HomeMy WebLinkAboutBolsa Chica County General Plan Amendment - No Action Taken REQUElf FOR CITY CIL ACTI
ON
Submitted by James W. Palin Department Development Services
Date Prepared February 20 , 19 81 Backup Material Attached Yes No
Subject BOLSA CHICA COUNTY GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
City Administrator's Comments
Discretionary with Council
Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions:
STATEMENT OF ISSUE: .
The Planning Commission at its meeting of February 18 , .1981, voted to
request that the City Council transmit a recommendation on one or a com-
bination of the alternatives for the Bolsa Chica General P1an,Amendment
being considered by Orange County.
ANALYSIS:
The Orange County Environmental Management Agency will be making a
recommendation to the County Planning Commission at its March 10 , 1981
meeting on one of the proposed General. Plan amendment alternatives for
the Bolsa Chica. At that time, the Planning Commission may make its
recommendation and transmit the amendment to the County Board of Super-
visors for consideration on March 25, 1981.
The City' s Planning Commission recommends that the City Council transmit
a recommendation on a City-preferred alternative prior to the March 10
County Planning Commission meeting. However, this would necessitate, a
Council decision at its meeting of March 2, 1981.
EMA staff indicates that �a more appropriate time for a recommendation
may be after the County Planning Commission has selected an alternative
This would enable the Council to transmit its recommendations or comments
on the County Planning Commission' s recommendation directly to the Board
of Supervisors, which is scheduled to consider the Bolsa Chica amendment
on March 25, 1981 . This would allow time for an EMA briefing to Council,
if it so desires, at the Council meeting of March 16, 1981 . At that time
EMA could explain the Planning Commission action and answer questions
from Council .
An EMA staff report has been attached outlining the various alternatives.
PIO 3/78
To achieve a more organized and effective planning effort, the
format of the original work, program was reorganized. Products
and work tasks to be developed for the LCP were organized into
five components: Resource, Transportation, Access, Recreation
and New Development, and Energy facilities.
Phase II consists of Work Program Task Performance and Land Use
Plan Preparation. Work Program Task Performance is facilitating
development of products (policies and programs) which will
assist in bringing current County policies and programs into
conformance with the Coastal. Act. Land Use Plan ,Preparation
involves the following:
o Analysis of current Land Use Element designations to
ascertain consistency of designations with the Coastal
Act.
o Development of- additional land use designation categories ,if
necessary.
o Analysis of Land.Use Element alternatives and selection of
an alternative:
o Integration of products and the land use alternative into
a land use plan.
Phase III of the work program will involve possible amendment of
the County zoning ordinance and district map and preparation of
area plans, specific plans and other implementing actions neces-
sary to implement the intent of the Land Use, Plan. Where neces-
sary other County Ordinances may require revision.
II. BOLSA CHICA STUDY AREA DESCRTPTTON
The Bolsa Chica study area occupies approaimately- 1,609 acres of
5 of 33 �`
unincorporated land surrounded by the City of Huntington Beach. The
predominantly open space project site is bordered on the northwest
by the Huntington Harbor residential development and Warner Avenue,
on the northeast by residential development, on the southeast
generally by open land supporting oil production facilities, and
on the southwest by Pacific Coast Highway and Bolsa Chica State Beach.
Signal Landmark Inc. is the major landholder in the Bolsa Chica,
with fee title to 1,200 acres. W. R. Grace Properties, Inc. owns
42 acres in the Bolsa Chica. Approximately one hundred acres
is owned by other interests. The State of California owns 327.5
acres in addition to conditional ownership status of an additional.
230 acres subject to the provisions of the 1973 Boundary Settlement
and Land Exchange Agreement.
Under the Boundary Settlement and Land Exchange Agreement between
the State and the Signal Companies approved b.y*the State Lands
Commission on January 25, 1973, the State acquired title to a
300-acre parcel in the Bolsa Chica Gap. Under that Agreement,
the State also will acquire a lease for an additional 230 acres
adjacent to the 300-acre parcel for a period of 14 years. The
State has an option to acquire title to the 230-acre lease parcel
if (among other conditions) within the 14-year period an ocean
entrance system is constructed. Such system is to consist of a
navigable waterway between the Pacific Ocean and Signal lands
that will accommodate small craft.
III. BOLSA CHICA HISTORY
The Bolsa Chica was formed by an ancient stream that flowed through
the Huntington .Beach area to the Pacific Ocean.
Archaeological evidence indicates the first inhabitants of the area
�� �. 6 of 33
were California Indians who occupied the mesa overlooking the Bolsa
Gap for several thousand years. Predominance of shell material
recovered from their middens suggests that the Bolsa Gap at that
time was a broad, shallow coastal bay or estuary. As alluvial
sediments from the river slowly filled the estuary, salt. marshes
developed which were then .succeeded by..freshwater marshes farther
inland.
At the advent of European colonization of Southern California, the
Santa Ana River drained through Anaheim Bay and .the Gap and emptied
(at least partially) into the Pacif.ic .Ocean through the Los Patos
Channel near existing Warner. Avenue . The area remained an estuary,
ranging from salt marsh to freshwater marsh extending inland from
the ocean. During the floods of 1825 the River changed course to a
location near the current river and no longer flowed through Bolsa
Gap. However, rising groundwater (artesian springs) and freshwater
drainage from smaller watersheds such as Freeman Creek maintained
the extensive inland swamplands and est-uarine system of the Gap.
Throughout this period and much of the 1800's, extensive tracts of
land in the region (incl'uding. Bolsa Chica) were used primarily. f.or
cattle ranching and sheep grazing. In the 1880's the Ranchos began
to experience economic problems precipitated by declining beef prices
and severe drought years. By the 1880's. most of Bolsa Chica's fresh-
water marshlands had been sold off as worthless swamps. Settlers in
the area soon constructed ditches to drain the swamps and convert
much of the inland freshwater marshes of Bolsa Chica to agriculture.
These agricultural drains continued the freshwater input to Bolsa
Bay which at that time emptied into the sea through the Los Patos
channel . However, due to the agricultural conversion, only tidal
marshes of the coastal strip (including the studv area) remained
unaltered by, the. Late. 1890's.
Alteration of the salt marshes soon followed. Hunting clubs were
attracted by large numbers of game birds which utilized the remain-
ing marshes of the Orange 'County coastline. The largest was the
7 of 33
` +'
Bolsa Chica Gun Club which applied to the State in 1895 for a con-
cession to reclaim the tidal marshes of Bolsa Bay. In order to
reclaim the marshlands, in 1899 the Gun Club constructed a dam
with tide gates extending from the southwest tip o.f Bolsa Chica
Mesa to the coastal sand dunes. The primary purpose of the dam
and tide gates was to restrict entrance of saltwater into Bolsa Cap
at high tide and to permit drainage of fresh water out during low
tides. As a result, the Los Patos ocean channel filled with sand
+and a new channel was constructed through Bolsa Chica Mesa. This
new channel routed the Bolsa Bay tidal system through Sunset (now
Huntington Harbour) and Anaheim Bays (the current configuration) .
this restriction of tidal influence in the ,Bolsa Gap resulted in
significant changes in the natural ecosystem in the study area.
Further changes occurred as the Gun Club constructed access roads
and dikes to create waterfowl ponds in some areas.
At that time freshwater input to the Bolsa Gap remained considerable
from such sources as Freeman Creek which was fed by runoff from a
relatively. small watershed and artesian springs. This water con-
tinued to flush the alteree system of shallow, meandering remnant
sloughs behind the tide gates. However, in the 1920's groundwater
extractions for domestic and agricultural uses began to progessively
reduce the water supply from artesian sources.
Urbanization of the area occurred in the early 1900's. Small resort com-
munities were established which would eventually become the cities
of Seal Beach and Huntington Beach. The area was linked to Los
Angeles and other inland areas by the Pacific Electric Railroad
Line, constructed along the beach in 1904. In that year the extensive
Huntington Beach oil field was discovered; and, in 1925 oil was
discovered beneath the study area: In the early 1940's, construct-
tion of drilling pads and well access roads began in the Bolsa
Gap. At first, these modifications were limited to the south-
eastern areas adjacent to the Huntington Beach Mesa; but, by 1949
a grid of access roads and drillpads extended over the entire
eastern half of the Cap.
, ram
8 of 33
Construction of these oil facilities further altered the environment
of the Bolsa Gap. The extensive roadway and dike network and as-
sociated excavations for fill resulted in a compartmentalized
system of impoundments, which collect rainwater to form ponds.
Remnants of previous drainage channels such as Freeman Creek
(channelized prior to 1933) and portions of the historic Bolsa
Bay system were segmented somewhat but still can be recognized.
Rapid urban development in Southern California had .little impact
on Bolsa .Chica until the 1960's. In the 1960's and early .1970's
the State acquired land comprising Bolsa Chica State Beach, the
East Garden Grove Wintersburg flood control .char.nel was constructed
through the -site within an easement acquired by the.'County of- Orange,
and the Ocean View School District acquired a site on the Bolsa
Chica Mesa. In 1972, the Metropolitan [Dater District acquired
approximately 88acres north of the flood control channel associated
with a then proposed off-shore seawater desalinization project.
The adjacent tidal marsh of Sunset Bay was dredged for the develop-
ment of the large marina residential complex of Huntington Harbour.
To. the north and east, housing tracts -were. developed which today
Abut the study area boundaries.
Planning for Bolsa Chica began in the 1960's. In 1964, the United
States Army Corps of. Engineers (COE) was authorized by Congress to
study the feasibility of a small craft harbor at Bolsa Chica. This
study (in cooperation with the County of Orange) continued until
August 1972, at which time the California Department of Navigation
and Ocean Development (DNOD) assumed project sponsorship. In the
late .1960's (anticipating eventual cessation of oil production at
Bolsa Chica) the property owners began preparing plans for. a marina-
residential complex. These plans drew opposition from conservationists
and from the State Resources Agency (SRA) primarily due to possible
adverse impacts upon Bolsa Chica State Beach.
0�
9 of.. 33
In 1970, Signal Landmark Properties, Inc. acquired title to a major
portion of the Bolsa Chica and continued conceptual land use plan-
ning which included a marina-residential complex. However, the
State of California contested the title to those areas of the
Bolsa Gap which comprised historic tide and submerged lands.
This contention resulted in two years of studies and negotiations
between the State and Signal concerning the nature and extent of
State ownership. An interagency task force involving the State
Lands Commission, Attorney General, and Department of Fish and
Game was organized to conduct and review these studies. Results
of the task force effort included identification of 526.4 acres of
sovereign tide and submerged lands in Bolsa Chica in which the State
has an interest and identification of the State's objectives for these
lands. These objectives included the following: Reestablishment and
maintenance of a saltwater marsh ecosystem for improvement of bay
and surf fisheries and provision of wildlife habitat (including en-
dangered species) ; provision of expanded recreational opportunities
for Bolsa Chica State Beach; and provision of a public waterway system
available for small craft recreational use.
Due to the task force determination that the irregular configuration
and narrowness of some State lands were not conducive to achieving
its objectives, a land exchange agreement with Signal (the "1973
Boundary Settlement") included the following major provisions:
1. Fee title to a 300-acre plot and 27.5 acres beneath Pacific
Coast Highway (both of which are adjacent to the Bolsa Chica
State Beach) was confirmed or received by the State. The
State determined that the lands within the 300-acre parcel
were equal or greater in value than its interests outside
the 300-acre area.
2. Clear fee title to the remainder of. the Bol.sa Chi.ca area was
confirmed or conveyed to Signal Landmark Properties; Inc.
10 of-33
1
Pag6 2
FUNDING SOURCE:
Not applicable.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1 . Recommend one or a combination of the alternatives outlined in
the attached EMA staff report and transmit it to the Orange
County Planning Commission.
2 . Make no recommendation.
3 . Request EMA staff to brief the City Council at its meeting of
March 16 , 1981, . on the alternative selected by the County Planning
Commission and decide at that time on a recommendation, or no
recommendation, to be made to the County Board of Supervisors at
its meeting of March 2:5, 1981 .
RECOMMEND:
Planning Commission Recommendation: Recommend one or a combination
of the attached alternatives for transmittal to the Orange County
Planning Commission.
Respectfully submitted,
-V
James W. Palin
Director
JWP:JWC:df
Attachment
i
ti
CITY OF HUNTINGTON 13EACH
INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION
HUNTINGTON BEACH
To Planning Commission o oJames W. Pa' in,
Director, Development
d
Services
Subject BOLSA CHICA GENERAL PLAN to February .13, 1981
AMENDMENT _
Attached is the latest information from the Orange County Environ-
mental Management Agency concerning the Bolsa Chica General Plan
Amendment. If you would like any additional information, please
let me know at the Commission meeting on February. 18th. .
DEPT,
F E B 10 1981
P. 0. Box 190
Hwtingwn Beach,CA 92648
BOLSA CHICA
LOCAL COASTAL PROGRA^i
REPORT
ON
r
WORK IN PROGRESS
COUNTY OF ORANGE
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY
PLANNING FUNCTION
PROJECT PLANNING DIVISION
Revised
February 10, 1981
CONTENTS
Page
I. Local Coastal Program Requirements, , , , , , ,, , , , , , , , , 1
II. Bolsa Chica Study Area Description, , , , , ,, , , , , , , , , , 5.
III. Bolsa Chica History, , 6
IV. Progress to Date. . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . 12
V. Key Issues. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
VI. Land Use Plan Alternatives 22
I. LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS
A. California Coastal Act
The Orange County Environmental Management Agency is pre paring
the Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Program in compliance with the
California Coastal Act of 1972. That Act passed as proposition
20 declared that:
"the permanent protection of the remaining natural and scenic
resources of the coastal zone is of paramount concern to
present and future residents of the state and nation. . .
(and that)
it is the policy of the state to preserve, protect and where
possible, to restore the resources of the coastal zone for
the enjoyment of the current and suceeding generations."
The Coastal Act of 1972 did not provide a permanent program but
did establish commission. to plan the future of California's
coast and to oversee development of .the coast .for •.a temporary
period.
Efforts of the 19.72-1976 Coastal Commission resulted in passage
of the California Coastal Act of 1976 which remains in force
and declares that basic goals of the State for the Coastal
Zone are to:
"Protect, maintain, and where feasible, enhance and restore
the overall quality of the coastal. zone environment and its
natural. and manmade resources."
"Assure orderly, balanced utilization and conservation of
coastal zone resources taking into account the social and
economic needs of the people of. the state. "
rys� r
1 of 33
I - -
"Maximize public access to and along the coast and maximize
public recreational opportunities in the coastal zone con-
sistent with sound resources conservation principles and
constitutionally protected rights of private owner's."
"Assure priority for coastal-dependent and coastal-re-
lated development over other development on the coast. "
"Encourage state and local initiatives and cooperation in
preparing procedures to implement. coordinated planning
and development for mutually beneficial uses, including
educational uses, in the coastal zone."
The Coastal Act requires each local government located in
whole or in part within the coastal zone to prepare a "Local
Coastal Program" for that part of the coastal zone located `
within its jurisdiction. Each local coastal program is to
be prepared in accordance with Coastal Act policies and is to
consist of a Land Use Plan phase (LCP Phase II) and an
Implementation Actions phase (LCP Phase III) . The Land Use
Plan phase is to be comprised of a land use plan indicating
location and intensity of land and water uses and applicable
resources protection, a resources component, a transportation
component, a coastal access component, and development policies
to accomplish Coastal Act objectives. The Implementation
Actions phase includes methods necessary to realize policies
and provisions for the Land Use Plan. The purpose of Orange
County's Local Coastal Program is to implement Coastal Act
policies by ensuring conformance of existi.n'g' county plans and
regulations related to the coastal zone with statewide Coastal.
Act policies.
2 of 33
90
B. County of Orange Local Coastal Program
The County of Orange commenced its Local Coastal Program planning
activities in 1977 when County staff accomplished administra-
tive and organizational tasks necessary to .perform the extensive
Local Coastal Program ,process. In 1978, County staff initiated
preparation of a segmentation request and two-year work program
for its Local Coastal Program. Due to varying characteristics
of land with the County`s Coastal Zone (an area which varies
from. 1,000 yards. from shoreline in urbanized communuities to
the San Joaquin Hills ridgeline in undeveloped areas) and
concomitant 'need for different types of analyses, Countv
staff, divided the zone into four segments: North Coast ,
South Coast, Irvine Coast and Aliso Creek.
These four segments were. in turn divided into 12 distinct
geographic areas for purposes of resource inventory analysis
and policy/issue identification. The subareas of the Aliso
Creek and South Coast segments are part of one large, continuous
area. The six subareas of the North Coast segment are non-'
contiguous and consist of Newport Dunes, .Santa Ana Heights,
Sunset Beach, Sunset Aquatic Regional Park, Santa Ana River
Mouth and Bolsa Chica.
During February, 1978 County staff held.public meetings to in-
form interested residents about the scope and intent of the
Coastal Act and its implications for the County coastal zone.
In addition, staff solicited community comments on the Draft
Local. Coastal Program issue identification and work program for
the North Coast, Aliso Creek and South Coast segments and on
the Irvine Coast Issue Identification and. Land Use Plan.
A work program for the North Coast, Aliso Creek and South Coast
segments was approved by the Orange County Board of Supervisors
3 of 33
in May, 1978. The segmentation and modified work program for
the three planning units was approved (with one modification)
by the South Coast Regional Commission in January 1979, and
was approved by the State Commission in .February 1979 (subject
to approval of a schedule or priorities and milestones) . The
State Coastal Commission approved the work program schedul.e .i:i
May 1979.
The Orange County Local Coastal Program consists of three major
phases:
Phase I: Issue Identification and Work Program Preparation
Phase II: Work Program Task Performance & Land Plan Prepara-
tion.
Phase III: Zoning and Other Implementing Device Preparation
Phase I is comprised of four parts: 1) Coastal Act Policy Groups,
2) Issue Identification, 3) Work Tasks, and 4) Products. The
Coastal Act Policy Group section identifies Coastal Act develop-
ment and resource protection policies designed to implement
State goals for planning and,management of resources within
the coastal zone. Policy groups related to the County coastal
zone are: Shoreline Access; Recreation and Visitor-Serving
Facilities; Housing; [dater and Marine Resources; Environmentall.
Sensitive Habitats; Diking, Dredging, Filling and Shoreline
Structures (low priority) ; Commercial Fishing and Recreational
Boating (low priority) ; Public Works; New Development.; Visual
Resources; and, Hazards. The Issue Identification section,
briefly identifies policy provisions of the Coastal Act
applicable to the various planning units. The Work Tasks
section defines investigative procedures necessary to develop
policies for the planning units which would facilitate attain-
ment of Coastal Act policies. The Product section attempts to
define the nature of products to be developed from the work tasks.
- 4 of 33
3. Signal would lease, without cost to the State, and additional
230 acres of land adjacent to the 300-acro plot for a period
of 14 years. This was considered an offset for the effect
i
of an ocean entrance system on the. State's 300-acre parcel
as well as being a contribution for the establishment of ,uch
a system by Signal.
4. The State would receive fee title to the 230-acre plot upon
construction .of an ocean entrance system within the fourteen
year period, thus reopening Bolsa Bay to the Ocean to, Provide
a variety of public benefits and water access to Signal lands.
5. The Department of Fish and .Game (DFG) received 66-vear leases
for the lands described in points 1 and 3 from the State Lands
Commission for the purpose of marsh reestablishment with the
qualification that the lease of the 230-acre area, would terminate
at the end of fourteen years should an ocean entrance system
not be constructed.
In association with and toward implementation of this Land Exchange
Agreement, the_.State DFG began preparing a conceptual master plan
for development of. Bolsa .Chica in 1973. Completed in 1974, the plan
included a two-phase project. Phase I involved reestablishment of
a marsh encompassing approximately 150 acres of. the State's 300-acre
parcel (added to approximately 50 acres in Outer Bolsa. Bay) . Phase II
would involve expansion of "the 300-acre marsh, and construction of a
public marina, and a navigable ocean entrance system to provide: tidal
waters for the marsh and marina. The State would thereby gain fee
title to the additional 230 acres of leased land. Phase I of the
plan has been completed.
Subsequent to the 1973 Agreement, numerous government jurisdictions
and agencies and environmental groups have become involved with
Bolsa Chica. The Department of Fish and Game, Department of
Navigation and Ocean Development and the. Army Corps of Engineers
11 of 33 �,,
continue to study the feasibility of both.marina and marshland develop-
ment. Local environmental groups and such agencies as the U. S. Fish
and Wildlife Service contend that implementation of Phase II of the
1973 agreement would be detrimental to the resources of Bolsa Chica.
In 1977, the County of Orange (in response to a proposal by *.he
City of Huntington Beach) completed a Seasibili.ty study for a .
linear regional park in Bolsa Chica that would include portions of
both the Huntington and Bolsa Chica Bluffs and a connection along
the northeasterly periphery of the study area.
By early 1978 the need for coordinated efforts became apparent.
Interested agencies and groups met and eventually formed the Bolsa
Chica. Study Group (BCSG) . EDAW, Inc. was selected as the lead con-
sultant to the BCSG and charged with the responsibility of collecting
available data, coordinating efforts of expert subconsultants, ex-
ploring pertinent issues, and compiling land use concepts which re-
flected the expectations of BCSG members.
These efforts resulted in the Report to the Bolsa Chica Study Group
submitted by EDAW in 1979. The report- presented characterizations of
the physical, social and economic environment of the study area,
discussions of important issues and considerations, and numerous
land use concepts produced by BCSG members. The various land
use plans included in the report varied considerably, ranging from
complete public acquisition for marsh restoration and other open
space to predominantly urban development. Subsequent to the BCSG
effort, planning and analysis efforts for Bolsa Chica have con-
tinued by many of its members (e. g. , DFG, U. S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Army Corps of Engineers, Orange County and Signal Landmark) .
IV. PROGRESS TO DATE
To date, Environmenta.1 Management Agency staff has conducted four
public workshops in Huntington Beach which occurred on November 20, 1980,
December 2 and 9, 1980 and January 22, 1981. A. Planning Commission
workshop was held in Santa Ana on December 16, 1980.
14-
A. Workshop 1 (20 November 1980)
Attendance: 70-80
Purpose: To provide those in attendance with -an introduction
to the Orange County Local Coastal Program and to
the LCP efforts for the Bolsa Chica study area.
It was the intention of EMA staff through a slide
presentation and oral presentation of material
to inform the public of LCP work completed, LCP
work planned and to elicit input from those in
attendance pertaining to any matters covered in
LCP work.
R-sult: It was apparent that most of those attending the
workshop were generally opposed to concurrent
processing of a Local Coastal Program and
General Plan Amendment for Bolsa Chica, to the
information the County was using to formulate
the LCP, to the deadlines for completing the LCP,
and particularly to any development on site and
to any less extensive determination of wetlands
than the preliminary determination made by State
Coastal Commission.
B. Workshop 2 (2 December 1980)
Attendance: 115-130
Purpose: To provide a forum for representatives of groups/
agencies/companies and for individuals to express
and discuss their particular position regarding _
"wetlands. " The format was altered to provide a
"roundtable" atmosphere. Country staff asked repre-
sentatives from the following agencies/interests to
make brief presentations;
..� t 7
13 of 33
-- Calif.ornia' Department of Fish and Game
-- U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
-- U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
-- California Coastal Commission
-- Armigos de Bolsa Chica
-- Signal Landmark
-- Phillips Brandt Reddick (Consultant to Signal)
Only Fish and Game, Coastal Commission, Amigos de
Bolsa Chica, Signal, and PBR spoke. The public
was offered a atmosphere in which to hear and to
present information. At the meeting's conclusion,
FMA staff asked that interested parties to submit
"position papers" and comments on "wetlands. "
Result: Generally, public opinion/interest group opinion
remained polarized: opposition to Orange County's
preliminary "wetlands" mapping remained.
C. Workshop 3 (9 December 1980)
Attendance: 190 +
Purpose: To add "wetlands" information to the "wetlands" map ,
to receive public input; and, to. outline basic
issues pertaining to the five components of the
LCP for the public. Public comment was invited.
Result: Increased written public comment via a questionnaire
given to public and via additional letters and a
petitition from public (on file with Planning Com-
mission Secretary) . Only general results can be
inferred from the questionnaire and they are summarized
below.
14 of 33
Opinions regarding land use on the site are very
much polarized. The majority of those attending
the workshops favor preservation of the entire
site (benches and gap), although almost 30%
prefer the development of a marina. Those in
favor, 'o£ preservation were generally concerned
with that issue exclusively. Although a clear
majority.'of the "preservation" group prefer to
see no-development on site at all, a significant
proportion are in favor of low intensity recreational
uses,-,such as view parks and hiking and riding
trails. Fewer people desire bikev..,ays.
People desiring a marina, on the other hand, are
usually: 1) interested in other issues; 2) in
favor of additional development; and 3) inclined
to restrict development on a limited basis to
preserve some open space resources. Approximately
22%, of the respondents favor an expanded arterial
highway system. These people are almost exclusively
from the group desiring a marina.
The opinions expressed on this questionnaire were
representative of comments received in each of the
three workshops held thus far.
D. Orange County Planning Commission Study Session--Workshop 4
(16 December 1080)
o purpose:
1.. Introduction to Local' Coastal Program process
2. Report on Workshops and Public Input
15 of 33
3. Discussion of. Issues
4. Report on Future Work Schedule
E. Workshop 5 (22 January 1981)
o Purpose: Present alternative Land Use Plans and receive
public comment. EMA staff and EDA[d,. Inc. , special
consultant to the County made presentations and
were available for questions.
o Result : This meeting occurred after completion of this
report.
16 of 33
V. KEY ISSUES
The following have been identified as the key issues to be addressed in
preparing any plan for the Bolsa Chica area:
.A.' The 1973 State/Signal Boundary Settlement and Exchange Agreement .
The agreement is described above in Section III on Page 10 .
The questions raised here are:
1. ShouZd the agreement be consideped to have settZed- t-he matter
of property ownershir? The Amigos de Bolsa Chica and others
have contested the propriety and validity of the agreement and
have brought a lawsuit against Signal and the State seeking
to set aside the agreement and gain judicial recognition of
their position that the rights of the public to tidal and
submerged lands cannot be "bargained away" by the State.
The LCP has taken cognizance of the suit and the basic
issues. However, it has been assumed that unless there
is some other ultimate judicial determination to the con-
trary, the agreement is valid and that accor.dinagly the
plan for the area must recognize the ownership and property
rights of Signal, Grace, et, al.
2. How does the agreement bear noon the Preparation of the LCP?
The LCP must respect the property rights of the private
property owners and cannot therefore assume that their land.
will be available for public purposes without dedication or
purchase. However, it is also assumed that the 1976 Coastal
Act requirements and policies apply to the property and
that the landowners' land use expectations arising from
the agreement must now be subjected to any use limitation
that the Coastal Act imposes on other property owners
similarly situated.
�d
ai 17 of 33
During the course of the studies and interaction with
interested parties in the preparation of. the LCP, an attempt
has been made to explore whether the use concept embodied
in the 1973- agreement and expanded ecological preserve,
marina and new navigable ocean connection to serve
both is still valid for the area. Clearly there is dis-
pute among individuals, agencies and acknowledged authori-
ties about the impacts and compatibility of the uses. It
has been concluded that, on balance, the mixed use con-
cept still has merit, deserves consideration.
B: WETLANDS DETERMINATION t
1. What does the 1976 .CoastaZ Act saq about Section
30121 of the Coastal Act provides a definition: "Wetland
means land 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."
Section 30200 provides that the policies in the following
sections of the Act selected as applicable constitute "the
standards by which the adequacy of local coastal programs . _ .
and the permissibility of proposed developments. . .are deter-
mined. . . "
Section 30233: "(a) The diking, filling, or dredging of. . .
wet lands. . .shall be permitted in accordance with other ap-
plicable 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:
18 of 33 y I
11(1) New or expanded port, energy, and coastal-depen-
dent industrial facilities, including commercial
fishing facilities."
"(2) Maintaining existing, or restoring previousl;-
dredged, depths in existing navigational channels,
turning basins, vessel berthing and mooring
areas, and boat launching ramps. "
"(3) In wetland areas only, entrance channels for new
or expanded boating facilities; and in a degraded
wetland, identified by the Department of Fish and
Game" (pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section
30411) ". . . for boating facilities if, in con-
junction with such boating facilities, a sub-
stantial portion of the degraded wetland is re-
stored and maintained as a biologically produc-
tive wetland; provided, however, that in no event
shall the size of the wetland area used for such
boating facility, including berthing space, turning
basins, necessary navigation channels, and any
necessary support service facilities, be greater
than 25 percent of the total wetland area to be
restored."
"(5) Incidental public service purposes, including, but
not limited to, burying cables and pipes or inspec-
tion of: piers and maintenance of existing intake and
outfall lines. "
"(6) Mineral extraction, including sand for restoring
beaches, except in environmentally sensitive areas."
"(8) Nature supply, acquaculture, or similar resource-
dependent activities.
ro ' s 19 of 33.
X
(c) ". . .diking, filling, or dredging in existing
estuaries and wetlands shall maintain or en-
tance .the functional capacity of "the wetland or
the wetland or estuary. . ."
Section 30607. 1: ivhere. any. dike and fill development is
permitted in wetlands in conformity with this division,
mitigation measures shall include; at a minimum, either
acquIsitiori of equivalent areas of equal or greater bio-
logical prodiictivity or opening. up' equivalent areas, to
tidal action; provided however; that if no appropriate
restoration site is available, an in-lieu fee sufficient
to. provide an area of equivalent productive value or surface
areas shall be dedicated to an appropriate public. agencv,
such replacement site shall be purchased before the dike
or. fill development may proceed. . ."
2: What has the Coastal Commission said about the wet.Zands iss: e:
-The State Coastal Commission has made a preliminary deter-
mination that there are approximately 1200 acres of degraded
wetlands in the Bolsa Chica Gap. The Commission is also
currently considering Wetlands Guidelines for. use in re-
viewing. coastal development permits.
3. What' has the Board of Supervisors said about the w`tZands issue:
In offically commenting to the State Coastal Commission on the
draft Wetlands Guidelines, the Board. adopted Resolution No.
80-1545 on September. 24, 1980: A copy of the Resolution
is. attached.
C. Other Planning Issues.
1. How much of the lowlands can be preserved/restored?
2. Should there be a new ocean connection for tidal, flushing?
�A P
20 of 33
3. If so, should the ocean connection be constructed as a
navigable _channeZ?
4. ShouZd there. be a navigable channel connection to Hzoitin�toy
Harbor?
5. ShouZd there be boating facilities? . A marina?. Support facilities?
6. What additional land uses should be aZZowed in the Ga-,?.
7. What configuration 'should the BoZsa Cnica 'Linear Reoic�:aZ
Park take?
8. ShouZd there be a "cross-gap" arte�,aZ hi<,h aY? ;vkere? ;,'i�.z
what _connections?
9.. Should Pacific Coast Highway be rerouted?
10. What uses should be allowed on the bZuTfs: with a marina? with-
out a marina?
11. What should be done with the. East Garden Grove-Wintersburg-CnanneZ?
12. . What is the feasibility of implementing various proposals?
13. What should be done about continued. oiZ operations?
ej �/ 21 of 33
VI. LAND USE.PLAN ALTERNATIVES
ALTERNATIVE 1 See attached Exhibit .
This alternative assumes Phase II of the Master Plan for the 1973
Boundary Settlement Agreement will not 1e completed and a method will
be found for public acquisition, marsh restoration and maintenance in
the Bolsa Gal) by the Ca lifornia :Department of Fish and Game. As a
result; the emphasis of this alternative is on open space and medium-
high density residential development within Bolsa Gap and on- medium-
high density residential on the Bolsa Chica bluff:
Alternative 1 proposes 208 acres of medium to.high density residential
development (LUE designations 1.3 and 1.4) on Bolsa Chica `Sesa ' (common
to all alternatives) with 1,105+ acres of restored salt marsh and 110
acres' of medium and high density residential development immediately
along the northeasterly boundary of the property in Bolsa Gap". Total
unit yield is expected to be approximately 2,550 dwellings. An appro-
priate number of .these would conform, to Orange County, inclusionary
housing requirements, with the ma jority...likely to occur on the inland
portions. of the Bolsa" Chica Mesa.
Circulation would focus upon the 4-lane Bolsa Chica Road extending
from Los Patos Avenue across Bolsa Gap on a raised roadbed' to connect
with Ellis Avenue on Huntington Mesa. Pedestrian and bicycle access
would be provided. In addition; Graham Street; Talbert Avenue and
Springdale Street would- be extended to terminate- At the Bolsa Chica .
Road at the northeasterly. edge of the Gap.
The marsh,_restoration "program would include a non-navigable tidal in-
let approximately 530 feet "widethrough Bolsa Chica State Beach generally
opposite the existing terminus of the East Garden Grove-Wintersburg
flood control channel. Pacific Coast Highway would bridge the inlet
via, a 630-foot causeway with .l2-foot vertical ciearanc"e.
22 of 33
The East Garden Grove-Wintersburg flood control channel within the
study area would be substantially altered. The Alternative One concept
envisions removal of existing levees and tide gates, and replacement
of these with a variable width, natural edge channel that would accom-
modate 100-year flood flows, provide a brackish water ecosystem, and
would protect the bulk of the Reserve from potentially damaging flood
flows, siltation and- heavy metal pollutants from the urban watershed
of the channel. - Seawater intrusion will be minimized in the flood
control channel upstream from the Bolsa Chica Road extension through
the construction of tide gates where that roadway bridges the channel.
Debris and sediment control facilities would .be situated upstream of
this area.
. Remaining -areas in the 5.4 category would accommodate preservation- and
enhancement where feasible, or desirable, of the existing Bolsa Chica
Mesa eucalyptus groves and scenic bluffs. In addition, open. space on 4
and adjacent to the Huntington Mesa bluffs would be dedicated or sold
for public uses to be determined at more specific planning. leve.ls.
Land along Pacific Coast Highway would retain whipstock oil wells and
related petroleum facilities for the useful life of the offshore oil
resources being extracted from that location.
ALTERNATIVE 2 See attached Exhibit •
This alternative reflects a condition in which the 1973 Boundary Settle-
ment Agreement is not implemented and title to the 230-acre State lease
area remains with Signal Landmark, Inc. for development. This alterna-
tive represents a maximization of urban development within the Bolsa .
Gap, emphasizing residential land use ,with small areas designated as '
tourist recreational and other commercial uses.
Alternative 2 would provide medium and high-density residential de-
velopment on Bolsa Chica Mesa. In the Bolsa Gap, residential designa-
tions would yield medium, high and heavy-density housing types; overall,
23 of 33
Alternative 2 proposes approximately 6,800 dwelling units, including
Ah appropriate response to inclusionary housing requirements. In
addition, the Gap. development plan would include approximately 10
acres of local commercial; 17..5 acres of tourist recreation/commercial
(TR/C) ; 24 acres of petroleum facilities, 300+ acres of restored marsh-
land (corresponding* to the land currently under State ownership) and
140.actos of other .open space .devoted to bluff protection, flood
control; and recreational amenities.
Bolsa Chica Road would be extended from its presei►t terminus at Los
Patos Avenue (on the north) .into the central Gap toward an eventual
connection with .Garfield Avenue on the southeast . . Ellis Avenue would
be extehded along the northeasterly periphery of the. Gap to intersect
with Bolsa Chica Road and to connect with Pacific Coast Highi,ay (PCH)
sbuth .of the Bolsa .Chica Mesa, Springdale Street would be extended
through intersections with.. both cross=Gap roadways to a connection
with PGH.
In the Gap. medium=density residential would predominate landward of
B61sa Chica Street and would .have a character similar to the immediately
adjoining residential areas, Between the eastern side of the Spring-
dale Street extension,and the base of the Huntington Mesa .bluffs, medium
density residential dwellings would predominate.'with high and heavy-
density residential occurring near the bluffs. Ultimate development
would_ probably be characterized by density clustering surrounded by
open spaees' in the '1.51 designation areas.
Immediately west .of Springdale Street, hoith. and south of the Bolsa
Chica Street intersection, land use designations include high and heavy-
density residential, with local commercial., and .TR/C located in relatively
sinall clusters. Surrounding the intersection of Bolsa Chica Road and.
Ellis Avenue, similar designations would. occur except. for medium-density
adjacent to ,the restored marsh area:
The-residential-character intended for these areas would be primarily
water-'oriented with a diversity of product types. _ Tiuch of the 1.41 and
24 of 33
1 .41-designated areas would, in fact, be tidal waterways, sailing
basi.ns. (no ocean access) , and other open spaces, particularly where
requirements for marshland buffering prescribe .setbacks and/or barriers.
In Alternative 2, marsh restoration would take place only within the
300 acres currently owned by the .State of. California and would. include
the -following components:
Non-Navigable Tidal Inlet through Bolsa Chica Stato Beach - Uhile_ the
basic land use components of Alternative 2 could be implemented without
an ocean entrance, such an entrance would be necessary. in order to pro-
vide water orientation for urban land uses and the tidal prism necessary
for any marsh restoration area over existing conditions. The ocean
entrance required for Alternative 2, if these goals are to be achieved,
would be similar in configuration to that previously described for
Alternative 1.
300-Acre Restored Salt Marsh - Salt marsh .restoration for Alternative 2
would essentially include the approximately 150 acres in the Department
of _Fish and Game's existing "Phase I Restoration:" area with sufficient
modifications to restore the remaining 150 acres. of State land to tidal
flow from the ocean inlet. and produce a fully-integrated typical salt
marsh system.. Creation of wildlife habitats for resident endangered
species would receive special consideration in design of the marsh.
Productive oil well operations would continue within the restoration area.
The stretch of the East Garden Grove-Wintersburg flood control channel
within the study area would receive the following modifications in
Alternative 2. The existing channel and its levees would be removed
to accommodate the Bolsa Chica Road. extension. As a replacement, a wider,
possibly deeper, natural edge channel would be constructed along the
base of the south-facing Bolsa Chica Mesa bluffs to allow for public
access and potential for creation of a brackish water ecosystem within
the area. Tide gates at the Bolsa Chica Road crossing and upstream
�� 25 of 33
desilting facilities would also be provided similar to Alternative 1.
The bluffs themselves. would be protected as necessary by use of set
backs, riprap or other measures. . The channel would be designed to
accommodate 100-year flood flows, to protect .surrounding urban develop-
ment and principal Reserve areas from both flood flows and urban
pollutant influx. Also, the location of the channel outlet would be
designed to. be compatible with the proposed tidal inlet and water
regime of the entire Gap.
Other Areas designated as Natural Resources and Other Open Space cor-
respond to areas designated as such in Alternative 1.
ALTERNATIVE 3 See attached Exhibit •
This alternative, represents implementation of .the. 1973 Boundary Settle-
ment agreement and Phase II concepts of the 1974 Master Plan including ,
a navigable ocean entrance- public marina .and conveyance of the 230-
acre 14-year lease area in fee to _"the State. The alternative repre-
sents wide-range, and mixed-use designations for the Bolsa Gap.
Residential development remains a significant component in the south
and northeastern areas.;. recreation occupies a 'stronger emphasis. than
in Alternative 2.
A proposed realignment of Pacific Coast Highway would begin at the
westernmost extent of the Huntington Mesa bluffs, proceed along the
no periphery of the Gap, then follow the base of the south=
facing Bolsa Chica Mesa bluffs, and finally cross the reserve area with
a 45-foot vertical clearance bridge which would join the existing high-
way parallel to Outer Bolsa Bay. Bolsa Chica Road, Graham Street and
Talbert Avenue .would. be extended to connect with the realigned highway.
In this configuration, Bolsa Chica Road would serve .as an important
regional access. robte to PCH. An interior roadway connecting Bolsa.
Chica Road with Ellis Avenue would also .be provided. burner Avenue
alignment has been revised so that Warner proceeds across. the Mesa
from a point starting near Lds Patos Avenue to connect with the realigned
Pacific Coast Highway on' Bolsa Chica Mesa.
26 of 33
The existing Pacific Coast Highway right.-of-way along Bolsa Chica
State Beach would provide access from the relocated PCH; would be. avail-
able to serve beach traffic and parking needs and would terminate at
a proposed navigable ocean entrance. ' _
In the Bolsa Gap, residential areas to the northeast of. the Pacific
Coast Highway_ realignment would be medium-density and would be generally
:similar to adjacent .residential areas. It is, however, contemplated that
many of these homes would front on controlled water lagoons and thus
would take on a considerably different character than their landward
counterparts..
Residential densities between the southeast side of the new Pacific
Coast Highway route and Huntington Beach Mesa would be medium, high and
heavy-density. Those residential areas having the heaviest allowable
density would be primarily land-oriented and might occur in clusters,
some of which could contribute to proposed-.compliance with inclusionary
housing requirements with considerable surrounding open space. In, the
central portion of .this area, medium density water-oriented housing is
envisioned.
Under proposed designations, privately owned land seaward of and sur-
rounded by the realigned Pacific Coast Highway would allow predominalltl.y,
marina and boating-oriented high and heavy-density residential with
relatively minor amounts of community commercial and tourist recreation/
commercial.
A variety of uses would occur on the 530 acres which would be held in
fee title by the State. of California under this alternative. These
include a navigable ocean .inlet with connections to the proposed Bolsa
Chiea marina and to .Huntington Harbour through Outer Bolsa Bay, an
1,800+ — boat public marina and ,a 330+ - acne restored salt marsh. The
proposed navigable channel connection. to Huntington Harbour would have
an important effect upon vehicular circulation by necessitating the
closure of Warner Avenue. Warner Avenue would be relocated to join
Pacific Coast Highway just east of the new channel and the present Warner
Avenue bridge would be re.moved. Due. to phys.ieal requi.r0.ments
10
/-Y
27 of. 33
for approach length and curve radius and probable adverse effects on
adjacent development, a navigable bridge is not considered feasible at
the old location. The channel connecting this entrance to Huntington
Harbour through Outer Bolsa Bay would be 400 .feet wide and would have
soft or gently sloping stabilized edges.
A 500-foot navigable channel is proposed to connect the ocean inlet
to public (1,800+ slip) .and private marinas in Bolsa Gap. The channel
would run next to and parallel with the northern boundary of the exist-
ing 300-acre state fee lands. . The 500-foot width would ,be required to
Provide suitable conditions for sailboat tacking against the prevailing
westerly winds..
To the east of the current state lease lands . (which would be state fee
lands under this alternative) and public marina, considerable acreage
would be devoted to. deepwater channels, bulkheaded private marinas and
sailing basins which would .be part of the water-o.rieiited development
area described earlier.-
The East .Garden Grove-Wintersburg flood control channel modifications
would be similar .to those outlined in Alternative. 2. However, .the
total acreage allocated to flood control would be somewhat less than
in .Alternative 2 due to space limitations imposed by the Coast Highway
realignment and ,the public marina. Given these conditions, plus a
navigable channel and bridge in Outer .Bolsa Bay, a more structured flood
control design may be required.
Other Areas designated as Natural Resources and Other.Open Space are ,
similar to corresponding areas in Alternative 1 .
ALTERNATIVE 4 See attached Exhibir.
Upon review of Alternative 3 and biological information provided to
the County by its consultant, EDAW Inc.*, it was found that some adjust-
ments. in. the plan could be made which would accommodate sensitive habitat
�- oil
I
28 of 33
s
areas existing on site. EDAW's study produced a map categorizing
habitats into three groups: high, moderate, and low sensitivity.
Moderate sensitivity areas primarily act as .buffers for the ecolo-
gically valuable .high sensitivity areas. The low sensitivity desig-
nation was applied to upland areas and areas of generally low .eco-
logical value:
Consolidation of the many .scattered areas. of high sensitivity into
a "core area". is the basis for Alternative 4. This consolidation is
accomplished by a one-for-one replacement on site of highly sensitive
areas displaced by. development. .
Approximately 455 acres of .hi.ghly sensitive areas exist on the site.
After locating 300 acres of this habitat in the marsh restoration de-
picted in Alternative 3, 155 acres remain to be provided for.- Keeping
Outer Bolsa Bay in its present state will account for approximately 50
acres, leaving 105. acres to be . relocated around the periphery of the
Alternative .3 marsh. In Alternative 4, however, approximately 120 acres
have been added to the- marsh periphery for a. total of. 470. acres of .marsh
restoration.
The deep water. channel serving .private boat slip areas has been re-
located to a somewhat more inland alignment .adjacent to the realigned
PCH. Residential uses between PCH and the channel have been eliminated.
In lieu of residential, the land remaining between PCH and the marina
will be occupied by Tourist Recreation/Commercial uses which will support
and complement the public marina.
As mentioned above, Outer Bolsa Bay will remain in its present state
under this alternative. A consequence of this feature is that Warner
Avenue would remain as a through route to PCH, ' in contrast to its dead- .
end terminus under Alternative 3. .
In comparison to Alternative. 3, some residential acreage has been re--..
placed by marsh restoration, a navigable channel, *and some TRC uses.
173-V' 29 of 33 . `
g
The basic elements of Alternative 3, such as the realignment of. PCH,
the basic size and configuration of the marina, and -all uses inland
of. PCH have remained the same..
ALTERNATIVE 5 Sce attached Exhibit .
Alternative 5 is based on Section 30233 :6f the Coastal Act of 1976
which provides that marina and marina-related uses may occupy degraded
wetland areas provided that three times as much area (as in the marina,
etc.) is restored to wetland status (see Section V, Key Issues) . The
premise behind this section of the .Coastal Act appears to be that in
providing-a tradeoff, .funds can.be made available for wetland_ restoration.
In Alternative 5, approximately 940 acres (including. the Phase •I salt
water. marsh_ restoration. area and 0uter,.Bol.sa Bay) are designated as
restored. Approximately 730 acres would be new restoration.
The Bolsa Chica Linear Regional Park is depicted as extending along
the southeastern. boundary of -the site. Existing oil ,production facili
ties (off-shore drilling operations) remain general:ly. in the south-
western corner of the site with the area to be buffered from proposed
• wetland restoration..areas by a greenbelt. .
Residential uses are proposed for those areas adjacent to the northeasterly
inland boundary of the site to be compatible with exi.sting .resid.enti ,l
development within Huntington_ Beach adjacent to that project .boundary.
A water buffer is proposed to divide the proposed .residential uses within .
Bolsa Gap from the restored wetland acreage. The width of such a buffer
has not yet been determined.
A public marina (1;750+ slips) and marina-support .facilities are. proposed
within the Bolsa Gap. These uses, combined. with marina-support facili-
ties in the Bol-sa Chica Cap occupy approximately 225 acres. Marina
support f:aci 1A ties may 'include parking areas, restroom/mai.titenalice areas,
boat fueling/repair/sales nreas, boat storage facilities, .restallrants,
commercial shops, day-useand .overnight visitor-serving facilities.
33
30 of 33
Proposed uses on Bolsa Chica Mesa include both non-marina and marina-
related tourist-recreation/vi_sitor-serving/commercial. - recreational
facilities, . a greenbelt/park system accommodating passive recreational
uses and trails, and residential uses.
Access to facilities on Bolsa Chica mesa would be via an extension. of
Bolsa Chica Road and via an arterial extending between Warner Avenue
and the Bolsa Chica. Road extension. The Bolsa Chica Road extension
would extend from its present terminus, across the Bolsa Chica Mesa
and existing East Garden Grove-Wintersburg ,flood control channel and.
across that portion of the Bolsa Chica Gap proposed to be occupied by
marina-support facilities. Bolsa Chica Road would terminate at the
boundarv. of the marina-support facilities.
ALTERNATIVE 6 See attached Exhibit.
This Alternative reflects the dual concerns of its initiators, the Bolsa
Chica Committee for Clean Water and Ocean Access. The Alternative was
submitted on January 27, 1,981 to the Orange. County Planning Commission
for inclusion among other alternative land use plans for consideration.
The proponents feel that in order to provide for clean .water in
Huntington Harbour and Outer .Bolsa Bay, the East Garden Grove Wintersburg
Channel should be aligned with the navigable ocean outlet. The .proponents
believe this would funnel debris and pollutants from the channel dir. ctly
out to sea. Additionally, this Alternative depicts channel.ization of
Outer. Bolsa Bay between the ocean outlet and Huntington Harbour across
what is now Warner Avenue ,to provide additional. navigable access from
Huntington Harbour to the Ocean.
Warner Avenue would be re-routed to intersect with a r2aligned Pacific
Coast Highway at a point on the Bolsa Chica Mesa approximately 1/2 -. 3/4
mile inland of the present alignment of Pacific Coast Highway. The
actual relocation of Pacific Coast Highway is in a location similar
to that in Alternatives 3 and 4. Pacific Coast Highway would cross the
flood control channel via a low-level bridge.
` �� 31 of 33
The alternatives as presented by the committee is sil.ent. on land uses
in the remaining Bolsa; Chica area...
ALTERNATIVE 7 See attached Exhibit.
This Alternative was also submitted .by Mr. William Ficker to the
Orange County Planning Commission on .January 27, 198.1. The emphasis.
of this Alternative is maximization.of a variety .of land use opportuni-
ties on the site.
A major feature involves reconstruction of the entire 3.5 mile coast-
line adjacent to Bolsa. Chica. The beach would be relocated and re-
modeled to form a peninsula extending at an angle southeasterly from
approximately the northern boundary of B,-)lsa Chica State Beach. A ri.:irina
of approximately 1,500 slips would be provided within that peninsula.
The peninsula would contain fishing piers, .quiet-water swimming beaches
and trails. Access would be via a road proceeding southeasterly from .
a point at the 'existing intersection of Pacific Coast. Highwav and
Warner Avenue.
The. entire Bolsa Chica Mesa is designated for commercial, hotel and
high-density residential .uses. Access to beach areas -would be.-via a
relocation of Pacific Coast Highway in a manner similar to Alternatives
3, 4 and 6. Hcwever, the relocation would proceed farther inland than
in those Alternatives. Pacific Coast Highway would cross a navigable
channel from Huntington Harbour via a 60-foot ,high bridge.
The Bolsa Gap is designated for residential, marina and wetland restora-
tion uses. The wetland .area would be surrounded by a water buffer that
also would extend inland along the southern boundary of the ,site between
the Bolsa. Chica Linear Regional Park and residential areas within the .
B.olsa Gap.
Trail systems would be provided along beaches and recreation areas.
32 of 3.3 �
L ' '
1
ALTERNATIVE 8 See attached Exhibit.
This Alternative, provi.des for a continuation of existing uses with some
development in non-sentive areas. The Alternative responds to previous
public comments. Residential and ,Commerc.ial uses would be allowed
on Bolsa Chica Mesa in a manner similar to Alternatives 4_ and 5. No
realignment. of Pacific Coast Highway or Warner. Ave.nue would occur.
No navigable channel between the gap and Huntington Harbour would be
constructed.
No marsh restoration would occur other than completion of restorciti.on
efforts within the. State-owned 300 acre parcel. Water for marsh
restoration likely would occur via underground conduits to the ocean
or via the existing tidal connection through. Huntiiigton ,Harbor.
The Bolsa Chica Linear Regional Park would be developed in its pro-
posed location along the Huntington Beach TTesa and around the Gap.
. The East Garden Grove-Wintersburg Flood Control Channel would remain
at or near its current location.
Existing and—expanded oil production facilities iaould' remain until
economically -infeasible.
33 .of 33
'3 b
LEGEND
mm"DENSM ;
LA HEAVY � - 1\ � �, •� � " •` /� . '\•�
OE?fSRY RESDENTIAL � � - - � � `�� ���% '�• % � .
RESTORED SALT MARSH
77
Lt
h
-
r
....._.:.... ;f
i'
ALTERNATIVE .1
P"EUI NARY-FOR XU)STRATTVE PURPOSES OO&Y Y/10/E4 ':orou...:.�o'...ri<n..•."•.
v •
LEWD `.
aEattJM ouam REsovmAL �%•��r ""` ` �:;I- :.`�`• :c
1q1 OENSrrY RESCENTIAL ( •'1• +� •y' ,
-; HEAYY oo+srrY wsmeiriAL
:5 L,3 RESTORED SALT MARSH •�'��•�., _ -cec. .
�1
A
,
f
l
(' f
J I
- 9
U+
V C'••
'I. .j�rL'• l.�wl,
1j� .���:;�:•.� :'ice
ALTERNATIVE 2
.B LSA .C' ICA
!6 �6
PM-1Y4e y-FOR LwsmArm P.wous OKr 4.ie so
LEGEND
rmH oowrr lesoeeul .•.�' ,��'
- RID/COSTY IESM M AL - _ ''{�; .•�,, _•�: 'i•,1 f,-:.- r
'.":• IEAW OVIS"RESDETML _ - - _ _ 4'�:�t•';.yT ►� -��.,• flc a -`r- L�+it�r;•' !
RESTORED SALT MARSH
•t�= _� �'s�>::
,.
Ci
t
,l
/ _ !i (
r
1: - `
t
.- Lam-,.� �.__ �/. .....:::::•'.:�:.......... � �s.a W'�r��:' C:
MARRIK
r::c' .•—C if_
'
-
r�LZ r�. s +s wo� -� �' _ �1 1 •;)
nro
' ._.-. (ice fiEi: � l
l
E
- _
. :
. __ -- + �`�.._._..... ...___..__—..-.. ..•c;,V� --_....... ... —__ •QETROLEUN RE30URCE,1
r
ALTERNATIVE 3 ►�:::
(___ MMAft1AW-FOR UUSTFUTM"WOSES 0►L/9%1e:e0 v.w r_�w.. ^•.'•_•
LEGEND : . f•
MEDIM OE7"M RESEVOIAL - •�` ,� . -
NON OENSfTT RESOEM►UL .'%• ,�.`�I`+'•', qq.
NEAVT DEW"RESOETIAL. - � •'\.• :`\'�::�� - � b; t 1
RESTORES,SALT MARSH
y�
r.
.S 1I t ,f � - L'.::::::.::.:::�::�.�.�:... !' •.('::::. �..:.- ....::: •ice[::;� •.;('�.``
../........ .. ....
'MAFINA''JIWPoRr
:
.�is
.n l
T��Tt�v 9A�MAAW
:7
. J
C�
:f
r , l -
rf
L.-
a..
.'::.:..:...... ..
..�::. .�......... -
�,:
. ,I.' h;F•. � !•'fir;- ,�-;i-rr•»�:.r:;� i I :: o..ot...._....
ALTERNATIVE 4 I•" _ _ _ r 1
J
BOLA CHICA
3
eo
j •City of Huntington
Beach r \
10
40' �. O .
A
mow,
----- VIMKAn�. ._ vat�i
ALTERNATIVE 5
bolsa chica figure
- N NORTH COAST PLANNING UST
-� 1'-1200' LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM
a
*. ..f
VA, +-� City of Huntington Beach
�• '� - .. ;�.' -ram ��_ `
40 REROUTE .i
,�c PA IFIC COAST
HUNTNGTON "'� °c SLOW LEVEL
HARBOUR F�� `0 v BRIDGE
FLOOD CONTROL `?-�.�,. '. • �--•
CHANNEL
TUNNEL
TURN-,AROUNDav
BOLSA CHICA STATE EACH BOLSA CHICA STATE BEACH
NAVIGABLE —JETf�S
CHANNEL COL*ArTTEE FOR CLEAN WATER,&OCEAN ACCESS
BREAKWATER ALTERNATCVE 6
NAVIGABLE
OCEAN ENTRANCE" t bOISB ChICB figure
►d NORTH COAST PLANING UNIT
l'-1200' LOCAL COASTAL PROG8jP VQ
- a
'IhEGIONAL
`0I N
° PARK.
/. eP 1
13
' s
City of Huntington Beach450
-' / AST HIGH AY
TRALS
HIGH DENSITY.
COMMERCIAL
�G &RESIDENTIAL' RESIDENTIAL
60'CLEAR ` COMMERCIAL B.HOTEL 1 h
BRIDGE '� (r
BRIDGE TO BE WETLANDS ,PRESERVE, LOW °
REMOVED
ACCESS T 1
R
HUNTINGTON,.�,
HARBOR �` Pacific Coa:t H• hwa q ES
TRAL
PENINSULA ��� FISHING PIERS BEACH •`_OCEAN
ACCESS w�-4rrKFR — �` _ _ O ET WATER BEACH
SWIMMING BEACHES OCEAN
ALTERNATIVE = - --_ = - -------- ------ FISHR4G
bolsa chica figure BEACH
�. NORTH COAST PLA��V('UNIT BOAT SLIPS,LAUNCI iT;G JETTIES, -;,
1'-1200' LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM tAA46=05W RELATED DE`!ELOilMENT
W _
a.� .;`.c�� �,, : _mil/ � �• �
-rt•. ;`,�.�'-'�,•�TUB �, y,,:.,. i
to
4 .j` I
j jbc Q �
41
�0 �' EAR
cos PA
'R( p �f
.City of Huntington Beach ncf�srV
j a
1.: l GP Suh"
RESDENTIAL
e ac,
02
o U NATURAL RESOURCE
00 W U Of lEXTRACT)ON/PRODUCTION
RESIDENTIAL
' —Bf1(E TRAM
PROPOSEa MARSH _
RESTORATION(SPATE) �° Qgo
RESTORED SALT MARSH
:I '. ya OFIT�R BOLSA BAY t� ,
_ - -.- '•' . OL PRODUCTION
ALTERNATIVE-8
bolsa chica figure
N NORTH COAST PLANNING LUT
1 -1200' LOCAL COASTAL PROGPAM
e.n.a,..e rnK.u..:.erH,„ern tAl.,♦P, fJw�