Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem WNovember 13, 2000 STAFF REPORT To: Mayor and Members of the City Council Attention: Donald F. McIntyre, Acting City Manager From: Lee Whittenberg, Director of Development.Services Subject: APPROVAL OF CITY COMMENT LETTER TO COASTAL COMMISSION RE: BOLSA CHICA LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM (LCP), LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 1-954WLEMENTING ACTIONS PROGRAM SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Authorize Mayor to sign proposed comment letter to the California Coastal Commission regarding the Bolsa Chien Project. BACKGROUND: The City of Seal Beach has received the Coastal Commission staff report regarding the above - referenced project components of the Bolsa Chica project. As reported to the City Council in July, the current Coastal Commission Staff Report recommends the elimination of additional housing units from the lower bench of Bolsa Chica Mesa, although not reducing the total number of housing units (1,235) that can me constructed on the remaining portions of Bolsa Chica Mesa. This position of staff is the result of additional concerns as to the preservation of habitat corridors between various sensitive habitat areas on the Mesa and the Lowlands. Provided for the information and review of the City Council are the fo0owing portions of the Coastal Commission Staff Report: "Executive Sunvnary", pages 1 through 10 "County Proposed Land Use Summary November 2000 (Bolsa Chica Land Use Plan)" 5, page 21 Introduction, Sections C through F, pages 23 through 30 AGENDA ITEM W Figure C:vey Dav U\BOUACHI.2�Cwm Com Le CC2.mcu,Mr I. MG Approval of City Comment Leser to California Coaaml Commission re: Bolsa Chica Project Ory Council Staff Report November 13, 2000 ❑ Section C —Numbering of Land Use Policies and Implementing Regulations ❑ Section D —Trial Court Remand of the Bolsa Chica LCP (June 4, 1997) ❑ Section E — Appellate Court Remand of the Bolas Chica LCP (April 16, 1999) ❑ Section F — Areas of Controversy The entire document is not provided due to length, 334 pages plus 24 exhibits. A copy of the complete document is available at the Department of Development Services for review. In addition, the Coastal Commission Staff Report, minus the 24 exhibits, is available for review and downloading at the California Coastal Commission Home Page, www.coasW.ca.gov/mtgeuiT.htH. The City of Seal Beach has consistently taken a position of fully supporting the restoration of the Bolsa Chica wetlands. Seal Beach has consistently opposed any development on the Bolsa Chica, which includes the Mesa, due to the adverse unpacts to the surrounding communities that cannot be mitigated. The proposed action of further limiting residential development on the lower bench of the Mesa strongly supports the previous position of the City of Seal Beach, which was in strong opposition to residential development on the Bolas Chica Lowlands. Staff has prepared a comment letter for City Council approval that encourages Coastal Commission approval of the appropriate mechanisms to allow those activities to proceed m an orderly and timely manner, ensuring the preservation of the appropriate wildlife corridors between the Mesa and Lowland wetlands areas and other sensitive habitat areas. FISCAL IMPACT No direct impacts. RECOMMENDATION Authorize Mayor to sign proposed comment letter to the Califonua Coastal Cormtilssion regarding the Bolsa Chica Project. Receive and File Staff Report, and Instruct Staff to Forward to Planning Commission and Environmental Quality Control Board for' information. NOTED AND APPROVED w, ittenberg, Director onald F. McIntyre Development Services Department Acting City Manager Bot„ Cn cmnmea �.M Bolsa CWS. Coma rare..M Approval of City Comment Letter to Caafomia Coastal Commission re: Balsa Chico Project Chy Council suffReporr November 13, 2000 Draft City Of Seal Beach Comment Letter To California Coastal Commission Re: Bolsa Chico Local Coastal Program (LCP), Land Use Plan Amendment No. 1-95/Implementing Actions Program Excerpts of Coastal Commission Staff Report re: Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Program (LCP), Land Use Plan Amendment No. 1-95/Implementing Actions Program, November 2, 2000: "Executive Summary", pages 1 through 10 "County Proposed Land Use Summary November 2000 (Bolsa Chica Land Use Plan)", Figure 5, page 21 Introduction, Sections C through F, pages 23 through 30 ❑ Section C — Numbering of Land Use Policies and Implementing Regulations ❑ Section D — Trial Court Remand of the Bolsa Chica LCP (June 4, 199'1) ❑ Section D — Trial Court Remand of the Bolsa Chica LCP (June 4, 1997) ❑ Section E — Appellate Court Remand of the Bolsa Chica LCP (April 16, 1999) ❑ Section F — Areas of Controversy COPY TO PETER M. DOUGLAS AND STEVE RYNASIN COMPLIANCE WITH ` _ EX PARTE COMMUNICATION REQUIREMENTS � l L. E � t .I, i November 13, 2000 Sara Wan, Chairman California Coastal Commission 45 Fremont Street, Suite MW San Francisco, CA 94105-2219 sUs1ECr. OLSA CHICA LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AND USE PLAN AMENDMENT NO. -95/ L(LCP), IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS PROGRAM Dear Ms. Wan: The City of Seal Beach has reviewed the Coastal Commission staff report regarding the above -referenced project components of the Bolsa Chica project The current Coastal Commission Staff Report recommends the elimination of additional housing units from the lower bench of Bolsa Chica Mesa, although not reducing the total number of housing units (1,235) that can be constructed on the remaining portions of Bolsa Chica Mesa. This position of staff is the result of additional concerns as to the preservation of habitat corridors between various sensitive habitat areas on the Mesa and the Lowlands. Seal Beach has consistently opposed any development on the Bolsa Chica, which includes the Mesa, due to the adverse impacts to the surrounding communities that cannot be mitigated. The proposed action of further limiting residential development on the lower bench of the Mesa strongly supports the previous position of the City of Seal Beach, which was in strong opposition to residential development on the Bolsa Chica Lowlands. The proposed cap on the number of housing units that can be constructed upon the Bolsa Chica Mesa would result in a beneficial decrease in future vehicular traffic through the City of Seal Beach from future residents of the Bolsa Chica project, and also significantly duce the resulting noise and air quality impacts upon our community, and is strongly supported by the City of Seal Beach. twos=nay.vn11-13-00 Approval of City Comment Letter to California Coastal Commission re: Bolsa Chico Project City Council Sta,QReport November 13, 2000 ATTACHMENT 2 EXCERPTS OF COASTAL COMMISSION STAFF REPORT RE: BOLSA CHICA LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM (LCP), LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 1-95AMPLEMENTING ACTIONS PROGRAM, NOVEMBER 2,2000: "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY", PAGES 1 THROUGH 10 "COUNTY PROPOSED LAND USE SUMMARY NOVEMBER 2000 (BOLSA CHICA LAND USE PLAN)", FIGURE 5, PAGE 21 INTRODUCTION, SECTIONS C THROUGH F, PAGES 23 THROUGH 30 ❑ SECTION C - NUMBERING OF LAND USE POLICIES AND IMPLEMENTING REGULATIONS ❑ SECTION D - TRIAL COURT REMAND OF THE BOLSA CHICA LCP (JUNE 4,1997) ❑ SECTION D - TRIAL COURT REMAND OF THE BOLSA CHICA LCP (JUNE 4,1997) ❑ SECTION E - APPELLATE COURT REMAND OF THE BOLSA CHICA LCP (APRIL 16,1999) ❑ SECTION F - AREAS OF CONTROVERSY NOTE: THE ENTIRE DOCUMENT IS NOT PROVIDED DUE TO LENGTH, 334 PAGES PLUS 24 EXHIBITS. Bolsa Chica Com nt Utter.CC2 CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION South Coast Arca Office 200 Oceangate, Suite 1000 ong Beach, OA 908024302 :21590-5071 November 2, 2000 TO: Commissioners and Interested Parties FROM: Staff SUBJECT: Assistance in reading the Bolsa Chica staff report %Wt \TM,Ory Due to the complexity of the Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Program (LCP) submittal from the County of Orange, the legal issues which must be addressed due to court decisions, and the controversy involved, the staff report is very lengthy. To assist those readers who may not have the time to read the entire report, the following assistance is provided with the intent of allowing the reader to have an overview of the key issues. 1. The Executive Summary on pages 1.10 describes the major effect of the staff recommendation with regards to the amount and location of development on the Bolsa Chica Mesa which staff believes could be permitted consistent with Coastal Act policies. Issues related to protection of wetland and environmentally sensitive habitat areas IESHAI, provision of a school site, protection of archeological and cultural resources, protection of water quality and minimizing landform alteration are also summarized. 2. The motions for Commission action are found beginning on page 31. The Land Use Plan suggested modifications begin on page 66, and to eliminate the need to work with more than one document, staff has included all the County LUP policies within the staff report. 3. The findings for protection of ESHA and why the lower bench of the Bolsa Chica Mesa should be designated as conservation are found on pages 230-265 of the staff report.. These findings also provide the legal basis for allowing the fill of a small wetland on the upper bench, the loss of southern tarplant located on the upper bench and removal of some eucalyptus trees on the upper bench of the Bolsa Chica Mesa. 4. The reports from the panel of raptor experts are attached as Exhibits 21, 22,and 23. Reading these portions of the staff report and the attachments will assist the reader in achieving a quick understanding of the basis for the staff recommendation. STATE OF CALIFORNIA - THE RESOURCES AGENCY GRAY DAVIS, Gov mor CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION South Coast Area Office 2000ceangate.Sune10W November 2, 2000 Long aesd , CA 908024302 S2) 590-5071 TO: Commissioners and Interested Persons FROM: Deborah Lee, South Coast Deputy Director T H 9 a Teresa Henry, South Coast District Manager Steve Rynas, Orange County Area Supervisor SUBJECT: Bolsa Chico Local Coastal Program (LCP), Land Use Plan Amendment No. 1-95/ Implementing Actions Program. (For Public Hearing and Possible Adoption at Coastal Commission Hearing of November 14-17, 2000) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY SUMMARY The planning effort for Bolsa Chico has had a long controversial history. The Commission started considering the Bolsa Chico LCP in early 1982. The Commission's first approval of the Bolsa Chico Land Use Plan (LUP) occurred in November 1984. On October 23, 1985 a revised land use plan was adopted which would have allowed for intensive development of the area consisting of 75 acres of mixed-use marina/commercial, visitor serving facilities such as a 150 room motel, 500 acres of high density residential development, a navigable tidal inlet, an arterial roadway through the Bolsa Chico Wetlands, and 915 acres of wetland restoration. This controversial proposal was never implemented. In June 1995 the County of Orange submitted an amended proposal of the Bolsa Chico Local Coastal Program (LCP) for Commission certification. As submitted in 1995, the Bolsa Chico LCP would have allowed for homes, associated infrastructure, public recreational facilities, and wetland restoration. Specifically, the County of Orange proposed to designate approximately 190 acres in the lowlands for development, primarily residential development with up to 900 units. The Bolsa Chico Mesa was designated for development with up to 2,400 units which included elimination of Warner Pond. The Commission approved this scaled down version of the Bolsa Chico LCP on January 11, 1996. The Commission's decision became the subject of a lawsuit. The Trial Court determined on June 4, 1997 that the Commission's approval of the Bolsa Chico LCP was deficient in two respects. First, that Section 30233 of the Page: 1 November 2, 2000 Executive Summary Coastal Act does not allow the fill of wetlands for residential purposes. Second that Warner Pond, an approximately 1.7 acre wetland on the Bolsa Chica Mesa, was an environmentally sensitive habitat area (ESHAI and that the Commission failed to explain how such an ESHA could be filled consistent with Section 30240 of the Coastal Act. The Trial Court remanded the Bolsa Chica LCP to the Commission. The Commission reheard the Bolsa Chica LCP on October 9, 1997. At the Commission's October 9, 1997 meeting, significant revisions were made to the plan as originally submitted in June 1995. The Commission found in October 1997 that the fill of wetlands for residential development was not an allowable use and denied the development proposed in the lowland area. Residential development of the Mesa was also scaled back to 1,235 residential units to avoid the widening of Warner Avenue which would have resulted in the fill of Warner Pond. Since lowland residential development was denied, the proposed wetland restoration project was also deleted from the Bolsa Chica LCP since it was to be funded by the developer through the lowland residential development. Furthermore, the wetland restoration program became moot since the majority of the lowland (680 acres) was acquired on February 14, 1997 by the State of California. The State and Federal governments are now developing a wetland restoration program covering 1, 247 acres of the lowland. An EIR/EIS on the wetland restoration program was prepared in July 2000 and released for public review. The Commission's October 9, 1997 decision was appealed. On April 16, 1999, the Appellate Court upheld the trial courts findings, added a new finding and remanded the Bolsa Chica LCP back to the Commission. The new finding of the Appellate Court was that the relocation of the Eucalyptus grove from the Bolsa Chica Mesa to the Huntington Mesa was not allowed under Section 30240 of the Coastal Act. To comply with the Appellate Court's remand, the Commission is once again re -hearing the Bolsa Chica LCP. Since the lowland area has been acquired by the state of California, for purposes of future restoration, the Commission's focus will be the development potential of the Mesa. SUMMARY OF STAFF RECOMMENDATION Commission staff recommends that the Commission adopt the findings of this staff report DENYING the proposed Land Use Plan Amendment and Implementing Actions Program for Bolsa Chica as submitted, and APPROVING the proposed local coastal program for Bolsa Chica as modified. There are motions and resolutions that the Commission will need to adopt beginning on page 31. Page: 2 November 2, 2000 Executive Summary CONDENSED STAFF RECOMMENDATION Residential development on the Mesa limited to the upper bench of the Bolsa Chica Mesa and a total of 1,235 residential units. Figure 1 on page 5 graphically depicts the staff recommendation. Residential development is limited to the upper bench of the Mesa in order to concentrate development in close proximity to existing development and conserve all of the resources on the lower bench of the mesa in a manner that is more protective overall of significant coastal resources than protecting each specific habitat area in conjunction with development of the entire mesa. • Lower Bench of the Bolsa Chica Mesa designated as Conservation except for an area next to Warner Avenue and the Ecological Reserve to be designated as a school site. This preserves Warner Pond, wetland #2, and most of the Eucalyptus grove ESHA in place. • Buffers. A buffer is designated from the portion of the bluff -top overlooking the lowland for one -hundred feet inland from either the Eucalyptus grove ESHA or the inland from the edge Bolsa Chica blufftop, whichever is the greatest distance. The upper bench of the Bolsa Chica will be separated from the lower bench by a fifty foot buffer located on the upper bench. Figure 1 on page 5 graphically depicts the buffers. ♦ Storm water outfalls prohibited from discharging directly into Outer Bolsa Bay or other wetland areas. ♦ Scenic public road paralleling the portion of the upper bench of the Bolsa Chica Mesa overlooking the lowlands will be provided immediately inland of the buffer. ♦ Public access and recreation opportunities to be enhanced through the establishment of a public trail system. The public access trail system is depicted in Figure 1 on page 5 graphically depicts the staff recommendation. Public trails will be allowed within the buffer separating the residential development from conservation areas. The public tail from Warner Avenue to the Department of Fish and Game overlook will be kept open. The availability of the public amenities is to be guaranteed by the requirement that they be dedicated as a condition of subdivision approval and that they be improved concurrent with the construction of the scenic roadway and open to the public prior to the issuance of the first coastal development permit for residential construction. Page: 3 November 2, 2000 Executive Summary ♦ Land form alterations minimized. No grading will be permitted in Conservation areas. Only native plants can be planted in Conservation areas. Archeological and Paleontological resources protected by requiring that a survey be conducted prior to the submission of an application for a coastal development permit to subdivide an area that contains resources to assure that the impacts of proposed development on archeological and paleontological resources can be properly evaluated. Furthermore, the LCP will require that a research design be submitted at the time of permit application for development within areas that contain resources. The LCP will also require that a County certified field observer and Native American monitor be present at all grading activities to verify that archeological and paleontological resources, if uncovered, are not damaged. Fieldstone' property designated "Conservation" (Planning Area 10, as submitted). The location of the former Fieldstone parcel (which is now owned by Hearthside Homes) is shown on (Figure 4) (page2O). This area was deferred certification at the Commission's October 9, 1997 hearing, as the Fieldstone Corporation owned it at the time. The property was subsequently acquired by Hearthside Homes on September 30, 1997, the principal landowner for the Bolsa Chica Mesa. ♦ Prohibit residential development in Planning Area 11 which is part of the lowland now under State ownership. The state lands will be part of a future wetland restoration program governed by the Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal Act. The location of Planning Area 11 is shown on Figure 3 (page 16) and will be designated as Conservation. Edwards Thumb (Planning Area 1 D, approximately 51 acres) Conservation designation maintained. Designated by the County of Orange as Conservation in the original submittal of June 1995. The location of Edward's Thumb (Planning Area 1 D) is shown on Figure 3 (page 16). ♦ Deletion of the Wetland Restoration Program and the Bolsa Chica Development Agreement from the Bolsa Chica LCP. The Fieldstone property was bought by Hearthside Homes on September 30. 1557, Though the property is no longer owned by Fieldstone. this property continues to be referred to by that name se rumerous documents such as the recently released Draft EIRIEIS for the Bolsa Chica Lowlands Resloranon Nolecl. Tles report will follow this convention. even though the property (Planning Area 10) is now owned by Heanhsde Homes. Page: 4 November 2, 2000 Executive Summary The staff recommendations presentedabove are a summary. Detailed changes to the Bolsa Chica LCP, as submitted, are contained in the sections of the staff report titled "Land Use Plan Modifications" and "Implementation Program Modifications". A graphic (Figure t ) depicting the staff recommendation is located below. Figure 1:. Boise Chica Staff Recommendation Page: 5 November 2, 2000 Executive Summary Figure 2: Bolsa Chica Land Use Plan As Modfied To Conform to the Staff Recommendation BOLSA CBICA IAND USE PLAN (Revised First AmendmenLl LI]U i'.YI' 1'1.1\ ANTICIPATED AREAS OF CONTROVERSY AND SUMMARY OF SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS RELATED TO CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES Staff believes that the staff recommendation with suggested modifications results in the Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Program conforming to the provisions of the Coastal Act, and the direction provided by the courts. Nevertheless, based on discussions with the County of Orange, the major landowner, public interest groups, and concerned citizens, staff is aware that controversy remains over a number of issues. Staff anticipates that the following topics will be raised at the Commission meeting. Additional narrative concerning anticipated areas of controversy can be found starting on page 25. Page: 6 November 2. 2000 co== BOLSA CBICA IAND USE PLAN (Revised First AmendmenLl LI]U i'.YI' 1'1.1\ ANTICIPATED AREAS OF CONTROVERSY AND SUMMARY OF SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS RELATED TO CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES Staff believes that the staff recommendation with suggested modifications results in the Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Program conforming to the provisions of the Coastal Act, and the direction provided by the courts. Nevertheless, based on discussions with the County of Orange, the major landowner, public interest groups, and concerned citizens, staff is aware that controversy remains over a number of issues. Staff anticipates that the following topics will be raised at the Commission meeting. Additional narrative concerning anticipated areas of controversy can be found starting on page 25. Page: 6 November 2. 2000 Executive Summary Page: 7 November 2, 2000 To preserve Warner Pond, the Commission imposed a RESIDENTIAL residential cap of 1,235 residential units at its October 9, 1997. Under the 1997 Commission decision, residential development would have occurred on both DENSITY the upper and lower benches of the Mesa. Commission staff is recommending that this residential cap of 1,235 residential units be maintained. However, in this case Commission staff is recommending that residential development be limited to the upper bench of the Bolsa Chica Mesa. Warner Pond will not be filled. The fill of wetlands can only be allowed if it is WETLAND consistent with Section 30233 of the Coastal Act. Consequently, the fill of wetlands to facilitate the construction of residential development is not an PROTECTION allowed activity. Under the 1997 Commission decision, lowland residential development was denied. Since the submittal of the LCP in 1995, new wetland delineations have been conducted. The new wetland delineations have resulted in the elimination of four sites as wetlands and the discovery of a new seasonal wetland by Los Patos Avenue. Staff recommends that residential development be concentrated on the upper bench of the Bolsa Chica Mesa and the lower bench of the Mesa be designated as Conservation. Even though concentration of development on the upper bench in close proximity to existing developed areas and conservation of resources on the lower bench will necessitate the fill of the seasonal wetland by Los Palos, this conflict between concentrating development and filling a wetland is resolved in a manner that is more protective overall of significant coastal resources than protecting each specific habitat area in conjunction with development of the entire mesa. Additionally, staff recommends that Warner Pond not be used as retarding basins for urban runoff resulting from the residential development. Page: 7 November 2, 2000 Executive Summary ESHA Section 30240(b) of the Coastal Act states that PROTECTION development adjacent to ESHAs shall be sited and designed to prevent impacts which would significantly degrade an ESHA. The lower bench of the mesa contains significant ESHA. ESHA areas function cooperatively with non-ESHA areas as an ecological unit. Commission staff recommend that the lower bench of the Bolsa Chica Mesa be designated as Conservation except for a 10 acre school site. Residential development will be concentrated on the upper bench of the Bolsa Chica Mesa to minimize significant adverse impacts to the ESHA on the lower bench as well as the adjacent non-ESHA areas on the lower bench that provide an ecological link to the ESHAs. Section 30240 requires that ESHAs be protected and Mesa that development adjacent to ESHAs shall be designed to prevent impacts which would significantly degrade the ESHA. The site of the Mesa Community Park is Community ecologically important as a wildlife corridor connecting the Warner Pond ESHA to the remaining ecosystem. Park Section 30251 of the Coastal Act requires that landform alteration be minimized. The creation of the Mesa Community Park would result in extensive landform alterations that would significantly disrupt habitat values. To preserve the ecology of this area staff recommends (consistent with the Conservation land use designation) that the area be left as it currently exists. The Ocean View School District owns fifteen (15) acres SCHOOL in the center of the lower bench of the Bolsa Chica Mesa. Commission staff has recommended that the SITE lower bench of the Bolsa Chica Mesa be designated as "Conservation". Designating the School District's property as "Conservation" would leave it with property that could not be developed except for conservation uses. To reconcile the necessity that the Ocean View School District have the ability to construct a school, Commission staff recommends that a ten (10) acre school site next to Warner Avenue and the State Ecological Reserve owned by the Master Developer be designated as "Public Facility' (Figure 1 on page 5). Page: 8 November 2, 2000 Executive Summary Page: 9 November 2, 2000 Section 30251 of the Coastal Act requires that landform Land Form alteration be minimized. Further Section 30253 requires that development be sited in a manner that minimizes risks to life and property. Staff recommends that Alterations grading be allowed in areas designated for residential development. However, in areas designated for Conservation, grading will only be allowed for allowable conservation uses in order to minimize natural landform alteration consistent with Section 30251. Section 30244 of the Coastal Act requires that where Protection Of development would adversely impact archeological or paleontological resources that reasonable mitigation be provided. Staff recommends that the archeological and Archeological paleontological policies of the Bolsa Chica LCP as submitted be modified to require that studies be R2SOUfCeS completed and submitted before an application is made for a coastal development permit for development, including any proposed subdivision, to evaluate the impact of the proposed development on archeological and paleontological resources. Staff also recommends that a research design be submitted at the time of permit application for development within areas that contain resources. In addition, as a condition of approval for all coastal development permit involving grading, the LCP requires that an archeologist/paleontologist and Native American monitor observe grading activities and suspend all development activity if resources are discovered. Sections 30230 and 30231 of the Coastal Act require Water Quality that marine resources and water quality be protected and if feasible, enhanced. To achieve these goals, the water quality policies have been modified to more fully Protection address potential water quality related impacts associated with proposed residential development of the mesa. To achieve these goals, staff also recommends that the proposed storm drain system be prohibited from draining directly into the outer Bolsa Bay, the Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve, Warner Pond or the lowland wetlands restoration area. Discharge of stormwater into other wetlands or ESHAs shall only be allowed if necessary to maintain or enhance the functional capacity Page: 9 November 2, 2000 Executive Summary ADDITIONAL INFORMATION For further information, please contact Stephen Rynas at the South Coast District Office of the Coastal Commission at: 562.590-5071. Copies of the proposed amended Land Use Plan and Implementation Program are available for review at the Long Beach Office of the Coastal Commission or at the Orange County Planning and Development Services Department. The Orange County Planning and Development Services Department is located at 300 North Flower Street, Santa Ana, CA 92702-4048. Ron Tippets is the contact person for the Orange County Planning and Development Services Department, and he may be reached by calling 714.834-5394. Page: 10 November 2, 2000 of the receiving wetland or ESHA. Finally, suggested modifications have been prepared to reflect that nuisance summer flows will be directed into the local sewer system, consistent with the intent of the landowner/master developer. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION For further information, please contact Stephen Rynas at the South Coast District Office of the Coastal Commission at: 562.590-5071. Copies of the proposed amended Land Use Plan and Implementation Program are available for review at the Long Beach Office of the Coastal Commission or at the Orange County Planning and Development Services Department. The Orange County Planning and Development Services Department is located at 300 North Flower Street, Santa Ana, CA 92702-4048. Ron Tippets is the contact person for the Orange County Planning and Development Services Department, and he may be reached by calling 714.834-5394. Page: 10 November 2, 2000 Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION 16 A. SUMMARY OF THE BOLSA CHICA LCP AS SUBMITTED 16 B. Changes IN CIRCUMSTANCES SINCE THE ORIGINAL SUBMITTAL OF the LCP 18 C. Numbering of Land Use Policies and Implementing Regulations 23 D. TRIAL COURT REMAND OF THE BOLSA CHICA LCP 23 E. APPELATE COURT REMAND OF THE BOLSA CHICA LCP 24 F. AREAS OF CONTROVERSY 25 II. COMMISSION RESOLUTIONS FOR ADOPTING FOR DENIAL AS SUBMITTED AND APPROVAL OF THE BOLSA CHICA LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM WITH SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS 31 III. PROCEDURAL PROCESS 34 IV. BACKGROUND 35 A- AREA DESCRIPTION 35 B.. LOCAL HISTORY 41 C.. HISTORY OF LAND USE PLANNING 42 D. DESCRIPTION OF THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT AS SUBMITTED IN JUNE 1995 48 V. SUMMARY OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 54 VI. LAND USE PLAN SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS 56 A. LAND USE PLAN SUMMARY 56 B. RESOURCE RESTORATION AND CONSERVATION COMPONENTS 57 C. PUBLIC ACCESSNISITOR SERVING RECREATION COMPONENT 78 D, REGIONAL CIRCULATION AND TRANSPORTATION COMPONENT 84 E. DEVELOPMENT COMPONENT 88 Page: 11 November 2, 2000 Introduction Figure 5: County Proposed Land Use Summary November 2000 Bolsa Chica Land Use Plan LAND USE CATEGORY PLANNING AREA GROSS ACRES CONSERVATION: CONS Existing State Ecological Reserve IA, IC 307 CONS Future State Wetlands Restoration Area IB 891 CONS Wetlands Ecosystem Area (Edwards Thumb) ID 51 CONS Wamer Avenue Pond ESHA (Bolsa Chica Mesa) 3E 2 CONS Eucalyptus Grove ESHA (Bolsa Chica Mesa) 3F 14 Total Conservation 1,265 Acres OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION: OS/PR Harriett Wieder Regional Park 2A, 2B 57 OS/PR Mesa Community Park (not counting ESHAs) 3A, 3B 38 OS/PR City's Bolsa Chica Beach Entry 3C 4 OS/AR Mesa Community Park 3D 7 Total Open Space and Recreation 106 Acres PUBLIC FACILITY: PF Water Storage Reservoir 4B 0 Total Public Facilities 0 Acres"' RESIDENTIAL BOLSA CHICA MESA: ML Medium Low (6.5 - 12.5 DU/Ac.)"' 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 Total Residential"' 173 Acres"' PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY 3 Acres GRAND TOTAL ALL 1,547 Acres Caegones of resWernral demlry are Meed upon Gross acres. arteLOing mads, common recrutean facilities. slopes, and hrticape arta. Publw schools arc a pert d use wiWin Res,dential Planning Area. The nuamum mal number of d.clbng urns for fine Bda Cha. LCP Ural U. Plan dull he 1.235. The s cular symbol for Ne Water Storage Reservoir coaepmally WemiGes and locales Na public facility as an mcriny wnthat uc wWcrlynng MNmm Lo. Dcnmy Rcudennal Plamimg Arta. Page: 21 November 2, 2000 C. NUMBERING OF LAND USE POLICIES AND IMPLEMENTING REGULATIONS The suggested modifications of this staff report use the County's June 1995 submittal that is dated December 14, 1994 as the base document. Intermediary changes consisting of the Commissions actions of January 11, 1996 and October 9, 1997 are not shown. This report includes all of the County's Land Use Policies starting on page 35 With respect to the land use plan portion of this report, in prior reports the Commission utilized a sequential numbering system to identify the various suggested modifications to the land use plan policies. With this report, the numbering of the land use policies will be based on the County's Land Use Plan (First Amendment) dated December 14, 1994. Land Use Plan policies are "built" by taking the Section Number in which the policy is located and adding the policy number. For example Section 3.1.2 (Page 58) is titled "Wetland/Biological Resource Policies". The first policy in this section is "Zoning Policy". Consequently the number of this policy is 3.1.2.1. Policies (as submitted) are shown in parenthesis at the end of each suggested modification. New policies are identified by the word "NEW" in parenthesis at the end of each applicable policy. The reason for the change in identifying the land use policies is that this report incorporates all the land use plan policies (even those land use policies not changed through suggested modifications). When the County republishes the Bolsa Chica LCP some of land use plan policy numbers will change to reflect the deletion and addition of land use plan policies proposed through the suggested modifications. With respect to the implementation program of this report, the numbering system for the regulations are again based on the December 14, 1994 version of the County's Planned Community Program. As with the land use plan amendment, when the County republishes the Planned Community Program some of the regulation numbers will change as a consequence of the Commission's insertion and/or deletion of regulations through suggested modifications. D. TRIAL COURT REMAND OF THE BOLSA CHICA LCP (JUNE 4, 1997) The Commission's decision on January 11, 1996, to approve with suggested modifications the County of Orange Bolsa Chica Land Use Plan Amendment No. 1-95/Implementing Actions. Program was legally challenged. There were two critical deficiencies in the Court's view. The Court found that the evidence in the Page: 23 November 2, 2000 Introduction record did not support the Commission's conclusion that the proposed residential land use designation in the lowland was a permissible use pursuant to Sections 30233 and 30411 of the Coastal Act. It also found that Warner Pond, an approximately 1.7 acre wetland on the Bolsa Chica Mesa, was an environmentally sensitive habitat area (ESHA) and that the Commission failed to explain how such ESHA could be filled consistent with Section 30240 of the Coastal Act. The Court consequently remanded the Bolsa Chica LCP back to the Commission in order for these two issues to be reevaluated. Upon advice of the Deputy Attorney General, the Commission limited the public hearing to the residential designation in the lowland and the fill of Warner Pond. The Trial Court's decision is attached as Exhibit 1. E. APPELATE COURT REMAND OF THE BOLSA CHICA LCP (APRIL 16, 1999) The Commission at its October 9, 1997 meeting, approved the Bolsa Chica LCP with suggested modifications in response to the trial court's decision. At this meeting, the Commission eliminated approval of the residential development in the lowlands and the filling of Warner Pond. However, the Commission again approved the relocation of the Eucalyptus Grove ESHA from the Bolsa Chica Mesa to the Huntington Mesa. This ESHA relocation was first approved by the Commission when it acted on the Bolsa Chica LCP on October 23, 1985. The Commission's October 9, 1997 decision on remand was again challenged and the. trial court held the Commission erred in limiting the public hearing to the residential development designation in the lowland and the fill of Warner Pond. The trial court's decisions were appealed. On April 16, 1999, the appellate court issued a published decision upholding the trial court's decision to grant the petition for writ of mandate. The appellate court agreed with the trial court that the filling of the lowlands for residential uses was not an allowable use under Section 30233 of the Coastal Act. The appellate court also agreed with the trial court that Commission's findings failed to adequately explain the filling of Warner Pond, although the appellate court's rationale was different from the trial court's reasoning. The appellate court agreed with the Commission that in limited circumstances, the filling of Warner Pond to widen Warner Avenue could be an allowable use under Section 302331a)(5) lincidental public services); however, the court held that roadway expansions are permitted under that provision only when no other alternative exists and the expansion is necessary to maintain existing traffic capacity. Since the Commission had found the expansion was necessary to accommodate future traffic created by local and regional development in the area, the LCP was defective Insofar as it >pproved the filling of Warner Pond. Finally, the appellate court found that the trial court erred Page: 24 November 2, 2000 Introduction in allowing the relocation of the Eucalyptus Grove ESHA. The appellate court held that the Coastal Act did not permit the destruction of an ESHA simply because the destruction was to be mitigated offsite. The appellate court found there must be some showing that the destruction of the ESHA is needed to serve some other interest recognized by the Coastal Act. Absent a Coastal Act policy or interest directly conflicting with the application of Section 30240 to the ESHA, the ESHA must be protected. In sum, the appellate court held the Commission's prior approval of the Bolsa Chica LCP was inconsistent with the Coastal Act in three ways: • Residential development is not an allowable use in wetlands; • Expansion of a roadway into a wetland can only be permitted if necessary to maintain existing traffic capacity and where there are no feasible alternatives; and • ESHA must be protected regardless of its quality unless destruction of the ESHA is necessary to serve a Coastal Act policy which directly conflicts with Section 30240 of the Coastal Act. This matter has been remanded to the Commission for further proceedings consistent with the appellate court's decision. The Appellate Court's decision is attached as Exhibit 2. F. AREAS OF CONTROVERSY Staff believes that the staff recommendation with suggested modifications results in the Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Program conforming to the provisions of the Coastal Act, and the direction provided by the courts. Nevertheless, based on discussions with the County of Orange, the major landowner, public interest groups, and concerned citizens, staff is aware that controversy remains over a number of issues. Staff anticipates that the following topics will be raised at the Commission meeting. A summary of the staff recommendation begins on page 6. RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT: To preserve Warner Pond, the Commission imposed a residential cap of 1,235 residential units at its October 9, 1997. Under the 1997 decision residential development would occur on both the upper and lower benches of the Mesa. Commission staff is recommending that this residential cap of 1,235 residential units be maintained. However, staff now recommends that residential development be limited to the upper bench of the Bolsa Chica Mesa. Commission staff is recommending that residential Page: 25 November 2, 2000 Introduction development be concentrated on the upper bench of the mesa in close proximity to existing developed areas and that all of the resources on the lower bench be conserved in a manner that is more protective overall of significant coastal resources than protecting each specific habitat area in conjunction with development of the entire mesa. Though the lower bench is a non-native grassland, it provides significant foraging area for the raptor's that reside in the Eucalyptus ESHA. Furthermore, the lower bench is ecologically important as a wildlife corridor connecting Warner Pond to the remaining ecosystem and contains one of the few remaining significant populations of the southern tarplant. WETLAND PROTECTION: The Bolsa Chica Mesa contains several small wetlands. One wetland was recently discovered and four wetlands have been deleted as a result of a recent wetland delineation study. Commission staff concurs that the recently discovered wetland is a seasonal wetland. Hearthside Homes, the project proponent contends that this wetland is an artificial wetland of anthropogenic activity (Exhibit 11). Others contend that this wetland area is a "vernal" pool and should be protected. Commission staff recommends that the Commission concentrate development on the upper bench of the Bolsa Chica Mesa to protect the lower bench as a natural area. The concentration of development on the upper bench will necessitate impacts to resources on the upper bench. Although this concentration of development will necessitate the fill of the seasonal wetlands by Los Patois concentrating development on the upper bench and conserving the resources on the lower bench resolves the conflict between development and resource protection in a manner that is more protective overall of significant coastal resources located on the Mesa than protecting each specific habitat area in conjunction with development of the entire mesa. Furthermore, this seasonal wetland has little habitat value. When the Commission acted on the Bolsa Chica LCP in January 1996 the Commission found that five pocket wetlands existed on the Mesa. The Commission allowed the proposed residential development to fill these wetlands with off-site mitigation at the ratio of 4:1 based on the fact that these wetlands would be too close to the proposed urban development. The project proponent, Hearthside Homes recently submitted a new wetland delineation by Glenn Lukos Associates' which was received by Commission staff in October 1999. This study concluded that three of the wetland areas no longer qualify as wetlands. Commission staff concurs with this assessment (Exhibit 12). Consequently, development will be allowed to occur on the former wetland sites. Though Commission staff concurs with this assessment by Glenn Lukos Associates others may argue the point. e 'Dehneation of Docket wetlands on she Boise Chico Mesa at Huntington Beach. Otange County Cabfemia', Glenn Lukos Associates. Septembe, 30. 1999, Page: 26 November 2, 2000 Introduction Commission staff is also recommending that no storm water outfalls be allowed to discharge directly into Outer Bolsa Bay, the Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve, Warner Pond or the lowlands restoration area. Allowing freshwater to rapidly discharge into these waters, even if it is unpolluted, would have an adverse impact on the ecology of Outer Bolsa Bay, which is a marine environment. Fresh water will act as a toxin to plant and animal life dependent on sea water. This staff recommendation will preserve Outer Bolsa Bay as a marine ecosystem. ESHA PROTECTION: ESHA areas function in cooperation with non-ESHA areas as an ecosystem. Further, as discussed above, the Coastal Act also requires that new development be located contiguous with or in close proximity to existing developed areas. The mesa contains significant ESHA areas such as the Eucalyptus grove, coastal sage scrub community, wetlands, and the Southern Tarplant. These ESHAs are concentrated on the lower bench of the mesa. Staff recommends that the majority of the lower bench of the Bolsa Chica Mesa be desiqnated as Conservation so that the ESHA and non-ESHA areas function as a cohesive ecosystem and that residential development be concentrated on the upper bench so that new development is sited in close proximity to existing development. The fifteen acre Ocean View school site will be relocated next to Warner Avenue (Figure 1 on page: 5). Hearthside Homes disagrees with this recommendation and maintains that a 100 foot buffer from ESHA areas would be adequate for maintaining the viability of ESHA areas. The areal extent of the Eucalyptus grove has been disputed. Eucalyptus trees are non-native trees and are not normally considered as ESHA qualifying vegetation. The Eucalyptus grove was found by the Commission to qualify as an ESHA based on reports prepared by the Department on Fish and Game (June 19829 and April 198510). In the June 1982 report the Department of Fish and Game determined that the eucalyptus grove (20.5 acres in 1982) qualified as an ESHA based on its value as a raptor roosting area. This conclusion that the eucalyptus grove qualified as an ESHA was reiterated in 1985. The findings of the Department of Fish and Game concerning the extent of the eucalyptus grove was based on data obtained in 1982 or earlier. As plants grow and die over time, the areal extent occupied by plants can change. At the time the County of Orange submitted the Bolsa Chica LCP (June 1995) the County incorporated a habitat map by Williamson & Schmid (Figure 3.1-1 in the submitted LUP). The graphic data of the Williamson & Schmid map was incorporated into Table 2-1 of the Wetlands Restoration Program which identified the eucalyptus ' Envncnmentany Sensitive Areas at Bolsa Ch... Department of Fish and Game, June 3. 1982. 10 Department of Fish i no Gzme Findings and Recommendations for the Maintenance. Restoration, and Enhancement °I Wetlands and Non wetland Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area at Balsa Chma. Orange County. Department of Fish and Game. April B. 1985. Page: 27 November 2, 2000 Introduction grove as occupying 6.5 acres. The County, however, submitted updated information which identified that the Eucalyptus grove now occupies approximately 13 acres. Though the Williamson & Schmid map identifies areas where the Eucalyptus trees are the predominate vegetative type, isolated trees and small clumps exist throughout the area. These smaller Eucalyptus clumps were not shown on the Williamson & Schmid map. To document that the eucalyptus grove is actually larger, the Bolsa Chica Land Trust has submitted a "Raptor Habitat Assessment of the Bolsa Chice Mesa" (dated December 5, 1999) by Tierra Madre Consultants. Tierra Madre Consultants concluded that the eucalyptus grove ESHA currently extends beyond the 1982 Fish and Game delineation of 20.5 acres to approximately 24 acres. According to the Tierra Madre report the Department of Fish and Game's delineation "... included only a portion of the existing Eucalyptus grove; it did not include areas to the north and east along the bluff, at the toe of the slope, and along the Bolsa Chica Street extension. These areas may be particularly important to nesting White-tailed Kites and red -shouldered Hawks." The areal extent of the eucalyptus grove is consequently influenced by the methodology of the parties conducting the studies. Though the areal extent of the eucalyptus grove is subject to differences of professional opinion, Commission staff has recommended that residential development be concentrated on the upper bench of the Bolsa Chica Mesa. Staff believes that concentrating development on the upper bench of the mesa, in close proximity to existing developed areas and conserving all of the resources on the lower bench of the mesa, is more protective, overall, of significant coastal resources than protecting each specific habitat area in conjunction with development of the entire mesa. The effect of this recommendation is that eucalyptus trees which are inland of the proposed buffer will be eliminated, irrespective of whether or not they should be included as part of the ESHA. As previously noted, the Williamson & Schmid map did not identify eucalyptus trees as the predominate form of vegetation. According to the Williamson & Schmid map much of the area around the Bolsa Street extension has been designated as ruderal. Further, Tierra Madre Consultants report also notes that "For raptors, the structure of the habitat is more important than plant species composition". The staff recommendation to concentrate residential development on the upper bench of the Bolsa Chica Mesa will also affect a small population of Southern Tarplant. The Southern Tarplant is considered a Federal "Species of Concern" and a California Native Plan Society "7B" species that is a rare, threatened, or endangered plant either in California or elsewhere (Figure ton Page 258The concentration of development on the upper bench of the mesa will necessitate impacts to tarplant resources on the upper bench. Although this concentration of Page: 28 November 2, 2000 Introduction development on the upper bench of the mesa will result in the loss of Tarplants staff believes that concentrating development on the upper bench of the mesa, in close proximity to existing developed areas and conserving all of the resources on the lower bench of the mesa, is more protective, overall, of significant coastal resources than protecting each specific habitat area in conjunction with development of the entire mesa. MESA COMMUNITY PARK: The Mesa Community Park is a proposed 49 acre park that incorporates Warner Pond and its surrounding open space buffer, and provides additional buffer area for the Eucalyptus grove. As proposed by the County of Orange this park would allow both active and passive forms of recreation. As an active park playgrounds and playfields would be allowed. Construction of these facilities would require that the area be graded to provide a level area for these activities. As discussed above, Commission staff is recommending thatresidential development be concentrated on the upper bench of the Bolsa Chica Mesa. The lower bench will be designated as Conservation to protect the lower bench as a natural ecosystem. To preserve the natural landform, grading to construct park improvements would not be allowed. The effect of designating the lower bench as Conservation is that Mesa Community Park can not be developed as an active park. The area to be occupied by the park needs to be preserved as open space for two reasons. First, this type of topographic feature formed by the hillside connecting the lower and upper benches is often used by wildlife as a movement corridor. Second, many animals may be using this area for Benning and nesting (Exhibit 12). To assure that the park can be used as habitat Commission staff is recommending that: only native vegetation will be allowed, landform alteration will not be allowed and that the corridor shall extend at least 50 feet beyond any hilltops (upper bench) onto the upper bench. Hearthside Homes is not in agreement with this staff recommendation. LAND FORM ALTERATION: The Bolsa Chica LCP as submitted by the County of Orange contains policies and regulations that would allow grading in Conservation areas in support of development occurring outside of the Conservation area. To minimize land form alterations, Commission staff is recommending that in areas designated Conservation, activities resulting in land form alteration, such as grading, only be allowed for uses permitted within the Conservation designation. ARCHAEOLOGY: The Bolsa Chica Mesa contains archeological resources. The best method for preserving and treating of these archeological resources has been the subject of extensive debate. Some members of the public argue that proposed development not be allowed in areas which contain archeological resources. The Page: 29 November 2, 2000 project proponent for residential development contends that these resources are adequately being mitigated through research and recovery. To resolve this conundrum, Commission staff recommends that an archeological research design for Bolsa Chica be completed and submitted along with any coastal development permit application for land use development within any planning area that contains archaeological or paleontological resources. This will allow the proposed development and the archeological resources to be evaluated concurrently. Through this staff recommendation the best method of preserving and treating archeological resources is assured. WATER QUALITY: The development authorized under this local coastal program would allow the construction of up to 1,235 residential units and associated infrastructure, such as roads, to serve this development. This development will result in land form alteration and new impervious surfaces which will result in significant changes to the drainage system, the rate of discharge, and the quality of water flowing off the Bolsa Chica Mesa into coastal waters. To minimize impacts to water quality, Commission staff recommends that best management practices be used to treat the water, that summer nuisance flows be directed into the sanitary sewer system and that the storm water outfalls not discharge directly into Outer Bolsa Bay, the Ecological Reserve, Warner Pond or the lowland wetlands restoration area. Page: 30 November 2, 2000