Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBolsa Chica Annexation Study 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach,CA 92648 A City of Huntington Beach File #: 22-729 MEETING DATE: 9/6/2022 Bolsa Chica Annexation Study City of Huntington Beach Page 1 of 1 Printed on 8/31/2022 poweredl*LegistarT°" 9/6/2022 •••••••3..'RA B.••�••.• \ •i• \ • lsa Chica • , Anne xation • 1 '• City Council • - • UNT� / September • g D.W 0 RA Background "UM 1 • 1 kit •.�� r Boise Mesa <h LmerBench can ,any i .11' . &Parking la - ......__ m� �f• Mut dl dui - FloodLh 1 n Flap Gates R F #� i j. ��tt n. aura ' F.11Tida1 BasinYYiI•✓... f Paa dny - Foot-*�?r� ++ '' bridge IIIIIIIIIA Planned Existing Park 2 Previous Studies & Actions (q RSG • 2009: RSG prepared Annexation Feasibility Study • 2011 Council directed staff to update the 2009 study • 2014: Council action to: Authorize LAFCO annexation application Negotiate MOU with County & other agencies regarding continued maintenance of Bolsa Chica Negotiate with County regarding Wieder Regional Park • 2015: Council study session on status of annexation Annexation did not proceed due to concerns related to liability, uncertainty regarding continued ��NTINGIp• involvement/funding of other agencies, maintenance 9 costs of Wieder Park O 2cF0pUN1Y C°\F • . 1 ANT I N G TO \CvppRPORgT�o - - Methodology ------------ n FB. 1I, IM� P ° o C� CPS` ANT`( Stakeholder Interviews O RSG • State Lands Commission (SLC) • California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) • OC Parks • California Coastal Commission • OC Public Works • Huntington Beach Agencies �NT R7G;I�p+1- O een UNl. • 1 o a1p1 JJGTO Financial Data ' RSG CQ �OUJT`!GPI • Property Taxes from County Assessor • Franchise Fees and Utility User Fees • Other Taxes 7/1/22 7/1/23 7/1/24 7/1/25 7/1/26 Property // $2,300 $2,300 $2,400 $2,400 Franchise Fees and $140 1 1 .1 1 Utility User Fees Total 1 $2,450 $2,450 $2,560 $2,570 o B` Oil Taxes and Fees = - p� .o • Data available from California Geologic Energy Management Division • 1971 Agreement splits rights between land owners • SLC may become responsible for some oil taxes and fees 7/1/22 7/1/23 7/1/24 7/1/25 7/1/26 Production11 $15,723 $16,051 AnnualFee 11 $3,200 $3,200 $3,200 $3,200 Fire Inspection 9/6/2022 0 RA Findings 'T X, 8 17 Fiscal i • ♦ �i Impact c0b'Tit Negative fiscal impact • foreseeable future Expenditures $463,463 $463,463 $463,463 $463,463 $463,463 MEN Revenues $29,151 $29,584 $29,912 $30,356 $30,706 Net Impact (343,312) (433,879) (433,551) (433,107) (432,757) ORSG 5 • . 1 Liability • Significant liability challenges with Bolsa Chica • Liability under Clean Water Act for Estuary • Maintenance of Bolsa Chica Tidal Inlet Npt`PIIGIO, O CFOOUNIV 6° Wieder Park 0 RSG • OC Parks expects City would have full responsibility • Public Works estimates $262,500 in annual maintenance • $750,000 to replace two playgrounds • May need additional HBPD staff • City could benefit from counting toward park inventory 4t1TINGI0,4. O �dr, OQ OOUNIY a` 9/6/2022 Questions ? 7 ///Iii.�►�. RSG �A� I N G '� 0 •., . Bolsa Annexation Stud = ' 1 City Council Study Session P-1 Or _UNT� ••. 1 ®ro�!WWW � \A� I N G /7-0 • Rx • Background • � 1 s• �• •• • or T� �� >e •' y'a + r �r a r. r�^"�Z#rl���s �$ � �a _1. r F sd�i;rrr _ {(-'�� (mil 3�a; I \ V 4 "All\�I Outer Bolsa Mesa` _ LowerBench airkiing MutedTidal , Flood Channel Flap Gates yg per °t t Bolsa =`-.. gay .t„ , ►t L. Fuffidal Basin r Ott i Parking • � • Lot Foot bnd9e : . 1 r alb � N ��NtlNt ray Reserve Boundary Existing Park Planned Park •, \ 'e� FX.7fnl�"c,r..: FCUUNTY Previous Studies & Actions (q R S G • 2009: RSG prepared Annexation Feasibility Study • 2013- Council directed staff to update the 2009 study • 2014- Council action to- Authorize LAFCO annexation application Negotiate MOU with County & other agencies regarding continued maintenance of Bolsa Chica Negotiate with County regarding Wieder Regional Park • 2015- Council study session on status of annexation Annexation did not proceed due to concerns related to liability, uncertainty regarding continued involvement/funding of other agencies, maintenance costs of Wieder Park �CF�4UNTY cP�`o �NTINGT ©R P O RA TFD Methodology F8. 771 1909 P f)IJNT`I CP Stakeholder Interviews (qP\SG • State Lands Commission (SLC) • California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) • OC Parks • California Coastal Commission • OC Public Works • Huntington Beach Agencies �l RSG /Financial Data ;T ,l Property Taxes from County Assessor Franchise Fees • Utility User Fees Other Property Taxes $2,200 $2,300 $2,300 $2,400 $2,400 Oil Taxes and Fees 0 Data available from California Geologic Energy Franchise Fees and $140 $150 $150 $160 $170 Utility User Fees Total $2,340 $2,450 $2,450 $2,560 $2,570 Management • 0 1971 Agreement splits rights between land owners 0 SLC may become responsible for some oil taxes and fees Production Tax $15,400 $15,723 $16,051 $16,385 $16,725 PSG Annual Fee $3,200 $3,200 $3,200 $3,200 $3,200 Fire Inspection Fee $8,211 $8,211 $8,211 $8,211 $8,211 Total $26,811 $27,124 $27,462 $27,796 $28,136 PSG Findings Fiscal NT Negative fiscal impact for the foreseeable future 7/1/26 Expenditures $200,963 $200,963 $200,963 $200,963 $200,963 PSG Revenues $29,151 $29,584 $29,912 $30,356 $30,706 Net Impact (171,812) (171,379) (171,051) (170,607) (170,257) Liability O RSG • Significant liability challenges with Bolsa Chica • Liability under Clean Water Act for Estuary • Maintenance of Bolsa Chica Tidal Inlet pNII UUyTV G • 0 RSG Weeder Park • OC Parks expects City would have full responsibility • Public Works estimates $262,500 in annual maintenance • $750,000 to replace two playgrounds • May need additional HBPD staff • City could benefit from counting toward park inventory Nnrucro, n 9ycFCOb�GP\oQ __'H� :� J,c_ � I I i � .�.: ,��-- .<_,`, � tip. ,� .�. .� ��� .� r. . . .. �s�, s', r- ,-- .r .,r ....-� Moore, Tania From: Levin, Shannon Sent: Tuesday, September 6, 2022 8:22 AM To: supplementalcomm@surfcity-hb.org Subject: FW: Public Comment on Item 4. Bolsa Chica Annexation Study, 9/6/2022, 6:OOPM Attachments: Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve 1.png From:Zap<channelfrequency@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, September 3, 2022 2:12 PM To: CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: Public Comment on Item 4. Bolsa Chica Annexation Study, 9/6/2022, 6:OOPM '-: ,• � �N To City Council from Ben Pickens, 0 Deb:— Please attach this to Item 4. Bolsa Chica Annexation Study. AgendstNm #*q � ^•�� I appreciate being able to speak about the Bolsa Chica Annexation Study. I'm very familiar with the Ecological Reserve, I hiked and volunteered here and worked for the State Park Beaches and I'm personally more interested in seeing the reserve untainted for other residents to enjoy. I disagree with the city purchasing the Reserve because, respectfully, I question if the city council network is set up to respect it or if the police department is willing to patrol it in hiking shoes. I appreciate the State's incredible water way that was dug out and the lookout hills. If the conservancy wants to sell the reserve I plead for them to sell it to the State Parks Service. I debate that historically the only true issue is that a chain linked fence can't go up in front of the Ecological Reserve because it's too close to the heavily Sun dependent foliage and sensitive water-based flight system and I think the State Park Service is perfectly capable of taking care of this entire area legally and I think the state officers would enjoy doing this and making it work. The final reconnection Phase area is important to everyone and the lakes here are important as freshwater wetlands or lakes for the creatures although some might be able to be reconnected as saltwater wetlands. In the heart of the reserve there are colonies of sea slugs, manta rays, guppies, fish,rare birds including buzzards and hawks, coyotes, goffers, owls, squirrels, skunks,racoons, lizards,rattle snakes,rare insects and plants. In order to appreciate this area you have to actually look at it, it's arguably like a national park. Take note of the City of Irvine completing Wild Rivers 2.0 next to the Irvine Great Park instead of destroying the legacy of the old air base,this is going to make their city very successful. Please match this effort by allowing the Ecological Reserve to be sold to the State Park Service. Respectfully, I guarantee you that a tract of more low-density houses and what have you is not what residents are looking for here and I think will discourage residents. I think it is still very apparent that it is optimal for contractors to learn to build up and not out. Please continue doing the research and staying with the times. We also have an obligation to support the healthiness of the farm systems, military's emergency open space needs and to keep California awesome. Although many different residents elected the city council, I think you will be surprised that what all residents are saying is that it is far from being all about development projects or "city growth" when it comes to the ecological reserve. Whatever other issues or goals are going on in the world I think considering selling the Ecological Reserve to the State Park Service should be an absolute priority. I think building on the ecological reserve further will squander gains made. I have attached a slide for study of an improved Final reconnection Phase of the Ecological Reserve I have designed. I can design it better in complement with the incredible park but the main point is that I think it can be reconnected and that the dirt trail can wrap around the oil facility and work safely with the neighborhood and 1 that some existing parking can be monetized and include the state park annual pass and benefit the city land value no matter what is said. I'd appreciate anyone truly in favor of the ecological reserve's sanctity to come forward and speak about item 4 solely for the sake of what is right. Sincerely, Ben Pickens, HB Resident 2 .� '-i � rr ��,,r ',•'� ""`� _ �i >.,.� ' air vv-, �sa�s-4'�. � y' talc's A �.�t.JF' ..iB "� "+ �.. ad y �,� •R"�w+ilF�R �"� f�1r 7w�L'1..� a•ef r'T . �ciav,uds; t EdwirdQ OL �*JZ �yy CNr ML i its a n fit Jup ft ID t F b •Mi; •M...r d. i "�T,I,T"��,. rv;e. � i Y 4 � � � ' V7 fir• ' �,�-� (]:'� �, //f G 9 L r ` oi w rn r M F t c>e;,as