sims Huntington Beach, ca 92647 lyndasims@hotmail com CC Keith Bohr Mayor Pro Tern Joe Carchio, Council Member Cathy Green, Council Member Don Hansen, Council Member Jill Hardy, Council Member Gil Coerper, Council Member Scott Hess, Director of Planning 6/16/2008 1e�,vaca i�-�� 4+0 �e ALL Bo�ya OFFICERS President June 16, 2008 Dr Gerald Chapman Vice President Paul Arms Treasurer Jim Anderson Secretary Mannka Horack BOARD OF Mayor Debbie Cook DIRECTORS City of Huntington Beach Julie Bixby 2000 Main Street Connie Boardman Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Vr Cowden Sandy Gems Dave Hamilton RE June 16 2008 Item D-2 Shea/Parkside LCP Amendment 1-06 as Mike McMahan Marc Stirdwant Modified Laurel Telfer Came Thomas Rudy rer Dear Mayor Cook, Dr Jann Van Vandersloot y Karen Menckel Wood The Bolsa Chica Land Trust opposes the staff recommendation to adopt ADVISORY BOARD the resolutions before the Council This LCPA is not consistent with State Senator Tom Harman the Coastal Act, nor consistent with past actions of the Coastal Mayor Debbie Cook Diana Casey Commission The Land Trust believes that contradictions and Nancy Donaven inconsistencies necessitate a no"vote on the motion to accept Local Norma Gibbs Bob Goodrich Coastal Program Amendment No 1-06 as Modified and should not add It Paul Horgan Janice Kellogg to the city,s Coastal Element Eileen Murphy Linda Moulton Patterson Rochelle Pazanti 1) Shea has engaged in years of unpermitted wetland filling Louis Robles Jayson Ruth development, violating both City Policy and the Coastal Act, as Dr Richard Sax Dr David Sullivan evidenced by the following information Grace Winchell ENDORSEMENTS Amigos de Bolsa Chrca a) An August 15, 1989 City of Huntington Beach Staff report noted that Algalita Marine Research Smoky,s Stables,the lessee under the then owner of the property MWD, Foundation Anza Borrego Foundation had accumulated an 8ft pile of dirt without a permit and that a grading Ballona Wetlands Land plan and permit would be required to remove the dirt (Attachment 1) Trust City of Huntington Beach Friends of Harbors Beaches and Parks "Land Use violation Unpermrtted fill dirt Huntington Beach (stockpiling) Wetlands Conservancy Huntington Beach Tomorrow New dirt ( less than a year old on the east end of the site)placed on the Orange Coast League of Women Voters premises Red tagged by Public works on 1/20/89, 2/3/89, and 2/28/89 Orange County Coastkeeper for violations of Section 17 10,010 (a) of the Huntington Beach Peninsula Open Space Trust Municipal Code and Section 7003 of the Uniform Building Code Sea and Sage Audubon Sierra Club permits for grading re required) Angeles Chapter Surfrider Foundation 5200 Warner Avenue - Suite 108 - Huntington Beach, CA 92649 - (714) 846-1001 www bolsachicalandtrust org Page 2 Applicant has indicated it will be removed following the Planning Commission action (Page 6) `The specific location of the stockpiling of dirt is in the southeast area of the site This is the location of the proposed expansion The site has been raised approximately 8 feet above the existing natural grade of the site which would bring the site's elevation to a height of the Wmtersburg Channel The placement of a 12 foot high stall in this area would indicate that the stalls are approximately 8 to 9 feet above the channel This would impact the residential property to the south The applicant is required as a condition of approval for proposed expansion to provide a grading plan and obtain a stockpiling permit from Public Works Dept to eliminate the unpermitted fill and reduce the elevation from the area to the natural level prior to the illegal stockpiling" (pg 6) The 1989 City Staff report goes on to say that regardless of the proposed expansion being approved that the land use violations (unpermitted fill)must be abated within 90 days of final action That did not happen,according to a June 2008 letter from Mr Donahur (Attachment 2) b) In 1998 during so-called `weed abatement' activity, the current landowner(Shea) used bulldozers to push dirt off of this 8 ft area into the wetland areas known as WP and EPA (Attachment 3) c) Two photos (one of which is dated 1995, pre-dating Shea's ownership) clearly shows the 8 ft high unpermitted fill referred to in the 1989 City documents still on site (Attachment 4) d) A photo taken in 2007 clearly demonstrates that the 8ft high unpermitted fill referred to in the 1989 City report is no longer there (Attachment 5) e) Shea maintains that all dirt moving on their property is due to "normal farming activities Yet the City staff report noted above indicates that moving of the 8ft stockpile should have required a grading plan and permit from the City and the moving around of dirt piles is considered development by the Coastal Act Furthermore while the Coastal Act permits farming in a wetlands the Act does not allow such farming activity to fill wetlands and have it cease functioning as a wetlands The Land Trust believes that the 8ft pile was used to fill the wetlands WP and EPA in violation of City policy and the Coastal Act, and therefore the motion to accept LCP Amendment No 1-06 as Modified should be denied Page 3 2) The CCC erroneously deleted WP as a wetland area from the Land Use Map_ a) After studying a wealth of historical ponding and vegetation evidence in 2005 CCC staff ecologist Dr John Dixon asserted that the area called WP was a wetlands under state definition b) At the CCC May 2007 hearing the motion to not recognize WP as a wetlands failed for lack of a second Dr Dixon s conclusion was validated c)At the CCC November 2007 hearing the Commissioners said they had conflicting expert opinions regarding WP, Dr Dixon's information and Shea's information Rather than reaffirm their prior decision,the CCC switched to a decision that most benefited the developer and rejected WP as a wetlands Land Use decisions should not be based upon what is most convenient for the developer, and contradicts the Commission's previous vote,and therefore the motion to accept LCP Amendment No 1-06 as Modified should be denied 3) Mitigation for loss of wetlands at a 4 1 ratio is not specified in the LCPA as modified, contradicting both the approved EIR and past CCC actions a) In 2002, the City Council approved the Shea/Parkside EIR A City Staff report at the time noted `the EIR recommends that elimination of sensitive biological resources under the original project be mitigated requiring replacement at a ratio of 4 1 within the Bolsa Chica lowlands or an alternative mitigation site per the recommendation of the State Department of Fish and Game ( Attachment 6 ) b) In the City s 2002 official Notice of Action it states "The development shall comply with all applicable mitigation Measures in the EIR No 97-2 ' ( Attachment 7) c) The November 2007 CCC staff report noted 4 1 mitigation for loss of wetlands The Commission s action in November did not remove the EPA 4 1 mitigation requirement-- there was never any discussion or motion or vote on eliminating or changing the 4 1 ratio in November 4 1 mitigation is the CCC standard for even legal, permitted filling of wetlands and has been adopted previously for projects in Huntington Beach To only require 1 1 mitigation for illegally-filled wetlands increases the incentive for developers to fill in wetlands in the future without repercussion and would embolden others to engage in unpermitted grading and bootleg construction in the City Page 4 The Land'Trust contends that the action by the Coastal Commission conflicts with the City's action in 2002 and contradicts the Commission's previous actions, and therefore the motion to accept LCP Amendment No 1-06 as Modified should be denied 4 It is inappropriate for the City to act on the LCPA prior to resolution of pending judicial resolution Current litigation before the Orange County Superior Court(Coastal Law Enforcement Action Network v Shea Homes, case No 07CCO2895) is intended to resolve the improper fill issue In any case the existence of the disputed EPA wetlands has been acknowledged by the California Coastal Commission Absent circulation and certification of a new environmental document the 4 1 mitigation ratio of the original EIR must apply Any action taken by the Council today could be contradicted by the Judicial resolution, and therefore the motion to accept LCP Amendment No 1-06 as Modified should be denied 5)The flood protection and water quality benefits promoted by the developer can occur absent of a housing project a) Shea as a way to obtain City support for this project promised $15 million in flood control improvements as part of their project obtaining a CLOMR from FEMA that promised to remove many individuals from the flood plain However, this Spring the County began the channel improvements along Wintersburg This proves that flood protection is independent of approval of a housing project at this location b) In a July 23, 2007 letter to the Coastal Commission the City stated, 'The developer, Shea Homes has made a request of the City to consider a design alternative that would limit the improvement of the levee of the property along the CO5 Wintersburg Channel to the developed frontage in lieu of the entire length of the property as originally required under the conditions of approval of the project " (Attached 8) In communications the Land Trust has had with FEMA we have learned ' If the project or existing conditions change, then a detailed review of the LOMR may be needed and the previously approved CLOMR may not be used' c) The original project called for BMP s to deal with water quality, but Shea now proposes a Natural Treatment System (NTS) While an NTS is a superior solution to BMP s an even superior project is to construct an NTS on site without any houses as Page 5 houses would just add to the pollution problem An NTS can be created independent of approval of a housing project at this location Infrastructure improvements can be accomplished without approval of a housing development, and therefore the motion to accept LCP Amendment No 1-06 as Modified should be denied In conclusion, to accept and adopt LCP Amendment 1-06 as currently written would contradict previous City action, create inconsistencies in City policy, and set bad precedent in multiple ways The bad precedents are that 1)prior Council actions can be ignored, 2) laws can be broken without punishment and 3)the Council favors certain developers and projects over others by not being consistent with mitigation requirements in the Coastal Zone We urge the City Council to deny LCP Amendment No 1-06 as Modified Sincerely, Gerald Chapman, President huntington beech department of community development Ff 4 1 f k a TO. "h'b ;q ommission , FAOM pnity Development DATE {� f i at 15, 1989 # SUBJECT. CONDITIONAL USE PBRNIT NO. 89-2/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VOIANCE) `NO'. 89--32/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO 89-10 APEJ41 'fit SmoWs Stables USA Inc PATE ACCERTED Fred & Alexis Burkett JU1Y1125-#,'49$9,, y 17100 Bolsa Chica Rd Hunts B00ch, CA 92649 MUMMURROCES84Ng ,ymad September 26, 1089 PP6PEM " 146tropolitan water District A . and Donald Goodell ZONE, R1-FP2 (Low Density Residential-Floodplain REOUES'F# To permit the expansion Distridt 2) of yaj'At, rhpo r a ry commercial h, eiIity witiv s'ixs tv ,r o I+€� �atvelis* y", I u e t to ehcrog,yoybh`within Residential f Or use setb bko acid '";�1"4��y it� eta yM��' y1IPMyash 'y�nys�¢g®�y��4/t�ay�+ �� (1ggf{{/c�ygf4� i1� 4 a G°C11C1Xt1Y#J ( ,f ff4 ICq f p �� /k1y�fG'i•\r114q �M,/� 1 t �,"tifk 6Y n9 6 4i 4��tXi � i �+A v �p fig,01 �a 'v , wr '� v tiN v r� Y � A jet n F t Y AY { F r x s ,y «n • y �C � �f 4taY� �'x 4s" ��t�a �'S �'�r��Bn�i�a'� ��.��i�� �` ts ./��yl ^4�✓�m }�{}y��' L 4[�5 fJ(`y�.(j{y� "�yAI `y(�(��T �. �� #+ jj�'��y ,4l1y� * 17 WLj �I�rt'�fn , M�•. �fp,l'4t� "'4 -"" P, Y l�hty rs .7 p pan On int-ludes tiro le- ta'l� b�r1�Ti�r''"'sf�cid�ri�r c IG a�r� � "We X dollT$ ��watcY1man',� tr�i�.��,er,d n ' wi 1',,��3cGtt�mmb'date+ the,�,re��O' t � of s�r��� 1�bm��8 froW the c1oiing1 bce-ah1 Vi%v-,1,fr6r's`e Ststile Y4TCd diti&al Ezteption (Variance) No 89-32 is a iequest to encroach approximately 145 feet into the minimum 300 foot distance r r� requirement to a residential zone or use, and waive A FM 23C C 1 Condition No. 4 - No structure other than those shown on the approved site plan shall be constructed 3 � 24 horse stalls not shown on the approved site plan were found to be in place north of the arena 2 Condition No 11 - The 5-acre facility shall not exceed 25 horses per acre or a maximum of 125 as permitted by Section 9690 3 128 horses counted on the 12-acre site (300 horses would be allowed based upon City standards) 3 Condition No. 12 - Solid waste shall be r6moved from the site a minimum of twice weekly by an approved commercial collection company The stable owner stated that horse manure was being picked up every 2 to 3 days with no set schedule 4 Land_aUse .Violations a UnOermi sd fill dirt (stockpiling) 444w dirt (less than one year old on the east end of the 03te) placed on they premises, �R,ed tagged by Public 4Works on 1/,Z,OXaB, 2/,3f85 and 2/28/89 for violations of Sectioirr 17' M.040(a)' of the Hkntington Beach f4ubjoipal Code" arW OO(01, 11 7003 of the 4 aA� s �Y RavvU, �, P,' Oq�uixed) .$ { T gj*kiC8r%t:., had. -iAdi be� "� tC y d f,al],owxnq tklanning Comm,*&Sion I 7 Y,4 r i Ii �+' oath Sl1Q 'Cwi ` '"� aj,ec t7�5 tits 10 pigeona 1m IQ fpwl permitted kvm 0�1111 Ella 6W,ex"Pt4aft of Ahe ����1 -T 24rf -4,QO 4e t axtA a,As noted ,e'avr x r they aoikul 4, &Az 019 with 't'3ho Oroposed 36 sta:lr s i&,ifn rcompIiaf µ t� b'l x,density° cif 125 horses on the 5 acrq,site �� � 0R*, �tV� 1gcation of the stockpiling of dirtils in 0 k 6a ucr` „the Oite This is the location of tlieAj1rOgogAd o" r -- � ` raised approttootely 8 gagt aKgv,,q #4 cp to �� 4e minters brg GhartnQl, em ankment� 'the; r adencen of eL S, t high stall in this area would indicate that the stalls are appro �mat�ely 8 to 10 feet above the channel This would impact the rts�it + A# atal� property to the south The applicant is required as a ggpcli�f�on of approval for the proposed expansion to provide a g h ing plan and obtain a stockpiling permit from the Public works Department to eliminate the unpermitted fill and reduce the Staff Report - 8/15/89 -6- (3364d) ,K eleva�t4ri;1from the area to the natural level prior to the illegal ' �t ' �f�c,�wu,�,'Thi�e, in addition to the stalls being setback a imn 9 *0160"TIwill +reduce the visual and noise impact of the s la s; U oru thet�resxdential property to the south A 4A OV vAolatioO noted by the Land Use Division is the housing of raCl'� ' pigeons on site The inspection noted approximately 75 to 100-pigeons The Municipal Code allows approximately 10 The appiicanttwi,Ll be required to reduce the number of pigeons on-site to comply with Code In an effort to address the concerns of the residential properties to the southeast, t44 Planning Division, Land Use Division and the County of 0)%r%ge. °(dOb attachment #8) are working together to abate the and bring the site into conformance with all aspfto �r'i�drerE� plans The applicant will be required to abdter the land Use violations regardless if the proposed expansion is approved or domed within 90 days of final action wz 10 .0 RECOMMENDATION Staf4 red'Omtmerfdg kthat the Planning Commission approve Negative } l atipyk4q, 89-10 and Conditional Use Permit No 89-2 as # � ��Tf_0i� sand Conditional, Exception (Variance) No 89-32 for 6f laMschgino and fencing and reduced setback for watchman' s 0 with the following findings and conditions of approval �����4 �uiFrP �d 4 ° •-t .r t,b A 13 ? wa �� ;� ti�lPr � -thd�Use v+i-4a�t hots�drea�to &i d'etrimenta�l effe�t,AuPon, ,Jt �„ xlt � 'bd hX $� wti p@eG1a �F � " ty t s , e 1 WW1 Y� t�-�is nd, dOmmonn*6 the existing facilities arOw � , �b y ith adjacent structures and uses in that they tr existing facilities ga.dees'w#vij4gd<aparkzng for the use has not , troftid problem d . 1 n —EXCEPTION I 0The 7gra-nbtAg oflaConditional Exception (Variance) No 89-32 for land cVA04 , fencing, and the placement of the watchman' s trailer within the minimum 300 ' setback requirement will not be maat,etiatlly detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or injurious to the surrounding uses in the neighborhood since exceptional circumstances apply to the land which preclude detrimental effects Staff Report - 8/15/89 -7- (3364d) 2 Thb requested exception for landscaping, fencing, and the placement' of` thb,watchman s trailer within the minimum 300 feet setba'cic will allow the continuation of a previously established stable which is compatible with surrounding pfdperties' and does not detract from the general environment of ' th F area i �aand therefore, the exception insures the preservation and�td'e�dfl;"SUbztantxal property rights l 1 j 3 Because of the location of the site upon which the use is proposed exceptional circumstances exist that do not generally apply to other properties or classes of uses in the same district due to the remoteness of the site r r 4 ConditioiYal Exception, No 89-32 for reduced setback for horse st4rl&tISrInot approved because they can ba detrimental to the puYxYkb)heaxlth, + safety, welfare of the adjacent residential nekghborho6d. ,, ! CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N.O._ 89--2 r 1. The Site plan, as modified pursuant to staf€ ' s alternative Wt:achmdnt #6) , shall be thelconceptually approverdtLayout a. So atruolture other than those shown ors~ the ,approved site LJIaftr9h&II be constructed ;v r� tL r 1i J Y ryi A ' t A 2 This apptdval shall be in effect until October 20, 1991, in conjundt*< , ,Rath, the applicant' s current leave agreement with ' �1 '114tiep*lit #U 'Water District and approved germi.tts with the t a i i�ka fa e. I The applicant shall a cl�, Nwc�,{{wuse use, permit OOppl iGBaay� 0#tt;kk1' U r Oe �L,140i lllt*kta�i�4,� YN}a ii im(eN I II ,4 I k shall be AtU Qct:ober 20, 1991 whet 14 041rPM Ate, M i} c+�e* a.� s a ✓ -1 x q t s 4 1 !� o ! x, crl xl a 3-kw, °efiNeaa wBw9teeM6,fttt ttfrbo Eli Ob. ' d thdP A Lcable properties shatIA,c'be,M IMi.ttaed' to 0 ti kel lOpment Department ifor ainelus,�tOM xn� the � ssrte� �l a,F r 4 A copy of the current liability insurance policy shall be { ,k0b fkttdd tokYt;he Community Development. Department afar, tshet,�brle Ohdll be available for review by the public Y � 5 �'Rkg, applicant shall provide a grading plan, soils 4epQrt �4ad compaction report to the Public works Department for review and apprOVal prior to the issuance of any permits The applicant sharyll�Abe required to eliminate runoff into the adjacent watlanda area The grading plan must be approved by the ZagiOtral water Quality Control Board prior to the issuance of building permits or grading permits Staff Report - 8/15/89 -8- (3364d) June 12, 2008 TO City of Huntington Beach City Council From Arthur L Donahur 5321 Glenstone Drive , HB 92649 RE Shea development- Unpermitted fill I sent a letter to the City of Huntington Beach dated July 24, 1989 It is included here At that time I was very concerned about the dump trucks that were dropping fill dirt on the property The fill that was red-tagged was 8ft high My recollection is that big dump trucks were continually dumping loads of fill Then Mr Burkett, the owner of Smoky's Stables would use a tractor to drop manure on the fill area and smooth it out for more dump trucks This went on for a long time My neighbor and I went over to talk to Mr Burkett, but we were told to leave the property The fill was never removed I urge you to oppose the Shea parkside project before you on Monday Sincerely, Arthur L Donahur m nI! na,d, ent,11: �9�98,` Yere� a , e a A I. " 1 A .y Gyyi� t •s� i� r 1 a-^ I • �3,xp ':'rns--•3'' Ary V>•ilw '�'�' �'$ _ '�7 _,�y _Yx4 d �. h 4 r 5 —� ".Kew �.: kC•^ '... '' '. - � r L s v r , n s {{ - : 4 i - i s - A Land Use Element Goal LU2 Ensure that development is adequately served by transportation infrastructure, utility infrastructure,and public services Mitigation Measures#1,Drainage/Hydrology,#1-18,Public Services and Utilities,and#2 and 4, Transportation/Circulation require construction of improvements including a traffic signal,storm drainage improvements and flood control protection to ensure that the development is adequately served with infrastructure Policy LU 2 1 7 Ensure that development shall not occur without providing for adequate school facilities Mitigation Measures#4 and 5, Public Services and Utilities, require that the developer pay required school fees and comply with a Mitigation Agreement with the affected school districts Pokcv LU 412 Require that an appropnate landscape plan be submitted and implemented for development projects subject to discretionary review Mitigation Measures#1 and 2 Aesthetics/Light and Glare, require compliance with all applicable City plans,policies,and ordinances with respect to landscaping, including submittal of a landscape plan for the Graham Street frontage Policy LU S 1 1 Require that development protect environmental resources by consideration of the policies and standards contained in the Environmental Resources/Conservation Element of the General Plan and Federal(NEPA) and State(CEQA) regulations During the development review process a) Review any development proposal for the Bolsa Chica area to ensure that no development is permitted in Federally delineated wetlands, and b)Review any development proposed for non- wetland areas to ensure that appropriate setbacks and buffers are maintained between development and environmentally sensitive areas to protect habitat quality The project EIR documents the former existence of 0 2 acres of remnant coastal salt marsh-type vegetation (patchy pickleweed), 0 4 acres of EPA delineated pocket wetlands and approx 0 36 acres of potential jurisdictional wetlands on the parcel that is proposed for annexation The patchy pickleweed and potential jurisdictional wetlands partially overlap The EIR recommends that elimination of sensitive biological resources under the original project be mitigated by requiring replacement at a ratio of 4 1 within the Bolsa Chica lowlands or an alternative mitigation site,per the recommendation of the State Department of Fish and Game With Alternatives 6-9,the patchy picklweed and EPA delineated pocket wetlands are not removed and no potential wetland is disturbed Alternatives 6-9 increase the buffer from the EPA designated ESHA from 60 to 464 ft Poha LU 9 1 2 Require that single family residential units be designed to convey a high level of quality and character Mitigation Measure #1, Aesthetics/Light and Glare, requires compliance with City comments/ conditions pertaining to design and layout of buildings and landscaping for the purpose of achieving a high quality design Staff Report—9/10/02 3 (02sr32) 4�7 x The applicant shall provide proof to the City s Traffic Engineer that the project has contributed its fair share towards regional traffic improvement systems (► a traffic impact fees) for the area This shall include efforts to synchronize traffic lights on streets impacted by project development (MM) y Testing to verify the estimated radon gas levels shall be implemented as deemed necessary by the Department of Planning(MM) z The following water conservation measures shall be implemented as required by state law 1) Ultra low flush toilets 2) Ultra low flow showers and faucets 3) Insulation of hot water lines in water recirculating systems 4) Compliance with water conservation provisions of the appropriate plumbing code (MM) as Water pressure regulators to limit downstream pressure to a maximum of 60 psi shall be installed (MM) bb The applicant shall provide information to prospective residents regarding benefits of low water use landscaping and sources of additional assistance in selecting irrigation and landscaping (MM) cc The development shall comply with all applicable Mitigation Measures in Environmental Impact Report No 97 2 and New Alternatives to EIR No 97 2 5 The Departments of Planning Public Works and Fire are responsible for compliance with all conditions of approval herein as noted after each condition The Planning Director and Public Works Director shall be notified in writing if any changes to tract map are proposed as a result of the plan check process Permits shall not be issued until the Planning Director and Public Works Director have reviewed and approved the proposed changes for conformance with the intent of the Planning Commission s action and the conditions herein If the proposed changes are of a substantial nature an amendment to the original entitlement reviewed by the Planning Commission s may be required pursuant to the HBZSO 6 Prior to finalization of the Tract or exoneration of the Guarantee Bond maintenance for the City Park (Lot A) shall be for a period of 12 months after the 90 day plant establishment period The Park may open at the beginning of maintenance period (PW) 7 Service roads and fire access lanes as determined by the Fire Department shall be posted marked and maintained if fire lane violations occur and the services of the Fire Department are required the applicant will be liable for expenses incurred (FD) 8 A public art element shall be integrated and be in a location that is visible to the public within the Parkside Estates residential project Public art shall incorporate the following a) Artistic excellence and innovation b) Appropriate to the design of the project c) Indicative of the community s cultural identity (ecology history society) (02d0924 Parkside TTM ( iU C,7P) Attachment 1 25 LFFID CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 Main Street P O Box 1 90 C a I i f o r n i a 92648 Robert F Beardsley P E Department of Public Works Director (714) 536 5431 January 23 2007 Ms Meg Vaughn Coastal Program Analyst Mr Karl Schwtng Supervisor Regulation and Planning . California Coastal Commission f t 200 Oceangate 10'h Floor Long Beach CA 90802-4416 RE Parkside Estates , LCP Amendment Request No 1-06 CDP Application No 5-06-327 Dear Ms Vaughn and Mr Schwtng The developer Shea Homes has made a request of the City of Huntington Beach to consider a design alternative that would limit the improvement of the levee along the C05 Wintersburg Channel to the developed frontage in lieu of the entire length of the property as originally required under the conditions of approval for the project The City would find this improvement alternative acceptable if the following conditions are met 1 All flood protection improvements must be completed to full conformance with and subject to the review and design requirements of the City of Huntington Beach the County of Orange and the U S Army Corps of Engineers(COE) 2 The improvements must be certified by the U S Army Corps of Engineers to be substantially in conformance with the Conditional Letter of Map Revision issued by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for the subject property The Vegetated Flood Protection Feature(VFPF) must erterd from the C05 Wtntersburg Channel levee to the bluffs on the westerly side of the project and the elevation of the top of the VFPF must match or exceed the required top of the proposed levee to provide the minimum freeboard above the maximum expected water surface in the channel for a 100-year storm event 4 The VFPF must be constructed to the minimum requirements of the U S Army Corps of Engineers for a certified levee improvement as shown in COE manual EM 1110 2 1913 latest amendment No runoff from the project shall be permitted to outlet over the top of the VFPF except to a concrete lined Swale to eliminate the potential for erosion of the levee 5 The maintenance and access road along the top of the levee and the top of the VFPF must comply with the minimum requirements of the City, County and the COE COASTAL COMMISSION 144a(b LC-PA- i-Oq EXHIBIT# S PAGE____I OF �' If you have any questions about the stipulations contained in this letter please feel free to contact either myself or Mr David Webb Deputy Director of Public Works at(714) 536 5431 Sincerely Travis K Hopkins PE City Engineer TKH/TE cs Cc David Webb Deputy Director of Public Works Scott Hess Acting Director of Planning Mary Beth Broeren Principal Planner Terri Elliott Principal Civil Engineer Robert Righeth, Engineering Resources Inc Ron Metzler Shea Homes i • . . .I AiPl' A +x- N RECEIVED FROM0 AS PUBLIC RECORD FOR NCIL MEETW OF® / o O8 CITY CLEAK OFFICE JOAN L.FLYNN CITY CLERK 1 The WP Wetland • • • • We believe that the Coastal Commissioners erred in disregarding their staff s years of analysis that concluded that WP is a wetland The contemporary and historical record is clear -- WP ponds consistently in most rain years 2 WP 02/17/05 Day 53 of i4 OIL- This ponding lasted for 104 consecutive days 3 � WP 01 /03/05 — Day 4 of 14 �� II I� i r g. WP 11 /02/04 - Da 18 of 64 Y .. • 7"x4 �syyyk �r i 64 days WP 03/02/04 - Day 14 of 25 7 �k 71 W -r e ti r� ru -rA } • py. Af y r WP 03/14/01 — Day 18 4 _ __—'ma's n•T-.^mm.....:4y�ly - ...+, _. ;.r,. � W�P 01 /31 /01 — Da 23 r, Y m :y .»w' •yam $ "T and here a whopping 138 days Note carefully on the right how a Low Ground Pressure bulldozer specifically designed to operate in wetlands is being used to bring this sequence to a premature end under the guise of"weed abatement' 10 Historical /) • • ® 2101 In addition to ground-level ponding photography, we have also accumulated a large collection of dated aerial photographs By comparing photo dates with rainfall records to determine how much rain fell immediately before and after the photograph was taken it is possible to estimate the number of consecutive days of ponding 11 WP 01 /29/97 — Day 17 � � I 17 consecutive days of ponding 12 I IJ 'I WP 01 /28/95 — Day 26 3 + _ 4 III � I 6 a I W fr l , T is J 1yFr _ i e p . AW. and 27 days (Vote that nearly every WP ponding sequence I just showed you went on to meet or exceed the federal 18-day wetland parameter standard Based on hydrology alone WP should be considered a wetland Please reject the Coastal Commission LCPA modifications Thank you 15 • �t�}i' tdd tR�� � zx � s '� 4 Ij A �« VI The WP Wetland Hydrophyfic Vegetation In addition to hydrology wetlands can also be defined by the preponderance of hydrophytic vegetation and there is plenty of that at WP 17 41 Hydrophytic vegetation was preponderant at WP during both vegetation surveys that I conducted during the record drought year of 2007 Today I would like to present the details of the survey that I conducted on June 30th 2007 While WP may look like just a bunch of weeds from a distance a closer look tells a much different story 18 0 o '4 P � ■r c Using GPS measurements I traversed the width of WP (CLICK TO ANIMATE) and then the length of WP (CLICK TO ANIMATE) while collecting data at intervals of approximately 50 feet 19 i Quadrat Context Shot c m x s * r i .u.'4 "o k Quadrat Closeup Shot •3 r *�,x� F.;�u ,�c a / s e.asamt^ �a'KYI'rIS� r'ss Apr a r '��d e.,ys��'�t �'� rti� � �•�`� )y�.�.�y-, . ��n k" a lut�:r -r'c'-.� F �..�.;�.y "Fi`a-s''�'f `I�� � Y" )1 �2,"Fl,^n*� }� Y.:•1;�.'�w� '�'*p \�N��' ��13�--" t��•_ ��s }��Fi•'Ki �°iY.t�.�"��"js '�tdr X.y '�`R?) � ;i' e:— t� y _ '1'rt,Y / ;,i„SrJfi_.,�. ��'fA\ 2•Y M1 Z`� f ��{, �S,V. Y �i � �,R �RP ��x�� • • • • I Coverage Measuremeir nt Grid � . �. Then r t� l� t a back at home I used Photoshop to overlay _ grid of 100 equally spaced points on top of each quadrat photo and I then tallied the species found at the center of each point i Species Cumulative Coverage ; I 1. Fivehorn Smotherweed FAC n = 276 Bassia hyssopifolia 2. Salt Sandspurry OBL n = 1 E5 II Spergularia sauna 3. Alkali Mallow FAC n = 25 11/lalvella leprosy 4: Chees.eweed, Mallow UPL n = 18. Malva parviflora 5. Spreading AI'kal'iweed FACW n = 5 Cressy truxillen_sis 6. Bristly Oxtongue FAG n = 3 Picric eehioides 7. Common Sowthistfe NI n = 1 Sonchusoleraceus a� rr t The result of applying the 50/20 rule is that hydrophytic vegetation species were preponderant at EVERY sampling location except for one Shea's consultants will argue that 50/20 is the wrong methodology for determining hydrophytic vegetation preponderance, but Coastal Commission staff ecologist Dr John Dixon stated on the record during the November 2007 hearing that 50/20 is a perfectly acceptable methodology 24 . . • ' � ®USFWS si May 19-79 'Th- elavations of Parcel are such that should these [farming]practices • - - ® ®• ® area I ® • retum !to, I MeI ® ® ®® ® I -® I I • This result of hydrophytic preponderance during agriculturally fallow periods was foretold by USFWS way back in their 1979 Bolsa Chica report I should point out that this report was one of the reasons cited by the Coastal Commission for leaving this property as an Area of Deferred Certification when the city s LCP was approved over two decades ago 25 Los Angeles • . i o . June • 2007 • • basing their notion on • - • - • ''az4qh " someday be formed upon a current piece o agricultural land.. . . There is no "might" about it Throughout my six years of regular monitoring of this property I have seen a preponderance of hydrophytic vegetation at WP and other locations throughout the property again and again during fallow periods 26 smart Conclusion : It's a Wetland iIk WP is a wetland I know it You know it Shea knows it Coastal Commission staff knows it The Coastal Commissioners were wrong to ignore their own staffs unbiased recommendation Please reject the Coastal Commission LCPA modifications Thank you 27 00 N . - . Z ell Ie ! e « e • \ � /)qQ , » ƒ ( . ���\ ■ ■■ ! � / ` � , ,� ���) { . ! g �! r y !� •�§ ■ I A Shred of Evidence: Unpermitted Development by i Shea Homes Coastal Act 30106. "Develo ment" P means. ...grading, removing, dredging, m�nrn or eXtraction of an maten Letter to the CCC -Steven Kaufmann "Over a course of 27 years, topographicprofile of thism changed each year, mll owing to normal farming, activities. m evidence sfired of contrary.." • •' •re added Shea s legal firm wrote, and I quote, `Over the course of 27 years, the topographic profile of this property has changed each year, all owing to normal farming activities There is not a shred of evidence to the contrary I suppose that depends on your definition of a shred 30 This video was shot in 1995 from the Cabo del Mar condos WP is clearly visible in the background [PAUSE SPEAK] Then we pan over to EPA in the foreground, filled to the brim 31 r � d10'�+llo J Now pay close attention to the middle of the screen, as we zoom in, and do a fast pan across the green landform adjacent to the levee, the former stables footprint 32 8 Feet" Stables h, { a J 0 9 b ®� You re looking at the 8 feet of stables fill that the city red-tagged in 1989 (CLICK TO ANIMATE) The levee is approximately 11 feet tall in comparison 33 January 14, • • XI AM 10 Here's another video from `95, this time shot from the Wintersburg levee The WP wetland is immense here, far exceeding Coastal Commission staff ecologist Dr John Dixon s conservative contemporary WP footprint As the north eucalyptus grove ESHA comes into view, [BREATH] the EPA wetland is sitting pretty in front of it [BREATH] and then we return to that dramatic 8 feet of stables fill 34 Stables8 Feet of xv Notice how the water is lapping up against the 8 feet of unpermitted fill If this fill had not been dumped here, (CLICK TO ANIMATE) even more of the property would have been underwater 35 1996 Buys from MWD 11 MWD EfETAOPOLRAN WATER DIS7RICi0F SOtJTNERNCALtFORMA 1 r B ha cn R d t I D I pm t Opp rc ry � Approximately 4�Acres f C ty f H t ngton Beach l P OIK INFORMATION I n^ TI Slx h h( I Y A year later in 1996, Shea bought the property from the MWD, and proceeded to conduct their so-called `normal farming activities' 36 1998 • • "Weed Abatement" Incident 1 After a liftle bulldozing here 37 1998 Weed Abate t mot-'�. •'-� - .,r.�, ;ate _ �e Well, a LOT of bulldozing 2005 Box PlowIncident N and a little Box Plowing there 39 CCC Exhibit MMM 26, I N Areas rd�istuiin Pill aw l y� �,, �'� R le aced t�Ar4lcukure 4' r 110-1 Lh � t� •� `Ltd � .' ' PermittN t" x r, I , anry z t Now you see fill from the south 41 I July 21 , 2007 i i ` 1 January 21 , 1995 m� ej g Now you -' fill from • and now you don't 44 � • • • a BNOV-1 • Anyone who still thinks that grading this much fill material constitutes "normal farming" is in denial Shea has been grading without a permit under the guise of farming, with the intent of filling in any traces of wetlands on the property Please hold Shea accountable under Coastal Act sections 30106 and 30233 by rejecting the Coastal Commission LCPA modifications Thank you 45 T t P jk� r O a '^ D iU z � CIE: 1 � 4. f- yl -{ Ile 4 V{ k i i The Filling ofEPA. ® rth ® A ■ I m going to show you how the filling of the EPA wetland led to the birth of the AP wetland 47 S ; A Y C .s Here you see nearly the entire 8-acre EPA wetland full of water in March 2001 Notice the red tractor stuck in the south end 48 ® : 1 4 p�3 k" d r Four days later we see that the green tractor that came to rescue the red tractor has also gotten stuck 49 ® ® 0 e ® • • ® t'LLYc o�t�r �t .. �x^RY11 LEGEND �. HYDROGPAPHIC BOUNDARY SURFACE ROW DIREGT'AN \ DEPussio S If i� CNANNE4DR(EORRO DTOP ® MAN HOIE !! 1 ® DDCHIA HEAD WALL �^ i \ 'N # STORM OLWHx r Y o s• o 0IXWK Given the large EPA wetland drainage area on this map, you would expect large-scale ponding and the historical record does not disappoint 50 Beforenotto scale "Tract0 Mesa 1 Al L ' Slop,ed,road',,oa lotofLi 0 In 2001 the EPA wetland sat in a shallow bowl adjacent to a sloped road running along the toe of the mesa But that would soon change 51 : 1 rW M The water receded and the tractors were rescued Heavy equipment then began to alter the topography Note how the bulldozer on the left is pushing a large amount of dirt 52 I I, . CCC' Exhibit MMM Aerial Photo and Map Interpretation for Shea Pr®perty '� Jonathan Varr Coops.,July 2,2007. page 17 of 45 ``. . . In this :decade the topography of the. EPA wetland area has changed dramatically, with the oblitera io.n of the depression in i s, original location and the c�reation of .a sma,ller, narrower ' depression now identified as the A'P CoopsCoastal Commission staff GIS expert Jonathan Van - After ® not toscale EPA • filled/dest(byed Sa Me I 4 Q_ c_ ® 0 • H6 6hfid4dad • • • The road was cut wider and flatter into the toe of the mesa The AP wetland was excavated immediately next to the road The soil from the road work and the AP work was then dumped into the EPA wetland effectively destroying it The new slope of the filled area now directs water into the AP wetland instead 54 AP/EPA Topography' Changes g _ G�/NI NY�n ate\ E !R y U )hl & W r ,7 t� E EucrlYrt ESHA +� ,. � — ✓"ter*$ „x'K'l 4 Ch WethM :1tei The first image from 2001 shows the topography before the Shea changes (CLICK TO ANIMATE) The road follows the naturally-sloped mesa toe There are no abrupt grade changes The second image from 2002 shows the changes discussed in the previous slides (CLICK TO ANIMATE) The road surface was cut horizontally into the mesa toe (CLICK TO ANIMATE) AP was excavated to a depth of a few feet next to the road The third image from 2003 shows the AP grade separation (CLICK TO ANIMATE) even better due to more optimal lighting 56 • • Unpermitted development occurred - EPAwetland O "'obi - I ® . violation of Secton a - . MO • . . . - - • - . ® the iloss ofthe, EPA wetland It's clear from the record that unpermitted development has occurred and that the EPA wetland was filled by Shea We fully support the Coastal Commission staff recommendation of 4 1 wetland mitigation to make up for the loss of EPA Please reject the Coastal Commission LCPA modifications and their 1 1 "wrist- slap" EPA mitigation Thank your 57 00 LO � * ! ` . . • ` / 4 • � ! >�f9} , � / � ■ § ). ( \ , / ` ` / \ !g), \ tit � / � y@ ■, f .tT Coastal • • - • Findings a PA Wetland 'Mitga The Land Trust believes that the Coastal Commission's revised findings action to drop the requirement for 4 1 EPA wetland mitigation constitutes an improper attempt at rewriting the history of what actually transpired at the November LCPA hearing 59 revisedThe findings • • not accurately reflect the previous Coastal Commission act • on November 2007- 'History cannotbe ' Executive Director Peter Douglas told the Commissioners before the final vote in November that their action that day was to certify the LUP Amendment with the specific changes that the Commission had voted for and for anything that they hadn't changed that the staff recommendations stood as they were The Commission and Shea are attempting to rewrite history, claiming the Commissioners did not require any wetland mitigation beyond a 'I 1 ratio when no vote was taken to amend staffs suggested 4 1 mitigation ratio 60 The Commission • , requires • for • of • Shea claims that there is "no basis for mitigation beyond 1 1 replacement There is plenty of basis and precedent for a 4 1 ratio 61 Example of 4: 1 Mitigation il • Caitrans Devil's Slide Tunnel (San Mateo Count It has been suggested time and time again by the Commission to offset adverse impacts to wetlands 62 Example of 4� 1 �cont.) • EJ Morro Mobile Home Park Co,nvers'ion (:Crystal Cove. State Park) • Least. Tern nesting site creation (San. It has been recommended all along the coast from Humboldt County to San Diego 63 Still more • • Caltrans 1-5 test • • • - e • . 1� San • Lagoons) Lagoon) • City of - • • trunk sewer • Rose Creek st,reambankrepair Diego) • ® - o • Airpoft Landfil] Dieguito wetland restoration plan The Land Trust found these examples in Commission staff reports-17 in all— from searching the Commission s website, and this was not an exhaustive search As you can see the Commission typically requires mitigation at a ratio of 4 1 for adverse wetland impacts and wetland loss 64 City • Standard Shea • mitigationrequired 4:1 wetlands • ould • ve been . . filled / • Furthermore, 4 1 mitigation is also a city standard as well The Shea Parkside EIR that was certified by the city council in 2002 required 4 1 mitigation for the wetlands that would have been filled by the original project 65 There s never CCC I I proposal or motion or vote to change: or reject the recommended 4:1 mitigation • • contained ' November , • • Coastal Commissioner Secord was very precise in his November motions to remove the parts of the report the Commission majority didn't agree with and voted to change Though the Commission had every opportunity to do so, the transcript shows that there was FEVER any proposal, motion, or vote to change or reject the recommended 4 1 mitigation ratio for loss of wetlands Thus the 4 1 mitigation requirement should stall stand It's as sample as that 66 • • . Action : Accord HuntingtonBeach wetlandsprotection accorded other coastal • underCoastal s CoastalReject the Commission LGPA modifications., Last month the Commission failed to accord Huntington Beach wetlands the full protection accorded other coastal wetlands under the Coastal Act Shea illegally obliterated the EPA wetland and must be held to account through the 4 1 on-site mitigation requirement in the November 2007 CCC staff report and the certified Parkside EIR Please reject the Commission s LCPA modifications Thank you 67 � �4 i�s� it�� • y .tw{ }k to a t ' gffl�� x,gs + 00 Citizen Communications Received After the Distribution of the Late Communication Packet 6/16/08 Item D-2 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From Flynn Joan Sent Monday June 16 2008 8 42 PM To Esparza Patty Subject Fw YES on Parkside Estates LCP Amendment Joan L Flynn CMC Huntington Beach City Clerk From Brucecarel@earthlink net To city clerk@surfcity hb org Sent Mon Jun 16 18 13 25 2008 Subject YES on Parkside Estates, LCP Amendment Dear Mayor Cook I am writing to express my support of Shea Homes' Parkside Estates, and to strongly encourage a "YES" vote by City Council in support of the changes the California Coastal Commission made to Huntington Beach's Local Coastal Program at its hearing last November on Parkside Estates This is a very well planned project that provides great benefits for our city We will get the flood protection and water quality benefits we need so much, plus nearly half of the site will now be conservation open space and wetlands And because the amount of development was cut by the Commission, we will get all these benefits with less traffic and fewer new students in our schools Vote YES on June 161 Thank you BRUCE CAREL HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92647 Brucecarel@earthlmk net 714 847-0905 CC Keith Bohr Mayor Pro Tem Joe Carcluo Council Member Cathy Green, Council Member Don Hansen, Council Member Jill Hardy, Council Member Gil Coerper, Council Member Scott Hess, Director of Planning 6/17/2008 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From Flynn Joan Sent Monday June 16 2008 4 45 PM To lindahuangsc@hotmail com Cc Esparza Patty Subject Re YES on Parkside Estates LCP Amendment Your correspondence will be entered into the official record as part of the council communication for this item Joan L Flynn CIVIC Huntington Beach City Clerk From lindahuangsc@hotmail com To city clerk@surfcity hb org Sent Mon Jun 16 15 41 04 2008 Subject YES on Parkside Estates, LCP Amendment Dear Mayor Cook, I am writing to express my support of Shea Homes' Parkside Estates, and to strongly encourage a "YES" vote by City Council in support of the changes the California Coastal Commission made to Huntington Beach's Local Coastal Program at its hearing last November on Parkside Estates This is a very well planned project that provides great benefits for our city We will get the flood protection and water quality benefits we need so much, plus nearly half of the site will now be conservation open space and wetlands And because the amount of development was cut by the Commission, we will get all these benefits with less traffic and fewer new students in our schools Vote YES on June 161 Thank you Linda Huang Huntington Beach CA 92648 lmdahuangsc@hotmail com 949 873-5220 CC Keith Bohr, Mayor Pro Tern Joe Carchio, Council Member Cathy Green Council Member Don Hansen, Council Member Jill Hardy, Council Member Gil Coerper, Council Member Scott Hess Director of Planning 6/16/2008 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From Flynn Joan Sent Monday June 16 2008 8 41 PM To Esparza Patty Subject Fw oppose d 2 Joan L Flynn CIVIC Huntington Beach City Clerk From Ellen Jacobs To city clerk@surfcity hb org Sent Mon Jun 16 18 46 05 2008 Subject opposed 2 Can t write more I m on the way to the meeting but will not speak Thanks 6/17/2008 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From Flynn Joan Sent Monday June 16 2008 4 46 PM To edlucero34@hotmail com Cc Esparza Patty Subject Re YES on Parkside Estates LCP Amendment Your correspondence will be entered into the official record as part of the council communication for this item Joan L Flynn CMC Huntington Beach City Clerk From edlucero34@hotmail com To city clerk@surfcity hb org Sent Mon Jun 16 15 40 28 2008 Subject YES on Parkside Estates, LCP Amendment Dear Mayor Cook, I am writing to express my support of Shea Homes' Parkside Estates, and to strongly encourage a "YES" vote by City Council in support of the changes the California Coastal Commission made to Huntington Beach's Local Coastal Program at its hearing last November on Parkside Estates This is a very well planned project that provides great benefits for our city We will get the flood protection and water quality benefits we need so much,plus nearly half of the site will now be conservation open space and wetlands And because the amount of development was cut by the Commission we will get all these benefits with less traffic and fewer new students in our schools Vote YES on June 161 Thank you Edward Lucero Huntington Beach, CA 92648 edlucero34@hotmail com 949-873-5220 CC Keith Bohr Mayor Pro Tem Joe Carchio, Council Member Cathy Green, Council Member Don Hansen, Council Member Jill Hardy, Council Member Gil Coerper, Council Member Scott Hess, Director of Planning 6/16/2008 June 16 2008 Item D-2 Esparza, Patty From Dapkus Pat Sent Monday June 16 2008 5 18 PM To Flynn Joan Cc Esparza Patty Subject FW June 16 2008 Item D 2 I am forwarding this to you as a FYI even though it came in well after the time your office can realistically add it to the late communications I believe I recall that Linda Moon was upset once because she didn t see her email among the late communications Pat Dapkus (714) 536-5579 (714) 536-5233 (FAX) `A Save A Tree please don t print this unless you really need to From Linda Moon [mailto Ismoon4@verizon net] Sent Monday, June 16, 2008 4 38 PM To CITY COUNCIL Subject June 16 2008 Item D 2 Dear Council Members I am writing to urge your No vote on Item D 2 on the June 16, 2008 Agenda relating to the Shea Parkside Land Use Plan The project as approved by the Coastal Commission does not provide even the protections previously required by the City The lack of mitigation for the filling of wetlands will result not only in the destructton of important habitat on this parcel, but will set a precedent which could result in the loss of environmental resources on other sensitive coastal properties Promises by the developer for the provision of flood control improvements are not a legal basis for the circumvention of legal environmental protections Please act to protect this remaining significant parcel of the Bolsa Chica Ecosystem from wholesale destruction Linda Sapiro Moon 6/17/2008 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From Flynn Joan Sent Monday June 16 2008 4 45 PM To tnowels@socal rr com Cc Esparza Patty Subject Re YES on Parkside Estates LCP Amendment Your correspondence will be entered into the official record as part of the council communication for this item Joan L Flynn CMC Huntington Beach City Clerk From tnowels@socal rr com To city clerk@surfcity hb org Sent Mon Jun 16 15 43 50 2008 Sub'ect YES on Parkside Estates, LCP Amendment Dear Mayor Cook, I am writing to express my support of Shea Homes' Parkside Estates, and to strongly encourage a "YES" vote by City Council in support of the changes the California Coastal Commission made to Huntington Beach's Local Coastal Program at its hearing last November on Parkside Estates This is a very well planned project that provides great benefits for our city We will get the flood protection and water quality benefits we need so much, plus nearly half of the site will now be conservation open space and wetlands And because the amount of development was cut by the Commission we will get all these benefits with less traffic and fewer new students in our schools Vote YES on June 161 Thank you Todd Nowels Huntington Beach, CA 92647-5665 tnowels@socal rr com 714-331-3970 CC Keith Bohr, Mayor Pro Tem Joe Carchio, Council Member Cathy Green, Council Member Don Hansen, Council Member Jill Hardy, Council Member Gil Coerper, Council Member Scott Hess Director of Planning 6/16/2008 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From Flynn Joan Sent Monday June 16 2008 4 45 PM To Esparza Patty Subject Fw YES on Parkside Estates LCP Amendment Joan L Flynn CIVIC Huntington Beach City Clerk From rwroth6@aol com To city clerk@suricity hb org Sent Mon Jun 16 16 35 30 2008 Subject YES on Parkside Estates, LCP Amendment Dear Mayor Cook, I am writing to express my support of Shea Homes' Parkside Estates, and to strongly encourage a "YES" vote by City Council in support of the changes the California Coastal Commission made to Huntington Beach's Local Coastal Program at its hearing last November on Parkside Estates This is a very well planned project that provides great benefits for our city We will get the flood protection and water quality benefits we need so much, plus nearly half of the site will now be conservation open space and wetlands And because the amount of development was cut by the Commission, we will get all these benefits with less traffic and fewer new students in our schools Vote YES on June 161 Thank you Ronald Roth Huntington Beach, CA 92647-5651 rwroth6@aol com 714-847-1594 CC Keith Bohr Mayor Pro Tem Joe Carchio, Council Member Cathy Green, Council Member Don Hansen, Council Member Jill Hardy, Council Member Gil Coerper, Council Member Scott Hess, Director of Planning 6/16/2008 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From Flynn Joan Sent Monday June 16 2008 8 41 PM To Esparza Patty Subject Fw YES on Parkside Estates LCP Amendment Joan L Flynn CIVIC Huntington Beach City Clerk From fascherz@verizon net To city clerk@surfcity hb org Sent Mon Jun 16 19 12 28 2008 Subject YES on Parkside Estates, LCP Amendment Dear Mayor Cook, I am writing to express my support of Shea Homes' Parkside Estates, and to strongly encourage a "YES" vote by City Council in support of the changes the California Coastal Commission made to Huntington Beach's Local Coastal Program at its hearing last November on Parkside Estates This is a very well planned project that provides great benefits for our city We will get the flood protection and water quality benefits we need so much plus nearly half of the site will now be conservation open space and wetlands And because the amount of development was cut by the Commission, we will get all these benefits with less traffic and fewer new students in our schools Vote YES on June 161 Thank you Andrew Scherz Huntington Beach, CA 92647 fascherz@verizon net 714-848 5767 CC Keith Bohr Mayor Pro Tem Joe Carchio, Council Member Cathy Green, Council Member Don Hansen, Council Member Jill Hardy, Council Member Gil Coerper, Council Member Scott Hess Director of Planning 6/17/2008 Page 1 of 2 Esparza, Patty From Flynn Joan Sent Monday June 16 2008 8 41 PM To Esparza Patty Subject Fw Oppose Item D 2 Joan L Flynn CMC Huntington Beach City Clerk From Bob &Cathi To city clerk@surfcity hb org, CITY COUNCIL Sent Mon Jun 16 19 15 56 2008 Subject Oppose Item D 2 Mayor Cook and Council Members, We implore the Council NOT to accept the Coastal Commission's findings for the LUPA concerning Parkside We urge a NO vote on item D-2, or at least continue it per staff s alternative recommendation We live walking distance to the property and see the birds, mammals, insects, and plants that live and thrive there on a regular basis We are talking about the destruction of one of the last open spaces in Orange County We owe it to our children, and to every subsequent generation, to preserve this federal wetland, this natural habitat, once it is destroyed, it will be lost forever Shea says that all they are doing on their property is'normal farming', yet Coastal Commission staff have found that Shea'obliterated' a federal wetland Shea has never explained how the Coastal Act allows a wetland to be destroyed by 'normal farming'-- because it DOESN'T allow it, The findings omit 4 1 mitigation for loss or destruction of wetlands, even though the Commissioners NEVER voted to remove that requirement from the staff report they were using at the November hearing Cities and projects up and down the coast all require 4 1 mitigation, this is clearly a precedent that Huntington Beach must follow Shea sold this project to the City by promising $15 million in flood control improvements Now the County is paying for most of the work(with Shea reaping the profits), proving that flood protection can be enhanced WITHOUT building any houses) Please vote NO on item D-2, REJECT the Coastal Commission's findings for the LUPA concerning Parkside, this is a mistake that can NEVER be remedied Sincerely, Robert & Catherine Seidler 17532 Crown Circle 6/17/2008 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From Flynn Joan Sent Monday June 16 2008 3 21 PM To Esparza Patty Subject FW YES on Parkside Estates LCP Amendment From wesstoner@yahoo com [mailto wesstoner@yahoo com] Sent Monday, June 16, 2008 2 04 PM To city clerk@surfcity hb org Subject YES on Parkside Estates, LCP Amendment Dear Mayor Cook I am writing to express my support of Shea Homes' Parkside Estates, and to strongly encourage a "YES" vote by City Council in support of the changes the California Coastal Commission made to Huntington Beach's Local Coastal Program at its hearing last November on Parkside Estates This is a very well planned project that provides great benefits for our city We will get the flood protection and water quality benefits we need so much, plus nearly half of the site will now be conservation open space and wetlands And because the amount of development was cut by the Commission we will get all these benefits with less traffic and fewer new students in our schools Vote YES on June 161 Thank you Wes Stoner Huntington Beach, CA 92646 wesstoner@yahoo com 714-968 8359 CC Keith Bohr, Mayor Pro Tem Joe Carchio, Council Member Cathy Green, Council Member Don Hansen, Council Member Jill Hardy, Council Member Gil Coerper, Council Member Scott Hess, Director of Planning 6/16/2008 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From Flynn Joan Sent Wednesday June 18 2008 7 52 PM To Esparza Patty Subject Fw YES on Parkside Estates LCP Amendment Joan L Flynn CIVIC Huntington Beach City Clerk From ronni@surfside net To city clerk@surfcity hb org Sent Wed Jun 18 16 36 02 2008 Subject YES on Parkside Estates, LCP Amendment Dear Mayor Cook, I am writing to express my support of Shea Homes' Parkside Estates and to strongly encourage a "YES" vote by City Council in support of the changes the California Coastal Commission made to Huntington Beach's Local Coastal Program at its hearing last November on Parkside Estates This is a very well planned project that provides great benefits for our city We will get the flood protection and water quality benefits we need so much, plus nearly half of the site will now be conservation open space and wetlands And because the amount of development was cut by the Commission, we will get all these benefits with less traffic and fewer new students in our schools Vote YES on June 161 Thank you Veronica Davis Huntington Beach, CA 92647 ronni@surfside net 714-848 6973 CC Keith Bohr, Mayor Pro Tern. Joe Carchio, Council Member Cathy Green, Council Member Don Hansen, Council Member Jill Hardy, Council Member Gil Coerper, Council Member Scott Hess, Director of Planning 6/19/2008 lynn City Clerk intington Beach fthe City Clerk g ` 012H 5200902 'Beach CA 92648 RETURN SERVICE o � 4 us I.— iz 06/05/2008 uj u3 US POSTAGE • LEGAL NOTICE —PUBLIC HEARING 560 OCCUPANT 17171 BOLSA CHICA ST#76 1 6 HUNTINGTOP NIkSE 927 DE 1 00 06los)lbb RETURN To SENDCR iff A'T7 Fri PT ED NOT KA,AWN 47Nif=UL E ro F ORWfiiRD t.: E L % _ -yaQ 90 11,17777171F117,11FIJ17F17117771i711111)7!{l771717711777771,11 lynn City Clerk intington Beach the City Clerk ti, �° 012l16209032 Box 190 Beach CA 92648 RETURN SERVICE � 0 en s 7o 06 05 �v0F, S POSTAGE AGE LEGAL NOTICE —PUBLIC HEARING �J t t. -� G 560 OCCUPANT 17171 BOLSA CHICA ST#44 �.. 16 `•--p� HUNTINGTO -- UUU TJZ E 927 DE, 1 00 Otom!09/09 RETURN TO SCNDER ATTEMP r170 - NOT xNCIIJTd L MADL E Try f-caRW>=RD uc 92649OL9090 *20-7-00742 00 29 7:,. „D �Ktw° �,,, f y � � Q1�Q !!iliii,!}!1!!li)!I1!!D1l1!l117,111!!illl!lI17l1 117!lIF77)17!! intington Beach the City Clerk 012 4 62"0v32 Box 190 Lu Beach CA 92648 RETURN SERVICE 5 4 0 r-- 06 05 2008 ' w P o FPr7 F or 92n4P LEGAL NOTICE -PUBLIC HEARING US POz3TPCE i � 560 OCCUPANT 17171 BOLSA CHICA ST#86 HUNTINGTON BFACH CA A264A - , - - intington Beach the City Clerk 16 012ml,3209932 Beach CA 92648 RETURN SERVICE ®� cr3 t� b 0610512008 o LEGAL NOTICE—PUBLIC HEARING US POSTAGE ` f 560 Vol-( OCCUPANT 17171 BOLSA CHICA ST#17 / b —6)f HUNTINGTON Pcnnu rA n00-An RETURN TO SENDER ATTEMPTED T'ED - NOT XNOWN UNAOLC TO FORWARD FCC. 92Sj410110319]0 II00Ij t*1i�e1O7 ll7-1010r1j147 clj�19-259 I1 1 ... � �gtCZ>�' 1��) �17�Y7))171)Il))I173)17)�3Y�IY)I3J1J1)JFY11))3DI)}31f3}Ii71}I{ lynn City Clerk intington Beach the City Clerk 012H362032 Box 190 Beach CA 92648RETURN SERVICE n s 06f7 512008 Lu t LEGAL NOTICE— PUBLIC HEARING US POSTAGE I 163 12302 Occupant / 17112 Bolsa Chica St 6 Huntington Bea,,h A2649 a D-21 02 OS/09/00 tin tUl<N TO SENDER A r rTeMF1 r1ZO - NOT i<NO N Iv3NAOLM TO r ORWARD }� Dc _026 jeJL'719joso ''jr 2077 i007S6-09-29 01 ts0 II)�}})7�Y 1311777�7711))�J��I)}J7743�)913��}})1)�)71�7I)I711�� Yi v y vc r� f1tington Beach the City Clerk C 12-1 In.V each CA 92648 RETURN SERVICE s Goa 05/2308 MIX F d S POSTAGE LEGAL NOTICE — PUBLIC HEARING NL 560 /6 — Q(� OCCUPANT __ 6 ` j 0 17171 BOLSA CHICA ST#116 _L� I-11IMTIN(�T( nn 07RdQ ynn City Clerk ntington Beach the City Clerk r112-s16209932 Beach CA 92648 RETURN SERVICE '5 00 394 00 w 1— 06/05/2008 Mailed Prom 92648 - US POSTAGE LEGAL NOTICE- PUBLIC HEARING d6L--c a 560 / OCCUPANT /n O�fHUNTINGTON 17171 BOLSA CHICA ST#61 t N 1 X ME: 927 DE 1 00 08/09/00 RETURN TO SENDER AT rEMPTEO — NOT MNOWN UNAML F TO FORWARD HC. 926 49019090 A207j7-007t31 -09-29 ate.Ci i i d i Wpm ', 01 90 ��}111111tlilll111lllltlliilll}y))llllJltlliY)l)l)illlll))lill Ii117C�LUTI DedUl1 —he City Clerk 0(a 012H16209932 ti each CA 92648 RETURN SERVICE �V � 00 304 vA 1- 01,105t2008 w q; -di:c n Q2649 LEGAL NOTICE- PUBLIC HEARING _ e CA 560 OCCUPANT 17171 BOLSA CHICA ST#58 _ ^ HUNTINGTON 4 )III L 92 7 0E 1 00 06109/09 RE rURN TO SENDER A r TE-MPTE 0 NOT KA+UWN UNAMLL TO FORWARD ) _ , f � 01�Q ll1l I11Dllll lliill)1111i1111i)f)il}l1)lYillliillll Yllilliil �� ynn City Clerk nt+ngton Beach the City Clerk Box 190 0 cr �, j, 0'2Hi620993_ Lu Beach CA 92648 RETURN SERVICE V ICE 'w� �, 00 0 Lu U) �a/i� 20T: Mailed F om 926-I8 �u i a r (3S POSTAGE EGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING 560 �Tv OCCUPANT 1 � 17171 BOLSA CHICA ST#114 �, HUNTINGTON BI ynn City Clerk -itington Beach the City Clerk 31< �62632 Box CA 92648 RETURN SERVICE 'W' - �' 4 w M-4 €LIwwNia�w€!cram 926dA-a. S POSTAGE LEG L NOTICE — PUBLIC HEARING 0 361 OCCUPANT .r m 5122 DUNBAR AVE#131 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 RF TURN TO SENDER NO .SUC H NUMBER UNADL E TO I"0f?L ARD �' a�i�»»sia.. 7 { � �L?��4� ��J�IFJJ�iIF1IJ)JiFtlIJFI)I�J)FJJ)�IlFI) �I)F1)J�FJ)3�)F )�ll' lynn City Clerk .jntington Beach fthe City Clerk U) 31-H16209932 i Beach CA 92648 RETURN SERVICE 00 r mi Ie,4 US LEGAL NOTICE — PUBLIC HEAR �__- _ - - - _ S 355 6 0 A 502 / I o(/ OCCUPANT CfJ� OJ 028 DUNBAR AVE#A1 a HUNTINGTO JvrTURN To -%NDE:P NO SUCH 1 Nid{1OCH ONfALL L- To F`{7iatlJARL) 0C "s264eOIC0090 iit.:JJ�.s OiOo!!Otp- i ]O 2? untington Beach )f the City Clerk ' Box 190UJ Beach CA 92648 RETURN SERVICE .5LE w ° LEGAL NOTI — PUBLIC HEARING O S 7 AGE 1630 40 187 Rob Allen 172enleaf t_n Hun Beach (A a?Faa Lynn City Clerk intington Beach fthe City Clerk Q d � 012HI6209932 Beach CA 92648 RETURN SERVICE 'W� � 0 ca w� 0610512006 fe Ir Mailed From 02648 ® a. t US POSTAGE LEGAL NOTICE—PUBLIC HEARING 939 543 51 846 Harold Towers Jr 43104 W Sunlandnd Dr Maricopa AZ 8' 050 Nra 1 MOTX 00 06109/06 RCTURN TO SENOUR i'0WCR5 JR t})AROL D C 5176 TORTUGA OR APT L04 )AUNTXNGTN RCH CA 926749 S171 RET))ld))RN) TO jj SLNDERC. ]] w.�)a`1 f r— L.. 4 � i��� ��O Ifll)T7)�J�,11T71�1J�117�tIJt)7117�l1)�1d�1117171),I�}t)t)lii! ynn-cify Clerk intington Beach the City Clerk Box 190 � � Beach CA 92648 RETURN SERVICE � � 4 r to M5 2008 �,.. � k4a 1-d From Q2€-A 0-Z S POSTAGE LEGAL NOTICE — PUBLIC HEARING 163 121 8 333 Sylvia Sb agian V y18521 E ueen Creek Rd #10 A Queen r k AZ RI�9a9 tVXXXC OSO DE: 1 00 06/10100 Fir-TURN To SENDER NOT DELIVERABLE: AS ADDRESSED UNAMLC TO FORWARD OC 9' 64€ 0190�nO `k1679 00764-10-2zl ^-d4(pio i 90 i111II717i))i)I111,B11d7�71�1}}1)lil11117117))ltlli1117)ld111� ynn City Clerk ntington Beach the City Clerk 0 2ril6209932 Beach CA 92648 RETURN SER ICE a 00 i.- I 55/05/2)08 lax€From Q2eA8 US POSfAGE pJAZ! LEGAL NOTICE -PUBLIC HEARING w�, 163 122 10 344 Ben Li / -,...O� 555 E Washington Ave #14 !1 {V/ -J. Sunnyvale � ` Y N q a a lynn City Clerk .intington Beach f the City Clerk v 012H16209932 Box 190 Beach CA 92648 RETURN SER' C E u -� r N 3 as 1 as 06105/2008 su vs x w C_G q 4 ma,beci srom 92=dR �- US POSTAGE LEGAL NOTICE —PUBLIC HEARING 9K 512 66 761 Tricia Saul 6 i� 17191 Corbna Ln #207 d �/ VVV Huntington B---` ^" "^ NzXZE a27 DE 1 00 OS/11,. Ord— F�EaT1.1F�H TO SENDE n N('vT DCL 'C"VERAMLIF AS ADDr ESE O OC 926400-903G S 1 J f lynn City Clerk intington Beach the City Clerk 012H10209932 Beach CA 92648 RETURN' SERVICE th con 1-- 06/05,2005 _ 5 r S POSTAGE AGE LEGAL NOTICE — PUBLIC HEARING 939 541 80 675 Barbara Rossi 17172 Abalone Ln #101 Huntington RETURN TO 4ENDCR i ACC 9x ,PCs C>61L5�s1 5� fff I�C7.;ax '�AheC)b�F�tl 1821D1 COUNTE,% oF3 Uhl r r oo,7 HUN rINGTN OCH CA 3264-* 1937 Re-IURN TO SENDER 1&-j i 101go intington Beach f the City Clerk 622ou„ Beach CA 92648 RETURN SERV EI'X'- 5 LU Cc te itP1v 06/0512008 LEGAL NOTICE -PUBLIC HEARING 939 541 32 627 Carlos Torres 5031 Dorado Dr#101 �- L� Huntington I '� Lynn City Clerk ntington Beach the City Clerk 992-D62 93z Box 190 Beach CA 92648 RETURN SERVICE �5 A 06I9512008 f4ali-d From US POSTAGE wo LEGAL NOTICE—PUBLIC HEARING 939 543 42 Occupant 17202 Corbina t_n #111 / Huntington Beach (`A WFaa C $ NIXIC 927 CIL 1 00 06/07 09 Re:rURN TO SEND Ca VACANT uNAGI-C TO FORWARD c..rw�+�,� IBCj 3a284 01909Ca j*j j237j`jT 0-)—25-0,1 27 5^ --;In'I- L i ••• •» v ao:.90 il]Yiiiil)I}11373�371itllill3Dl}I7111 �IIII)I)�77))l�))i))�7�1 y .. , �� intington Beach f the City Clerk 012H�620993' Box 190 WM Beach CA 92648 RETURN SERVICE ti:5 0 0�- r ® A G6° 5 26v� m - Us T LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING 362 OCCUPANT fJ ° 5112 DUNBAR AVE#B1 16 / 6 —61 HUNTINGTON PFAH C'A 99649 U rftC r N.CXIL ';327 0M 1 00 061F07JCe Rc ruRN TLC sr-N E:n NO SUCH NUMER UNAr-ALE TO FORWARD s.,a..7. #-Ito .j 164E{ 0`tj-vO9O3 j*217t{7-1: alJ31 0j7 n7 4,70 D1,g++'"j 7�17D)73�11�}iliI31133�}1�}iJ I71'�7� 711!}7�J�731�J1}3 �73� ynn City Clerk ntington Beach the City Clerk 6 12-6269932 Beach CA 92648 RETURN SERVICE '00 m rl 14J S 2JOV �.� w 1Z i�d F om q-(-45 a. US POSTAGE 8 LEGAL NOTICE — PUBLIC HEARING 374 OCCUPANT 17152 HARBOR J 6 ®� HUNTINGTONN RFBAC'HFCA 92649 A i lynn City Clerk antington Beach f the City Clerk aw M& 012H16209932 iBeach CA 92648 RETURN SERVICE o� 6 � 4 "— t6 0610512008 `-- uj IWO X maiied Fro- 02'W US POSTAGE LEGAL NOTICE —PUBLIC HEARING 337 OCCUPANT —� 17061 LESLINGTO LN#D 1�-,J6 � HUNTINGTON iz�r-u rnn-,ann 1`dI41G 0.9!7 Dz:. 1 00 06/07,lt7£s ° F3E: ri.PN TO SENDER VACANT 9C 92E340 19®90 t *2117 I17-0 (0714-07-27 140 i_ s —::ia.;2w &o:L 90 11711))1111,11111 It;11111)11)i)I))11111])11)311])Y}1))3Jl31)11 intington Beach the City Clerk j3 012H15209932 Beach CA 92648 RETURN SERVICE t-c 5 00 fu 961951200)8 US a LEGAL NOTICE— PUBLIC HEARING POSTAGE AGE 332 OCCUPANT 5051 DUNBAR AVF#C j � - 16 HUNTINGTC NZ � T �� 9�1 Life L �a� €dal 07/0r"3 9 E—UFM rol ICNDER VSIC"AN r w.4ABL F ro FORWAFM f1c. j9264901909j0 -V2j177-0071!s-07-`27 �" x1�a; 1.... "' � �� r#��63�P� 11,137ii111,1177)13111))),1171,)I1111)1)lll )11)173111))731)11 =lynn City Clerk untmgton Beach A the City Clerk � �'���)C�fl9?i� iBox 190 Beach CA 92648 RETURN SERVICE w,,crj _ m ' 00 � €n �. _ �- m3o-d 4 3 Q9648 cm ;� US POSTAGE LEGAL NOTICE— PUBLIC HEARING 361 *It9l�7 OCCUPANT5122 DUNBAR AVE#CHUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 1 -lynn City Clerk untington Beach )f the City Clerk Ca $r 012rA162099g2 ) Box 190 Beach CA 92648 RETURN SERVICE '!5 _�. c. � w III 06/fj5/2008 MIX "' a71aci From 9964 a- m US POSTAGE LEGAL NOTICE— PUBLIC HEARING 370 OCCUPANT 17161 HARBOR BLUFFS CIR#C (�!') 6T HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 RETURN TO SUNDER VAr'AN tt PCIj92 + £- 161� 01f `� 1f91? O *2 `r j117-�r1107t 2 07 27 f.... ._ ,D. � o 1 9 1)i13I7))iI3�1!))!I)))7717illfii7)I�)E)77�'7l)1I117J1)))I)171I lynn City Clerk intington Beach the City Clerk '� 012Fs16209932 Box 190 Beach CA 92648 RETURN SERVICE iiA 3I;105 203F u. Nuu-d F— 0-29-,Q LEGAL NOTICE— PUBLIC HEARING '' 350 OCCUPANT 5032 DUNBAR AVE#A HUNTINGTON BCA�-u rA a1)Fn0 927 sr, :1 02 06/0?1109 RETURN TO SENDER JA{ AN t 2�f:,i4j9)i0 La�>e� ff"21 7ppr -00bgS 07 27 go I�)�ID)7919I11777�)}��7)>'711)D39 DI)�D}DD1�7)7�71)7��f IID 71)�I rnn City Clerk itington Beach he City Clerk , R12 7209 Box -190 ach CA 92648 RETURN SERVICE US 1 POSTAGE ' LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING 364 OCCUPANT 5142 DUNBAR AVEA 4A1 HUNTINGTt ^ n7CA J C r\� Lynn City Clerk ntington Beach the City Clerk 012H16209932 Box 190 Beach CA 92648 RETURN SERVICE '5 ca w�- 06105J2008 LU w )Riled From Q2 dk US POSTAGE s LEGAL NOTICE — PUBLIC HEARING 163 033 06 82 Richard Gregory 706 >r Chapman Ave Fullerton CA Q'?R"�j FORWARD T2MC EXP RPN TO SE--ND GRECaORY 17142 SA!N r ANORCWS LN HUNT2NGTN SCH CA 92S49-454e {}1 }} 1t }} RE rURN ti TO SENDER !3 } }t} ice! ji::jr d i :?:?.s4•P 0 90 (� }S 7SS! }ISSS3SSli S}SIIS 171711iS1rSf7 S1iS3S �i S1e1111� intington Beach the City Clerk 012r-1162 9°32 Beach CA 92648 RETURN SERVICE .e Uj w M 06 0512008 4 �� e US U, —AGE° EGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING 939 541 17 612 Neil Ruggiero 5032 Dorado Dr#106 Huntington Beach C`A a9F4a e 27 NFM 1 '3001 00 08/06/00 PET UPN TO SENDER �dU�C�g�7C7�N�`xl >ui 102 THANb{ Cl O IST APT 402 RC7'URN TO aL jATOf((:R ii ii jj J 11 [j T i•ir"f i 3 _'�:r.��,3_����p l�317iif17(J1�3SlIJl1�SJ 1S�IlY)3J73��I11 11 i1S1J13 J313)J I1�7�� ynn City Clerk ntington Beach the City Clerk rp Beach CA 92648 RETURN SERVICE oo ��' ss 1 J5r L7i wu�q X!1fwgK ® 11-ged Pr M A EGAL NOTICE -PUBLIC HEARING US POSTAGE i f �N �1 tt e 560 )IV OCCUPANT l6 O� 17171 BOLSA CHICA ST#119 HUNTINGTON " lynn City Clerk intington Beach the City Clerk 012HI62039932 Box 190 Beach CA 92648 ' 4 � � » WA Wit US POSTAGE LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING ram- 378 )A/ OCCUPANT 17172 BOLSA CHICA ST#68 HUNTINGTO d (J N; Aar. 92? DE: 1 60 C261 ig f oe RE TURN 7O ZLNDr—F? A r rcmp rE D NOT XNOWN UNABLE TO FORWARO Mc 192]6]401019C1�90 1*]2077-3{507aO-09-20 r— xi IE-1 i i -3tEa40OjqO lynn City Clerk intington Beach the City Clerk �12ri#6209 32 Box 190 Beach CA 92648 RETURN SERVICE JA U. w.. t it 2t g US e POSTAGE` LEGAL NOTICE — PUBLIC HEARING 44 `)," 6-toc 3787�/ OCCUPANT 1 17172 BOLSA CHICA ST#72 ` HUNTINGTON BE"^`J "^ ^^ IV X I l DE i oo odJbc�o, 66 Ri"ru;t?N rya SENDS-re A7* 1"EMP rED - NOT XNOWN UNnSL_E: rO f$of'#1a7AjQD MCI, S -649019 vo 11?077-00 J I 0.io -5:) 4W0190 ynn City Clerk ntington Beach the City Clerk o 3112H*20C'-c;-2 Box 190 W M Beach CA 92648 RETURN SERVICE rv ..aJ 05 20fa soa r e US POS I,AGE LEGAL NOTICE — PUBLIC HEARING 560 �... � � � Of OCCUPANT 17171 BOLSA CHICA ST#102 7 v y vcin luntington Beach )f the City Clerk Box 190 :j3�2r�62s°3 � Beach CA 92648 RETURN SERVICE ,:0, 00 -o•• w V a,- M06/0512008 _ i€ ��prom Hai'y- pval 4 LEGAL NOTICE- PUBLIC HEARING US POSTAGE 560 OCCUPANT _^ ^ 17171 BOLSA CHICA ST#103 HUNTINGTON 927 DIE 1 flfl 06100joe RE]URN To sr-A, r-R ATTEMPTED NOT XNOWN UNAMLC 10 FORWARD iL E3fl 9--�6�1.�30 19t090j ixl i2071117-1C7]0730-09 2a i~ W F ri f.- .s. .. 3 ynn City Clerk ntington Beach the City Clerk 012)`i16209932 Beach CA 92648 RETURN SERVICE 1i f fm 4 Lu� 061051?0008 ae � �ili a26- V EGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING 363 OCCUPANT 5132 DUNBAR AVE#131 HUN rINGTON BEACH CA 92649 4� RE TU9?N TO SENDER No T SUCH NUP9B-R gA il)I))) 1)1)l1)))f)IIIIIII HIM)III]II)J II I)IIII 31)))) 1)II ynn City Clerk ntington Beach the City Clerk �_� i912ME209932 Box 190 � Beach CA 92648 RETURN SERVICE 00 m Ob 05/2008 1�la led Frcyn 0-20AR MOR US POSTAGE LEGAL NOTICE — PUBLIC HEARING 363 OCCUPANT 5132 DUNBAR INGTON BFA #�-1 ® HUNTINGTON BFA�-H CA 92649 /L� N T.-(T'E ny= i fAf l U4 t ril ,1 00 lynn City Clerk intington Beach the City Clerk 912H16209932 Box 190 0 Beach CA92648 RETURN SERVICE �5 $®Q 3 4 ® 0 us U) +a 06/05I200$ .... w u, Mailed From 926AS US POSTAGE LEGAL NOTICE— PUBLIC HEARING 364 OCCUPANT -- O� 5142 DUNBAR AVE#E ^ 6 HUNTINGT I, NZ'XIT- 92r I) ! 00 OEM/Os-4/09 RETURN TO SENDER NO SUCH NUM13rR UNAMLa r0 r oRwARD DC 92!j<+}} j00190aO A2077-0.i2012's- fOJ9}-29 X#01go 1)11}JJ717lilllJ 11711i11711777J771111 I311�JFJlllllllllJllltil Flynn City Clerk luntington Beach )f the City Clerk J12H162739932 us Beach CA 92648 RETURN SERVICE 0 v U 34 06/0512008 US POSTAGE EGAL NOTICE— PUBLIC HEARING fyJ� 1 1 CCUPANT `j �� AA ti 122 DUNBAR AVE#C1 V \ UNTINGTO — uw4m-E ro l^oRwARo W,6*- ®i 9O 11 1737 lilJ11 1 IJ711i31J117illlll�lJlf)117)7171771113i771711 .intington Beach f the City Clerk a ) BOX 190 , 91:-162993 a Beach CA 92648 RETURN SERVICE t;:5 � � 394 ' u�a U5 u5123 � } in 0 Ce Masied F Grua 02F118 LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING uS POS T�'`� 336 OCCUPANT5151 INGT( AVE#D HUN HUNT(NGT< ynn City Clerk 'itington Beach the City Clerk 012H16209932 Box 190 ipm each CA92648 ETUR SERVICE o� e 0 34 w 9 4 ^ 0610512008 Mailed From 02649 US POSTAGE LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING a p 939 542 01 Occupant 17172 Abalone Ln #210 Huntington Be`, ''" °'PAQ ✓ NIXTE 927 DE 1 Goo 06/0--4/ ,9 RUTUFM TO -E NDCR va�cz�� r UNA131-C rU FORWARD CC 9264 019090 k2077-02.297-09 23 L t 1 3f2i 0J.90 I1,1,,,,1,1,11,„1111„l,Il,,,,,,III,I„II,,,1)1 ,11,,,,,1,I1 intington Beach f the City Clerk 01214162OC1932 Beach CA92648 RETURN SERVICE � -� � � � $00394 (A I- ra f�Q it 06/512t'308 w w LEGAL NOTICE- PUBLIC HEARING 939 541 82 Occupant 17172 Abalone Ln #103 Huntington I NIX.EE= 9.21 Asa 1 rdo CL/091DU QE TURN TO SCNI IER VACANT UNABL-E TO r'JRWArrD DC 926490190=sO -20 a "-022 b-O.i-243 oigo lynn City Clerk ntington Beach the City Clerk C3 CO Box 190 4 29 �fh Beach CA92648 RETURN SERVICE ' $00394 u5 2vv tu W , s �t s-0- a ;;4F US POS T�G LEGAL NOTICE- PUBLIC HEARING V p p 939 542 27 722 (� Stace, McDon ild v 5146 Dorado Dr#212 /� �i Huntington Beach CA 9264A ` lynn City Clerk intington Beach fthe City Clerk �' 312H16209932 Box 190 ® I Beach CA 92648 RETURN SERVICE �5 v 00 394 a00 CAP 1- °' 06105/2008 1 Ma led Fa m 9264E w IL US POSTAGE LEGAL NOTICE— PUBLIC HEARING ®� 939 542 61 Occupant 17191 Corbin I n 4106 C Huntington E - NIXIE 927 DE 1 00 OSJO9/00 RETURN TO SENDCR VACANT UNAML.E TO FORWARD E,c 92b48O L 9090 *20 7 1T 022534-09 29 0190 ll)1),>l1)lill„il))ll,il)Ili))) 7111)l))ll)))l)1)tll),t))1111 ynn City Clerk ntington Beach the City Clerk a p 012H1s2R9932 Beach CA 92648 RETURN SERVICE LE S 0 00 3 4 00 w 06/0512008 � — 9� A8 u6 POSTAGE EGAL NOTICE— PUBLIC HEARING 939 543 07 Occupant 5145 Tortuga Dr#204 Huntington Beach CA 92649 NIXIE 927 DE 1 00 Os. O9/Os RETUr?N TO SL.NDER v;ac,era r UNAML_E TO rORWARD me 92649 190430 *�0r7-0229s-Oq-29 IF 4 L 90 1i,1),t)I,l)llt)t1)t11))It11,)t)))11131))I Ill)I)I)M)),))Iill ynn City Clerk itington Beach the City Clerk I.? 012HI'3209932 �U) each CA 92648 RETURN SERVICE o� � � 4-3 r M 05)2008 ma,ied F�m C4264F CL US POSTAGE LEGAL NOTICE — PUBLIC HEARING 939 543 17 Occupant 4 V 5145 Tortuga Dr#110 u ..+nntnn R___t, r`A QWAQ t, Lynn City Clerk mt►ngton Beach If the City Clerk '012H16229932 ► Box 190 Beach CA 92648 RETURN SERVICE ' tz- � OI5i2005 cc C uB POSTAGE LEGAL NOTICE — PUBLIC HEARING PRA 4 939 543 91 Occupant A. p e 5096 Tortuga Dr 4112 Huntington BE NIAIEe S27 DE 1 00 QEIIC` /08 RETURN TO SENDER VACANT UNAM-a TO FORWARD ynn City Clerk nt►ngton Beach the City Clerk 0 12 I6209932 Beach CA 92648 RETURN SERVICE 00 $00394 Jf LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING uS POSTAGE 163 181 02 mi,Xe-411-1-% 16t� 5521 Occupant (� 5521 i�ossvale Crr Huntington Beach CA 92649 NIAIE 9.,!7 DES .1 00 06/09,/09 F?r-TUF-?N TO LNDE:R vF cAN r CCll //adf-.ij3jc7jjC}3++SO90{ j*ffJ>Of,i 0+ 1' 1207 -jC1i3-29 ••�'f "�^ =-' M46040-.90 11)1)MId 1111d)I)III 11)1I I)II)IIIJ)I III I JIM 11111 yl III vny vlcl n ntington Beach the City Clerk rJa 1-A each CA 92648 RETURN SERVICE 00 394 00 LU )�s "�m UnC,d�j JS 0,j AGE LEGAL NOTICE — PUBLIC HEARING 939 542 38 733 Ayala v � 17151 Corbma I_n #107 Huntington BE - 7 - - intington Beach f the City Clerk t '�.� 012H16209932 Box 190 w M e' Beach CA 92648 RETURN SERVICE 1pz-:5 000 94 06,05/2008 ua vs � � Sl�)3ed Fromm 9264P US POSTAGE EGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING 163 11605 321 D Mark Samples 5642 Kern Dr Huntington Nixie 927 LAC 1 00 C>!SY 09/08 RC rURN TO E NDCR NOT DCL E VERARI_E AS ADDRESSCD UNAGLE ro r oRwARD I DC 92649019090 xii20717-fj:0tS7S t1�19 --�Qi tx)4EiM i J. ='t otgo J1)I17li171tl1i)tltllll31i1111 77J111)I)7117JJI717J11)tti71111 ntmgton Beach the City lerk w 912H16209932 Beach CA 92648 RETURN SERVICE ':5 00 394 c� Uj U X 0610512008 w €142 ed m Qua-R US POSTAGE LEGAL NOTICE -PUBLIC HEARING �J 939 541 75 670 (� 16 �- /�x Jeffrey Benon V V 10 Brownsbury Rd ° Laguna Niguel rA 09F-77 RETURN TO SENDER DENDN '.JEFFRE-Y Rtir-3 203 26961 TF7f=iDUCO RCS STt_: e_ MISSION NVILJO CA 97691 -4535 RFTup?IN ro srNDEF7 92s4at301ao [ ;"'� 1L"f � i � -'.j,,. '^� 77 rJrr r)7 irrrrrrlrrr)r rJ r): t)r rr r)t rl)r 7rr7r7J7} ynn City Clerk -itington Beach the City Clerk , � � 012H162J99v2 Box ach CA 92648 RETURN SERVICE w 0 � -� R � 9 96,95I290t ,.. fil'jw flailed Fro7Ra 926A1' s Lis POSTAGE PPLEGAL NOTICE- PUBLIC HEARING 560 OCCUPANT 17171 BOLSA CHICA ST#107 HUNTINGTON ( lynn City Clerk mtington Beach the City Clerk ' a12E 716269932 Box 190 Beach CA 92648 RETURN SERVICE 1i: r � 3 4 r2 [�-- 06,05/2008 US POSTAGE LEGAL NOTICE — PUBLIC HEARING 378 OCCUPANT J I 17172 BOLSA CHICA ST#65 HUNTINGTO RETURN TO SENE CR ATTEMPTED - NO r KNOWN UNADL E TO strf2lJARD �IJ1373)])1i��1)3I7J1�1))J�33)13)71��JIJ1113))b 1)J IM)JJ31 untington Beach if the City Clerk 0123-116209932 ti i Box 190 Beach CA92648 RETURN SERVICE �W- 00 06'05I2008 w Ix �� rs ) .s ems 926t US POSTAGE b EGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING 939 541 74 669 Catherine Gaboune Hunt Dorado Dr#111 Huntington " --I " 1`'0-^° RETURN TO NOT Cis L I VE.RAEL Em AS nC?DRCSSaD UNADLE TO FORWARD 9c /nn City Clerk itEngton Beach the City Clerk �t C12rA16209 32 each CA92648 RETURN SERVICE " oo w ® tu ()b/U512U 8 Sez1�s €n 92649 a US POSTAGE pI LEGAL NOTICE — PUBLIC HEARING 939 543 69 864 n Denver Gearhart Ill / 5176 Tortuga Dr#210 ¢� V Huntington Beach CA 92649 VVV � r ynn City Clerk ntington Beach the City Clerk In i122i16209932 Box 190 Beach CA 92648 RETURN SERVICE 0 06105 2008 UJI (A v a o-= US�. POSTAGE LEGAL NOTICE— PUBLIC HEARING 939 541 97 692 Robert & Christine Giles III M � �� 17172 rib done Ln #110 Huntir gton Beach CA 92649 o N I. mr- 92? DL 1 40 015/09/oU RE:rURN rO SUNDER ff hdO7 nML'EVE RAM1_E" AS ADDRE SSE_O L.JN,C DLL rO i"'{gRWARC intington Beach the City Clerk 012H16209932 Beach CA 92648 RETURN SERVICE �M- 5 €0610512C08 MIXJet B C?�-8 US POSTAGE LEGAL NOTICE —PUBLIC HEARING 939 543 10 805 Toni Dipaol o Tortuga 5145 Tortuga Or#107 Huntington Beach ( n ()M4C) ;771NI.{ rr- 927 Ls 1 00 osjloszljoti Fa'F- rLJRN TO SL NE3ER Nor OFLTVrJ f)EJLC A s +v4E;liysR'CSSVD UNA Lc ro r-E.lr"zEaJARu # JJ 1192EiiS4i003.9�11a{{90 tt )*2}07J1'-tjj'3j0293-09- 9 lynn City Clerk intington Beach f the City Clerk Box 190 J ` Beach CA 92648 RETURN SERVICE W � lz ob fib 121)Ide s POSTAGE LEGAL NOTICE — PUBLIC HEARING 939 513 56 851 Josnua Littlejohn 5176 Tortuga Dr#105 G, Huntington Beach CA 9264q CJ �' lynn City Clerk intington Beach the City Clerk Cr -12HI6209932 Box 190 Beach CA 92648 RETURN SERVICE ' n = � (} 3 4 W WIX J1'astad From 92648 LEGAL NOTICE— PUBLIC HEARING U5 POD T KGB 939 543 90 885 Gary& Barbara Mooney 5096 Tortures Dr#111 Huntington -- WE X tE DF L 00 osl Dom,✓00 Taft rURN TO SENDER No r Or--LXVE:F?ADL E A,' ADDf?C:ySED UNABLE TO FORWARD ;w Dc j 9264901.9090 1 j -�'20 7'7-0020 7 09 29 y���idl L A �� s�019Q ii7fi,Jli)!)iiJiJi)lii7Jf)ii))1)331iili,Jll1I)iil)IiiJJ)J3i)!i ntington Beach the City Clerk 012H16209932 Beach CA 92648 RETURN SERVICE 0 0 � Q 3 h ul(W 4;2� t� MIX A— � US vwSTAGE LEGAL NOTICE —PUBLIC HEARING 163 032 33 54 Owen Larson 6 d 6 17111 Pleasant Cir t Huntington 927 NFE i 4oax bo os/66/86 RE:TURN TO SENDER LAR-!CO °OWEN M I CHAEL 1692-0 DARRACUDA LN HUNTSNc i N DCH CA 9--649 DS 7" Rf:1rURN TO sCMDER �4i3i;4dvbO190 (fJf)J))i1llii)Jt! JlIl1lJIfII)J)JIIIJIJJffJJJIJf)Jii)1JJ,ilii ynn City Clerk ntington Beach the City Clerk 9 0 12N)62f��.s ;2 Box 190 w W Beach CA 92648 RETURN SERVICE '5 a ,�. 0 $00394 W i® able 1t uS POSTAGE LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING 939 543 24 819 Allan Pollock 17202 Corbina Ln #101 _ Huntington lynn City Clerk intington Beach f the City Clerk to to 012H16209922 Box 190 UJ to Beach CA 92648 RETURN SERVICE o 0 OQ 394 uz 1.- 6r /2008 ~ 1%w Mailed From 92648 0_— US POSTAGE ' LEGAL NOTICE —PUBLIC HEARING 939 543 76 871 Francisca Kim 6 ... /� � n� 5096 Tortuga Dr#201 ` Huntington Beach • 927 DFE 1 50e2 00 06105/09 RCTURN TO SENDER K.rM'FRANCZSCA 17151 CORMINA L.N APT 106 HUNTING rN ESCH CA 92649-SiSe RETURN ro rcNDLR =i ,=# { i - i71' 4 01.90 Ji,l,,,,1,i,ill,,1„li„i,ill,,,,,lil,f„li,,,l,i,l Il,,,,ll311 i DUx f UV o — i Beach CA 92648 RETURN SERVICE a g .� � � � 00 39q O� w g ` ��/05120oFs MIX ,led From 92648 d n t LEGAL NOTICE — PUBLIC HEARING US POSTAGE 939 542 79 774 Christine Stempleski / 5101 Tortuga Dr#104 Huntington Bea 927 ��� i wcar� 0Cs oE+J Czr�/0s RETURN TO SENDj:R aTEMPL MSXI ' GHR ESTINE A 1000 F AME'L TA :sr APPLET'ON WX 54911-:3914 RE'rURN TO SLNDE:R o;1go li,i,,,,1,1,i1i„1i„i,ii,,,,,,i11,1„ill„l,l„11 Jill,1)11 lynn City Clerk ntington Beach the City Clerk ¢ 012H16209932 Box 190 Beach CA 92648 RETLJRN SERVICE � -� 36/0512006 ^` d au5ea4gd Frost Q29-2— CCC__J//)11 EL US POSTAGE LEGAL NOTICE — PUBLIC HEARING 939 542 20 715 Jennifer Gates J ®� 5146 Dorado Dr 4109 Huntington B " ^^^"^ MM*r,1iMr�,Nfrn 1z1pwMMr= 00 o6lo6Jc7�s ynn City Clerk ntington Beach the City Clerk +, ,1--116209932 Box 190 Beach CA 92648 RETURN SERVICE fn 1 06/051200 1z_ } A 2t)a F€zns 926AR LEGAL NOTICE — PUBLIC HEARING US POSTAGE 939 543 74 869 Brady Kooiman 5096 Tortuga Dr#103 _ Huntington Beacl - --" j t RETURN TO SENDER 1 400s C/L9 C76/L�IS.�QE3 3627 WOODPECXCR ST ORMA CA 92973-10r-,4 11l1)173111)113))1)111311)11))1)I)111)11)111))))1)111))1)11)11 lyfi(i (..fty U(eUK intington Beach the City Clerk 012H16200932 Beach CA 92648 RETURN SERVICE 00 € - 36/0512008 US POSTAGE LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING 163 045 08 185 Hsing Hsiung Wet 5242 Kenilworth Dr / 6 Huntington 6 b rat 7 MFF- 1 2092 00 OG/9bl OS 6 RE�T11RN TO SENDLR Qf7 s 96 Z DC?RL lERC OR HUN TSNGTN BC H CA C-0917 RETURN TO SLNOER J { I)µ 1 -� 113173311)131131)�3 11)il IHI)I73i11131! 1133)IIID311)7)7t1)11 intington Beach the City Clerk t Box 190 12 s162 0932 UJ Beach CA 92648 RETURN SE E o of- A a- US POSTAGE 0 LEGAL NOTICE — PUBLIC HEARING 93951,335 830 Colleen Moroney {� 17202 Corbtna Ln -A n Huntington Beac'- ')O^n ynn City Clerk ntington Beach the City Clerk 012HI6209932 Beach CA 92648 RETURN SERVICE 00 U)1 O610',1200v � e m m M.led F om 9-26 5� LEGAL NOTICE— PUBLIC HEARING Us POSTAGF s 939 543 93 888 Wendy Beetler / D � 5096 Tortuga Dr#210 Huntington ® FORWARD TIME FXP RTN TO SEND OCETLER°WENDY 10900 ?"MILL HOLLOW RD LITTLETON CO 00127 9b36 RETURN TO % NDER € =Y E I Q,Aa:igo y,,,, %,Ily %a,c,f\ ntington Beach the City Clerk 012416209932 Beach CA 92648 RETURN SERVICE li� O.r ft sPs3�r�rn �'sr _a S POSTAGE LEGAL NOTICE—PUBLIC HEARING PK4.1 0 0 d�ee� 163 12303 349 Enza Cianfanelli 17122 Bolsa Chica St #A Huntington BE RETURN TO SENDER CIANF-ANFLLT 11=N7A RF- rJR'N TO SENDr-R go lyl If V,Ly l'ICI1\ intmgton Beach the City Clerk 3 � 6� Box 190 Beach CA 92648 RETURN SERVICE vs� 06105 2008 itAft0ad Prim 04"FAQ r. uS POSTAGE LEGAL NOTICE — PUBLIC HEARING 939 542 95 790 Chance Gordon 5101 Tortuga Dr#112 Huntington B(---l-, -^ OWAQ bL lynn City Clerk intington Beach the City Clerk V a. 012H16209932 Box 190 Beach CA 92648 RETURN SERVICE U. $00394 00 0�- 96f t3v/2008 w.. s Ile Q-264Q US POSTAGE GAL NOTICE —PUBLIC HEARING 163 14208 404 Flo d � � o 55�1 glenstone Dr / r (5J( Huntington Beach CA 92649 � 9121 NE31: 9. io .L 02 o5,fob1os F L.OYD 16701 GREE:N'Vl-W to N Y)UNT'INCTN MCH CA 9—IS49 3710 RETURN TO SENDCR � �_�� t�.:A� � a =��;��Cr1�� �11111�1�1�a��lllln�lll�ll�sa l,r���lllalll�llllrllllsllllall rynn uiiy L terK intington Beach f the City Clerk 012HI6209932 Box 190 LU Beach CA 92648 RETURN SERVICE .120Z LtPOSTAGE a EGAL NOTICE — PUBLIC HEARING 163 271 17 539 William Ying J / �� 175 Bites Cir ^ Huntington Beac ,P X 927 NF E 1 3071 00 tJt /06109 FORWARD TIME F 4F RTN TO 43ENO ,/IN i 'WIL,L TAM H 2671 HARVEST CJR F-S7 LN CORONA CA 92901 -5 TO �7 j i RE r]ujRm TO a:NidsE IR 0i90 �13�113f�713��3}Y17)1�i3�9�11377) dIh j d MI)I)AIJIM 11 11 ynn %r ity%.ivin ntington Beach the City Clerk a �23202 Beach CA 92648 RETURN SERVICE. ' � 4 X7 pwz 06 05 2fv08 a.led F 0— q?6z-- US POSTAGE 4 LEGAL NOTICE — PUBLIC HEARING 939 543 06 Occupant 0gr 5145 TortugaDr#203 Huntington BE $ NZxIC 9'2 7 f43'- i lynn City Clerk intington Beach fthe City Clerk 012H62uJ32 Box 190 U) ti Beach CA 92648 RETURN SERVICE 5 4 aas a z 06 ob!2008 mar MIX Ma J-d From 92649 IL US POSTAGE LEGAL NOTICE — PUBLIC HEARINC; 163 12121 326 v Margaret Yere 5100 Dunbar Ave Huntington Beach CA 92649 UTF - tic� TO SENIJER FVv1)6 ORDER EX 11411. Li�l Lynn City Clerk intington Beach f the City Clerk s Box 190 nt2H2a2 Beach CA 92648 RETURN SERVICE 0 � — S POSTAGE 4/1 LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING tj Huntington F xbor POA 10 P O Box 791 Sunset Beach CA 90742 6 � 16 RETURN TO SENDER Y)UNTXNC4TON HARDOUR PROPERTY OWNERS A 6899 A GONQUIN sT STE C Y4UN7 SNGTN MCH CA 92649-!:,609 RV TURN TO SENDER 1 4 i ynn City Clerk ntington Beach the City Clerk Box 190 WW Beach CA 92648 RETURN SERVICE �W- 5 00 w y9648 It S POSTAGE LEGAL NOTICE — PUBLIC HEARING 163 181 04 411 .� Christopher& Brenda Sthdaire (ly 5541 Mossvale Cir // / 2 , , / 2I Huntington Beach CA 92649 lynn City Clerk intmgton Beach the City Clerk h 1. 012-416209932 Box 190 �� a Beach CA 92648 RETURN SERVICE o� w 0610512008 39 Uj 11- ,y "--' w_w Mailed Prom 9'1648 M US POSTAGE s LEGAL NOTICE -PUBLIC HEANNCk_-..- 110 016 30 14 O� STATE OF CALIFORNIA Sacramento ^^^^^ q Sacramento C N.IXIF 9-57 CC 1 00 08/13/09 RETURN TO SENDER XNSUFFICIENT ADDRESS UNAEA..E TO FORWARD �p g EEC j tt w6400190 jj j90 *247J]2—]080j38 jl3 12 ynn City Clerk ntington Beach the City Clerk Q�/ W 012,A16209032 Box 190L Beach CA 92648 RETURN SERVICE �5 $00394 J Uj qi 05 0512006 lz w Mallad F om 9264n n—= US POSTAGE LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING 939 541 99 694 Donald Cervantes 550 S Palm St La Habra CA 90631 `— /� �--}� � N.CXIE 960 AL 1 �/ 00 06/14/00 RETURN rO %FNOER NCIr Or--LIVERADLE AS ADDRESSED UNAMI-C rO FORWARD MC 92540019090 *007 7—C7SI15—A l 32 !^ _ ) js" _ L i "S ao19Q ��7 7tti�7 7llttt�ttllttltll)7}t}rl��l�)r�ltt)�tl)t l))))t!t{� intington beacn the City Clerk 0a2146209'-�2 Box 190 �� � 4 Beach CA 92648 RETURN SERVICE _ cs (a � tz 06 05/200b �~ It Q: Is � Mailed F on 926- 8 �j, US POSTAGE LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING 939 542 09 704 John D 3v)dson 6 --- i b 5146 Dorado Dr 9202 Huntington Rcc-qrh CA Q9rAQ �.�.^ ) 027 DFE 1 600C 00 061 151 01 i Flynn City Clerk untington Beach )f the City Clerk 012-1162,39932 D Box 190 Beach CA 92648 RETURN SERVICE V { w� N Ob/C-5 Z0ijb Ix_rus CBiZE GAL NOTICE- PUBLIC HEARING � '4 939 543 61 356 Francisco Larre Fou$ Buttercup Av �'" 16 `v 9' � 66 MIY2C 927 DC 1 00 08/IS/09 � RIFTURN rO SENDER 0 ATTEMP-TE�D - NOT KNOWN UNAML C TO F-ORWARD MC -3264901909t`91y y} *2177-00069-09-2 5 � E{ { { '�^�® I1JJ I Jli l �i1f J11i i3f i)1 77i)iJ73�l�i�i317 iJ idJ� J��J Il �JI� .... w o w w w w CANDICE GRANT ROGER PETERSON 17172 Abalone Lane, #209 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 2003 JUN 30 Pie, 12 51 June 28 2008 Joan L Flynn City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street 2Id Floor Huntington Beach CA 92648 RE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO 1-06 (Parkside Estates) Dear Ms Flynn Please be advised that although neither Roger nor I were able to attend the public hearing on June 16, we are both extremely opposed to any further development in and around the area of the Bolsa Chica Wetlands I am a longtime Huntington Beach resident residing here since 1966 and if I had known the city was going to `sell out , I would not have chosen to stay in the area As it stands both of our jobs are in Huntington Beach and we have built our lives here so we II be staying for awhile During our time here we sure would appreciate being able to enjoy the area that we love so much We are disgusted with the way the local wildlife has been coldly pushed out and I'm so tired of seeing animal control trucks around here it s pathetic PLEASE DO NOT ALLOW THIS DEVELOPMENT TO OCCURiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii None of my friends agree with the proposed development either and we all feel that the environment has been quite ruined enough I have encouraged others to submit correspondence to your attention Wetlands are natural phenomenons, which are crucial to keeping the environment in the ecological balance that was meant by nature There is NO way all this bogus development is not affecting the ocean local wildlife and the quality of life of residents who have lived here for many years We are all very angry about the Coastal Commission and the City of Huntington Beach allowing this sickening greed to occur Does the City need the revenue that badly? It is certainly a shame that the people who call the shots on this sort of thing are not willing to investigate alternatives, as opposed to allowing irreversible damage to the Wetlands areal We hope that you will support all that oppose this unnecessary and damaging development and stop the madness while there is still a chance to do so Sincerely, Candice Grant and Roger Peterson I 1