HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council - 2008-31 RESOLUTION NO 2008-31
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH,
CALIFORNIA, WHICH ACKNOWLEDGES RECEIPT OF THE COASTAL COMMISSION
ACTION AND ACCEPTS AND AGREES TO LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM
AMENDMENT NO 1-06 AS MODIFIED
WHEREAS, the California Coastal Commission reviewed and approved Huntington
Beach Local Coastal Program Amendment No 1-06 as modified at the May 7, 2008 Coastal
Commission hearing, and
Section 13537 of the Coastal Commission Regulations requires the local government to
accept and agree to the modifications by resolution within six (6) months, or certification will
expire, and
Upon the City Council action staff will forward Resolution No 2008-31 for
final Coastal Commission certification,
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby
resolve as follows
SECTION 1 The City Council accepts and agrees to the Coastal Commission's
approval of Local Coastal Program Amendment 1-06 and the Coastal Element of the certified
Local Coastal Program as suggested by the Coastal Commission in the letter dated May 20, 2008
attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated by this reference as though fully set forth
herein Said suggested modifications shall become effective 30 days after adoption of Resolution
No 2008-31 or upon final Coastal Commission certification, whichever occurs latest
08 1640/22937 1
Resolution No 2008-31
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a
regular meeting thereof held on the 16th day of June , 2008
Ama. /�� ',
Mayor
REVIEWED , D A ROVED INITIATE AND APPROVED
City Administrator Plannm Direc or
APPROVED AS TO FORM
rty Attorney
U�
2
07 1095/12094
Exhibit A - Resolution No 2008-31
Exhibit A - Resolution No 2008 31
STATE nF CAI IFORNIA THE RFSnt 1RCFS AGENCY C;RAY DAVIS CnVAmnr
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
South Coast Area Office
200 Oceangate Suite 1000
Long Beach CA 90802-4302
(562)590 5071 May 20 2008
city of Huntington Beach
Scott Hess
Planning Director MAY 2 3 2008
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach CA 92648
Re Huntington Beach LCP Major Amendment No 1-06 (Parkside)
Dear Mr Hess
You are hereby notified that the California Coastal Commission at its May 7 2008 meeting in
Marina del Rey adopted revised findings reflecting the Commissions action of November 14 2007
approving City of Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program Amendment No 1 06 with modifications
Local Coastal Program (LCP)Amendment No 1-06 is reflected in City Council Resolution No 2002-
123 The approved amendment as modified provides land use designations and Land Use Plan
text for the area known as Parkside an area that was deferred certification at the time the City s
LCP was certified Please note the Implementation Plan portion of LCPA 1-06 was withdrawn by
the City and thus the subject area remains an area of deferred certification
The Commission approved the LCP amendment subject to the attached suggested modifications
Therefore LCP Land Use Plan Amendment No 1-06 will not become effective until 1) the
Huntington Beach City Council adopts the Commissions suggested modifications 2) the City
Council forwards the adopted suggested modifications to the Commission by resolution and 3) the
Executive Director certifies that the City has complied with the Commissions November 14 2007
action as reflected in the findings adopted on May 7 2008 On April 10 2008 the Coastal
Commission extended the City Councils six month time limit to accept the suggested modifications
Therefore the Coastal Act requirement that the City s adoption of the suggested modifications be
completed within six months has effectively been extended until May 14 2009 Thus the City
Council must act to accept the Commission s suggested modifications by May 14 2009
Thank you for your cooperation and we look forward to working with you and your staff in the
future Please call Meg Vaughn or myself at (562) 590-5071 if you have any questions regarding
the modifications required for effective certification of City of Huntington Beach LCP Land Use Plan
Amendment No 1-06
Sincerely
Teresa Henry
District Manager
cc Mary Beth Broeren Principal Planner
HNB LCPA 1 06 parkslde psthrg Itr AdptdF 5 20 08 my
Exhibit A - Resolution No 2008 31
STATE OF CALIFORNIA THE RESOURCES AGENCY ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER Governor
t CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
South Coast Area Office
200 Oceangate Suite 1000
Long Beach CA 908024302
(562)590�071
May 20 2008
TO Commissioners and Interested Persons
FROM Sherilyn Sarb Deputy Director South Coast District Orange County
Teresa Henry Manager South Coast District
Karl Schwing Supervisor Regulation & Planning Orange County Area
Meg Vaughn Coastal Program Analyst
SUBJECT ADOPTED FINDINGS for Major Amendment Request No 1-06 (Shea
Homes/Parkside) to the City of Huntington Beach Certified Local Coastal Program Land
Use Plan (Pursuant to Commission action at the Public Hearing on the May 7 2008
meeting in Manna del Rey reflecting the Commission s action at the November 14 2007
hearing)
SUMMARY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH LCP AMENDMENT REQUEST NO 1-06
Request by the City of Huntington Beach to amend the Land Use Plan (LUP) portion of the
Local Coastal Program (LCP) The proposed Local Coastal Program (LCP) amendment is
a project-specific amendment designed to make possible a low density residential
development on a vacant approximately 50-acre site comprising two legal lots most of
which is currently in agricultural production Of the total project area approximately 45
acres have long been located within the City of Huntington Beach The remaining 5 acres
were until 2004 located within unincorporated County of Orange jurisdiction within the
Bolsa Chica LCP area However with the recent annexation the entire site is within the
City of Huntington Beach Of the 45 acre portion of the site approximately 40 acres were
deferred certification at the time the City s overall Local Coastal Program was certified and
remains uncertified today This LCP amendment would incorporate that 40 acres and the
newly annexed area into the City s existing LCP and establish land use and zoning
designations for those areas The remaining five acre portion of the 45 acre area was
certified at the time the City s overall LCP was certified as Open Space — Park (OS-P)
The 40 acre area was originally deferred certification due in part to wetland issues
The City s current amendment requests designation of approximately 38 5 acres as RL-7
(Low Density Residential — maximum 7 units per acre) approximately 8 2 acres as OS-P
(Open Space — Park) and approximately 3 3 acres as OS—C (Open Space—
Conservation)
SUMMARY OF COMMISSION ACTION
At the Commission hearing of November 14 2007 the Commission reviewed the City of
Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program Amendment 1-06 The Commission approved
with revised suggested modifications the City s request to amend the LCP Land Use
Plan as requested At the Commission hearing of May 7 2008 the Commission adopted
Revised Findings with changes to the original staff recommended revised findings The
final version of the suggested modifications and findings adopted by the Commission at
x Exhibit A - Resolution No 2008 31
Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications)
Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside)
Page 2
the May 7 2008 hearing which reflect the Commission s November 14 2007 action on the
LCPA are contained in these adopted findings
At the November 14 2007 hearing public testimony and Commission discussion included
concerns regarding the extent of wetland on site the appropriate distance for ESHA buffer
areas and appropriate uses allowed within ESHA buffer areas The Commission found
that the area referred to as the Wintersburg Pond (WP) was not wet enough to develop a
preponderance of wetland vegetation or wetland soils that the area known as the EPA
wetland was wet enough,-to support a preponderance of wetland vegetation or soils in
1996 and that any changes in local hydrology that may have taken place since that time
were unpermitted a variable width buffer distance would be adequate to protect the
eucalyptus grove ESHA and that areas referred to as intermingled areas found between
the areas identified as wetland ESHA and buffer areas should not be designated Open
Space - Conservation
The changes made by the Commission at the hearing are manifested in the staff report
primarily though changes to Exhibit NN (now 0' revised) in that the areas of the site to be
designated Open Space— Conservation and the areas to be designated as the
development envelope (which allows either active park or residential development) have
changed In addition the changes made by the Commission at the hearing result in
changes to the suggested modification regarding the width of the ESHA buffer area and
uses allowed within that buffer area Also there are changes to the wetland findings
supporting the Commission's determination that the WP area is not a wetland and to
eliminate the discussion on the intermingled areas Finally changes are made in the
ESHA findings to support the variable width ESHA buffer rather than the 100 meter ESHA
buffer and to allow a portion of a water quality Natural Treatment System as an allowable
use within a portion of the outer ESHA buffer subject to restrictions
COMMISSION VOTE The Commissioners voting on the prevailing side were Burke,
Clark, Hueso, Secord, Neely, Potter, Reilly, and Chair Kruer
STANDARD OF REVIEW
For the proposed Land Use Plan amendment, the standard of review is conformance with
and satisfaction of the requirements of the Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal Act
SUMMARY OF PAST ACTIONS ON THIS LCPA
At the May 2007 hearing in San Pedro after presentations by staff the applicant and
public testimony the Commission voted to deny the subject Land Use Plan amendment
as submitted A motion (i a the main motion) was made to approve the Land Use Plan
amendment with modifications but upon deliberation the hearing was continued The
LCPA was subsequently scheduled for Commission action at its July 9-13 2007 hearing
Exhibit A - Resolution No 2008 31
Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications)
Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside)
Page 3
The LCP amendment originally proposed changes to both the Land Use Plan (LUP) and
the Implementation Plan (IP) On July 3 2007 the City withdrew the IP portion of the
LCPA The Commission recognized the withdrawal of the 1P amendment at its July 11
2007 hearing Also at its July 11 2007 hearing the Commission postponed action on
suggested modifications for the LUP portion of the LCPA At the November 14 2007
hearing the Commission approved the proposed LUP amendment with suggested
modifications as revised at that hearing At the May 7 2008 hearing the Commission
adopted the revised findings with changes Those changes are reflected herein
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Section 30503 of the Coastal Act requires public input in Local Coastal Program
development During the preparation approval certification, and amendment of any local
coastal program the public as well as all affected governmental agencies including
special districts shall be provided maximum opportunities to participate Prior to
submission of a local coastal program for approval local governments shall hold a public
hearing or hearings on that portion of the program which has not been subjected to public
hearings within four years of such submission Prior to submittal of the LCPA to the
Commission the City held numerous public hearings on the proposed LCP amendment as
shown on exhibit D
All City staff reports were made available for public review in the Planning Department and
in the Huntington Beach Public Library Public hearing notices were mailed to property
owners of record for the parcels that are the subject of the amendment as well as parcels
within a 1 000 foot radius (including occupants) and notice of the public hearing was
published in the Huntington Beach Independent a local newspaper of general circulation
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Copies of the staff report are available online on the Coastal Commission s website at
www coastal ca gov or at the South Coast District office located in the ARCO Center
Towers 200 Oceangate Suite 1000 Long Beach 90802 To obtain copies of the staff
report by mail or for additional information contact Meg Vaughn in the Long Beach office
at (562) 590-5071 The City of Huntington Beach contact for this LCP amendment is Scott
Hess Director of Planning who can be reached at (714) 536-5271
Exhibit A - Resolution No 2008 31
Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications)
Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside)
Page 4
1 RESOLUTION
RESOLUTION TO CERTIFY WITH SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS
The Commission hereby certifies the Land Use Plan Amendment No 1-06 for the City of
Huntington Beach if modified as suggested and adopts the findings set forth below on the
grounds that the Land Use Plan amendment with suggested modifications will meet the
requirements of and be in conformity with the policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act
Certification of the land use plan amendment if modified as suggested complies with the
California Environmental Quality Act because either 1) feasible mitigation measures and/or
alternatives have been incorporated to substantially lessen any significant adverse effects
of the plan on the environment or 2) there are no further feasible alternatives or mitigation
measures that would substantially lessen any significant adverse impacts which the Land
Use Plan Amendment may have on the environment
11 SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS
Certification of City of Huntington Beach LCP Amendment Request No 1-06 is subject to
the following modifications
The City s existing language is shown in plain text
The City s proposed additions are shown in bold text
The City s proposed deletions are shown in plain te)d strike ou
The Commission staff s original (November 2007) suggested additions are shown in bold,
italic, underlined text
Theme Commis,/scion staffs original (November 2007) suggested deletions are show in bell
Ttakc,un Ferhnec tr ke out 4e€
Additions to the November 2007 staff recommendation made by the Commission at the
public hearing are shown in bold, italic, double underlined text
Deletions to the November 2007 staff recommendation made by the Commission at the
public hearing are shown in
Staff Note Three corrections are made where due to typos existing certified LUP
language was left out The corrections are 1) replacing the word residential in
suggested modification No 1 2) replacing the sub-section Public in the table in
suggested modification No 2 and 3) inserting the hyphen in the land use category titles
Exhibit A - Resolution No 2008 31
Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications)
Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside)
Page 5
Open Space — Conservation and Open Space — Parks throughout
LAND USE PLAN SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS
SUGGESTED MODIFICATION NO 1
Sub-Area Descriptions and Land Use Plan
The City s certified and proposed Land Use Plan (LUP) language on page IV-C-11 under
the heading Zone 2 — Bolsa Chica shall be modified as follows
Existing Land Uses
Inland (Pacific Coast Highway and areas north to the Coastal Zone boundary )
The majority of Zone 2, the Bolsa Chica is located outside the City s corporate boundary
within the County of Orange The area is in the City s Sphere of Influence A - 50
acre area between Lis,®atos the residential development along Kenilworth ®rive and
the East Garden Grove Wintersburg Flood Control Channel is vacant and includes a
small section of the Bolsa Chica bluffs
Coastal (Seaward of Pacific Coast Highway)
Coastal Element Land Use Plan
Inland (Pacific Coast Highway and areas north to the Coastal Zone boundary )
The Coastal Element does not present a land use plan for the Bolsa Chica The land area
north of the Bolsa Chica within the City s corporate and Coastal Zone boundaries is built
out consistent with its Coastal Element designation of low density resLdenttal The area
west of the Bolsa Chica is also developed consistent with the Coastal Element Land Use
designation of low density residential and multi-family residential
next to the Wntersbur-g Flood Contrel Channel retaIRS its existing designation as aR "Area
LOGal Geastal Pinegram will-. required, subjeGt te Coastal Commission approval the
/71!1 �.�a d.7 ow ensitV e Wen$ia/1 -nil OS-P (Open CPaGe- U-+r41 /n �+� �+e hon - r�vFrn "-"-
jwry
Cn Ge_ Censerii-Beni
Exhibit A - Resolution No 2008 31
Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications)
Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside)
Page 6
The fifty(50) acre area Oncludrng the 5 acre area annexed by the City in 2004)
adjacent to and immediately north of the East Garden Grovell&intersbur_g Flood
Control Channel and adjacent to and rmmedtately west of Graham Street is land use
desI_gnated Residential and Open Space— Conservation (See Figure C-6a)
There are wetlands, a Eucalyptus Grove that is an Environmentally Sensitive Habitat
Area because it provides important raptor habitat, and buffer areasl
at this site These areas are dest_gnated Open
Space— Conservation
The Wintersbur_g Channel Bikeway is identified at this site on the north levee of the
flood control channel in the Commuter B/kewaVS Strategic Plan, which is the
regional bikeways plan for Orange County(See page IV-C-49 and ftqure C-14)
SUGGESTED MODIFICATION No 2
The table titled Zone 2 — Land Use Designations on page IV-C-11 shall be modified as
follows
Zone 2 — Land Use Designations
Residential RL-Z or RM or RH
Open Space OS-P
OS-S
OS-C
Public P
-W III t.e leleArea of Deferred GeFtifiGatiGn
-
Zone 2 — Specific Plan Areas
None
Zone 2 —General Plan Overlays
4G 4J 4K
SUGGESTED MODIFICATION NO 3
Figure C-6 of the City s Land Use Plan shall be modified to reflect the change in the City's
corporate boundary and to accurately reflect the correct areas of the certified land use
designations (Residential and Open Space Conservation) for the area
SUGGESTED MODIFICATION NO 4
New Figure C-6a shall be added to the City s Land Use Plan which shall be a land use
plan of the Parkside site and shall depict the approved land use designations on the site as
shown on 4th revised exhibit NN
Exhibit A - Resolution No 2008 31
Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications)
Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside)
Page 7
SUGGESTED MODIFICATION NO 5
Add new subarea 4-K to table C-2 (Community Distnct and Subarea Schedule) as
depicted below
Subarea Characteristic Standards and Print les
4-K Permitted Uses Categories Residential(R-L or R-M
Open Space Conservation (OS-C)
See Fi ure C-6a
Density/Intensity Residential
Maximum of fifteen (15) dwelling units per acre
Design and See Figure C-6a
Development
A development plan for this area shall concentrate and
cluster residential units in the aeolheastern portion of
the site and include, consistent with the land use
designations and Coastal Element pohctes, the
following required information (all required information
must be prepared or updated no more than one year
prior to submittal of a coastal development permit
application)
1 A Pubhc Access Plan, including, but not limited to
the following features
❖ Class I Bikeway(paved off-road bikeway,
for use by bicyclists, walkers,loggers,
roller skaters, and strollers) along the
north levee of the flood control channel If
a wall between residential development
and the Bikeway is allowed it shall include
design features such as landscaped
screening, non-linear footprint, decorative
design elements and/or other features to
soften the visual impact as viewed from the
Bikeway
❖ Public vista point with views toward the
Bolsa Chica and ocean consistent with
Coastal Element policies C 4 13, C 4 2 1,
and C423
❖ All streets shall be un_gated, public streets
available to the_general public for parking,
vehicular, i2edestrian, and bicycle access
Exhibit A - Resolution No 2008 31
Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications)
Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside)
Page 8
All public entry controls (e _g pates,
gatelguard houses, -guards, sLgnage, etc)
and restrictions on use by the_-ggeneral
public (e_g preferential parking districts,
resident-only parking periods/permits, etc )
associated with any streets or parkin_q
areas shall be prohibited
❖ Pubhc access trails to the Class I Bikeway,
open space and to and within the
subdivision, connecting with trails to the
Bolsa Chica area and beach beyond
❖ Pubhc access signa_ge
❖ When privacy walls associated with
residential development are located
adjacent to pubhc areas they shall be
placed on the private property, and visual
impacts created by the walls shall be
minimized through measures such as open
fencin_glwall design, landscaped screening,
use of an undulating or off-set wall
footprint, or decorative wall features (such
as artistic imprints, etc), or a combination
of these measures
2 Habitat Management Plan for all ESHA, wetland, and
buffer areas 01W ether designated Open Space-
Conservation that provides for their restoration and
perpetual conservation and management Issues to be
addressed include, but are not limited to, methods to
assure continuance of a water source to feed all
wetland areas, enhancement of habitats and required
buffer areas, restoration and enhancement of wetlands
and environmentally sensitive habitats and required
buffer areas, and fuel modification requirements to
address fire hazard and avoid disruption of habitat
values in buffers
3 Archaeological Research Design consistent with
Pohctes C5 1 1, C5 12, C5 13, C5 14, and C5 15 of this
Coastal Element
4 Water Quahty Management Program consistent with
the Water and Marine Resources pohcies of this Coastal
Element If develo ment of the parcel creates
Exhibit A - Resolution No 2008 31
Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications)
Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside)
Page 9
sLgntficant amounts of directly connected impervious
surface (more than 10%) or increases the volume and
velocity of runoff from the site to adjacent coastal
waters, the development shall include a treatment
control BMP or suite of BMPs that will eliminate, or
minimize to the maximum extent practicable, dry
weather flow generated by site development to adjacent
coastal waters and treat runoff from at least the 85th
percentile storm event based on the desmn criteria of
the Cahforma Association of Stormwater Agencies
(CASQA) BMP handbooks, with at least a 24 hour
detention time Natural Treatment Systems such as
wetland detention systems are preferred since then
provide additional habitat benefits, rehabihty and
aesthetic values
5 Pest Management Plan that, at a minimum, prohibits
the use of rodenticides, and restricts the use of
pesticides, and herbicides in outdoor areas, except
necessary (lector Control conducted by the City or
County
6 Landscape Plan for non-Open Space Conservation
areas that prohibits the planting, naturalization, or
persistence of invasive plants, and encourages low-
water use plants, and plants primarily native to coastal
Orange County
7 Biological Assessment of the entire site
8 Wetland delineation of the entire site
9 Domestic animal control plan that details methods to
be used to prevent pets from entering the Open Space-
Conservation areas Methods to be used include, but
are not limited to, appropriate fencing and barrier
plantings
10 Hazard Mitigation and Flood Protection Plan,
includin_g but not hmited to, the following features
❖ Demonstration that site hazards
including flood and hguefaction hazards
are mite ated
Exhibit A - Resolution No 2008 31
Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications)
Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside)
Page 10
❖ Mintmization/miti_gation of flood hazard
shall include the placement of a FEMA-
certifiable, vegetated flood protection
levee that achieves hazard mitigation
_goals and is the most protective of
coastal resources including wetland
and ESHA,
❖ Assurance of the continuance,
restoration and enhancement of the
wetlands and ESHA
Residential
Residential development, including appurtenant
development such as roads and private open space, is
not allowed within any wetland, ESHA, or required
buffer areas and area dest_gnated Open Space-
Conservation.
Uses consistent with the Open Space-Parks
desLgnation are allowed in the residential area
All development shall assure the continuance of the
habitat value and function of preserved and restored
wetlands and environmentally sensitive habitat areas
within the area designated Open Space-Conservation
Open Space-Conservation
A Wetlands
Only those uses described in Coastal Element PolicV C
6 120 shall be allowed within existing and restored
wetlands
All development shall assure the continuance of the
habitat value and function of wetlands
Wetland Buffer Area
A buffer area is required along the perimeter of
wetlands to provide a separation between development
impacts and habitat areas and to function as
transitional habitat The buffer shall be of sufficient
size to ensure the biological integrity and preservation
of the wetland the buffer is designed to 2rotect
Exhibit A - Resolution No 2008 31
Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications)
Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside)
Page 11
A minimum buffer width of 100 feet shall be
established
Uses allowed within the wetland buffer are limited to
1) those uses allowed within wetlands per Coastal
Element Pohcy C 6 120,
2) a vegetated flood protection levee is a potential
allowable use if, due to siting and design
constraints, location in the wetland buffer is
unavoidable, and the levee is the most protective
of coastal resources including wetland and ESHA,
3) No active park uses (e _q tot lots, playing fields,
picnic tables, bike paths, etc ) shall be allowed
within 100 feet of wetlands preserved to the Open
Space Conservation area
B Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas
Only uses dependent on the resource shall be allowed
Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHA)
Buffer Areas
A variable width buffer area is required along the
perimeter of the ESHA and is required to be of sufficient
size to ensure the biological inte_grtty and preservation
of the ESHA the buffer is desLgned to protect
A minimum buffer width of 297 to
650 feet shall be established between all residential
development or active park use and raptor habitat
within the eucalyptus_groves
Uses allowed within the ESHA buffer are limited to
1) uses dependent on the resource,
2) wetland and upland habitat restoration and
management,
3) ve_getated flood protection levee that is the most
protective of coastal resources including wetland
and ESHA
Exhibit A - Resolution No 2008 31
Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications)
Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside)
Page 12
4) within the northern grove ESHA buffer only—
passive park use may be allowed if it is more than
150 feet from the ESHA, but only when it is
outside all wetland and wetland buffer areas, and
does not include any uses that would be
disruphye to the ESHA Uses allowed within the
passive park areas shall be hmited to
a) nature trails and benches for passive
recreation, education, and nature study.
b) habitat enhancemenL restoration, creation
and management
5 within the southern grove ESHA buffer only- a
water guahty Natural Treatment System may be allowed
so long as it is located in an area that is most protective
of coastal resources and at least 246 feet from the
ESHA
U6) In addition to the regutmd ESHA buffer
described above grading shall be prohibited within
500 feet of an occupied raptor nest during the
breeding season (considered to be from February 15
through August 31),
Ig
IA/Eer/lee.,Lt a Ale.*core+/ Trazai imn4 C
2 One ciage nw/ e,e.IOe. algah eye. irada an
hnnahac Mr O"Cl not
AIC Habitat Management Plan shall be prepared for
all areas designated Open Space-Conservation
which shall include restoration and enhancement
of delineated wetlands, wetland and habitat
mitigation, and establishment of appropriate
buffers from development
Exhibit A - Resolution No 2008-31
Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications)
Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside)
Page 13
D Protective Fencing Protective fencing or barriers
shall be installed along any interface with
developed areas, to deter human and pet
entrance into all restored and preserved wetland
and ESHA buffer areas
SUGGESTED MODIFICATION No 6
On page IV-C-60 and IV-C-61 under the heading Visual Resources The Bolsa Chica
Mesas revise to include visual resources within Parkside area as follows
The northwestern side of the Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve includes bluffs that rise to an
upland area known as the Bolsa Chica Mesa These bluffs are primarily under the
County s jurisdiction (only a small part of the bluff lies in the City) but are within the City s
Sphere of Influence for potential future annexation The mesas constitute a significant
scenic resource within the City s coastal Zone The 50 acre site (located west of and
adjacent to Graham Street and north of and adjacent to the East Garden Grove
Wintersburg Orange County flood Control Channel) known as the "Parkside"site
affords an excellent opportunity to provide a public vista point A public vista point
in this location would provide excellent public views toward the Bolsa Chica and
ocean Use of the public vista point will be enhanced with construction of the Class
I bike path along the flood control channel and public trails throughout the Parkside
site
SUGGESTED MODIFICATION NO 7
On page IV-C-70 add the following language in the first paragraph under the heading
Environmentally Sensitive Habitats to include reference to the wetland and Eucalyptus
ESHA on the Parkside site
The City s Coastal Element identifies two three environmentally sensitive habitat
areas' within the City 1) the Huntington Beach wetland areas ai4 2) the California least
tern nesting sanctuary, and 3) the wetlands and Eucalyptus ESHA on the Parkside
site (See Figure C-21 for location of No 1 and 2) The Coastal Element includes
policies to protect and enhance environmentally sensitive habitat areas in accordance with
the Coastal Act
Also on page IV-C-72 add the following new section describing the Eucalyptus ESHA and
wetlands on the Parkside site after the paragraph titled California Least Tern Nesting
Sanctuary
Exhibit A - Resolution No 2008-31
Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications)
Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkslde)
Page 14
Parkside Eucalyptus ESHA and Wetlands (See Figure C 6a)
Historically, this site was part of the extensive Bolsa Chica Wetlands system and
was part of the Santa Ana River/Bolsa Chica complex In the late 1890s the Bolsa
Chica Gun Club completed a dam with tide pates, which eliminated tidal influence,
separating fresh water from salt water In the 1930s, agricultural ditches began to
hmit fresh water on the site, and in 1959, the East Garden Grove-Wintersburg Flood
Control Channel isolated the site hydroloWcally Nevertheless, wetland areas
remain present at the site There are existing and previously dehneated wetlands,
and areas that have been filled without authorization and are capable of being
restored These areas as well as their buffer areas are designated Open Space-
Conservation, and uses allowed within these areas are limited
In addition, on the site's southwestern boundary, at the base of the bluff, is a hne of
Eucalyptus trees that continues offstte to the west These trees are used by raptors
for nesting, roostrn_g, and as a base from which to forage The trees within this
"eucalyptus_prove"within or ad
iacent to the subject site's western boundary
constitute an environmentally sensitive habitat area (ESHA) due to the important
ecosystem functions they provide to a suite of raptor species The Eucalyptus trees
along the southern edge of the Bolsa Chica mesa are used for perching, roostinq, or
nesting by at least 12 of the 17 species of raptors that are known to occur at Bolsa
Chica Although it is known as the "eucalyptus grove", it also includes several palm
trees and pine trees that are also used by raptors and herons None of the trees are
part of a native plant community Nevertheless, this eucalyptus qrove has been
recognized as ESHA by multiple agencies since the late 1970's (USFWS, 1979,
CDFG 198Z 1985) not because it is part of a native ecosystem, or because the trees
in and of themselves warrant protection, but because of the important ecosystem
functions it provides Some of the raptors known to use the prove include the white
tailed kite, sharp-shinned hawk, Cooper's hawk, and osprey Many of these species
are dependent on both the Bolsa Chica wetlands and the nearby upland areas for
their food These Eucalyptus trees were recognized as ESHA by the Coastal
Commission prior to its 2006 certification of this section of this LCP most recently
in the context of the Coastal Commission's approval of the adjacent BrIghtwater
development(coastal development permit 5-05-020)
The Eucalyptus _prove in the northwest corner of the site, although separated from
the rest of the trees by a gap of about 650 feet, provides the same types of
ecological functtons_ " as do the rest of the trees bordenng the mesa At
least ten species of raptors have been observed in this prove and Cooper's hawks, a
Cahfornia Species of Special Concern, nested there in 2005 and 2006 Due to the
important ecosystem functions of providing perching, roosting and nesting
opportunities for a variety of raptors, these trees also constitute ESHA These areas
as well as their buffer areas onel mfornwnedad fin gneyones a m are designated Open
Space-Conservation, and uses allowed within these areas are hmited
Exhibit A - Resolution No 2008 31
Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications)
Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside)
Page 15
The wetlands, Eucalyptus ESHA areas, and buffer areas
. are designated Open Space-Conservation to assure they are
adequately protected
SUGGESTED MODIFICATION NO 8
Add the following policy to the certified Land Use Plan on page IV-C-100 as new policy C
1 1 3a
C913a
The provision of pubhc access and recreation benefits associated with private
development(such as but not limited to public access ways, pubhc bike
paths, habitat restoration and enhancement, etc ) shall be phased such that
the pubhc benefits) are in place prior to or concurrent with the private
development but not later than occupation of any of the private development
SUGGESTED MODIFICATION NO 9
Add the following policy to the certified Land Use Plan on page IV-C-105 as new policy C
247
C247
The streets of new residential subdivisions between the sea and the first
pubhc road shall be constructed and maintained as open to the general pubhc
for vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian access General pubhc parking shall be
provided on all streets throughout the entire subdivision Private entrance
_-ggates and private streets shall be prohibited All pubhc entry controls (e g
_gates, _gate%guard houses, guards, signage, etc) and restrictions on use by
the _general pubhc (e g preferential parking districts, resident-only parking
periods/permits, etc ) associated with any streets or parking areas shall be
prohibited
SUGGESTED MODIFICATION NO 10
Modify the following existing LUP Water and Marine Resources policies as follows
C 6 1 6
(modify third and fourth paragraph)
The City shall require that new development and redevelopment as appropriate employ
nonstructural Best Management Practices (BMPs) and structural BMPs designed to
Exhibit A - Resolution No 2008 31
Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications)
Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside)
Page 16
minimize the volume velocity and pollutant load of stormwater runoff, prior to runoff
discharge into stormwater conveyance systems receiving waters and/or other sensitive
areas All development shall include effective site design and source control BMPs
When the combination of site desgin and source control BMPs is not sufficient to
protect water quality, structural treatment BMPs along with site design and source
control measures shall be required BMPs should be selected based on efficacy at
mitigating pollutants of concern associated with respective development types
To this end the City shall continue implementation of the Municipal Non Point SourGe
Stormwater National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NDPES) standards
pregrai ►permit Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board Order No R8-
2002-0010, dated January 18, 2002, or any amendment to or re-issuance thereof) of
which the City is a co-permittee with the County of Orange through the Santa Ana
Regional Water Quality Control Board Per program parameters continue to require a
Water Quality Management Plan for all applicable new development and redevelopment in
the Coastal Zone
C 6 1 16
Encourage the Orange County Sanitation District to accept dry weather nuisance flows into
the sewer treatment system prior to discharge New developments shall be designed
and constructed to minimize or eliminate dry weather nuisance flows to the
maximum extent practicable
C 6 1 25
Require that new development and redevelopment minimize the creation of impervious
areas, espectaHy directly connected impervious areas, and where feasible reduce the
extent of existing unnecessary impervious areas and incorporate adequate mitigation to
minimize the alteration of natural streams and/or interference with surface water flow The
use of permeable materials for roads, sidewalks and other paved areas shall be
incorporated into new development to the maximum extent practicable
Add new policy C 6 1 30
Natural or vegetated treatment systems (e _q bio-swales, vegetative buffers,
constructed or artificial wetlands) that mimic natural drainage patterns are
preferred for new developments over mechanical treatment systems or BMPs
(e_g water quahty treatment plants, storm dram inlet filters)
Exhibit A - Resolution No 2008 31
Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications)
Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside)
Page 17
SUGGESTED MODIFICATION NO 11
Add the following policy to the certified Land Use Plan, on page IV-C-123 as new policy C
727
Any areas that constituted wetlands or ESHA that have been removed,
altered, filled or degraded as the result of activities carried out without
compliance with Coastal Act requirements shall be protected as required by
th_e_pohcies in this Land Use Plan
III FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL OF THE LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT WITH
SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS
The following findings support the Commission's action of November 14 2006 approving
Land Use Plan amendment 1-06 if modified as suggested Changes to the findings
contained in the staff recommendation dated November 1 2007 necessary to reflect the
Commission s action are indicated as follows
Language added as a result of the Commission s action is shown in bold, i•tahc, double
underline
Language deleted as a result of the Commission s action is shown in
The Commission hereby finds and declares as follows
A Land Use Plan Amendment Description
The proposed Local Coastal Program (LCP) amendment is a protect-specific amendment
designed to make possible a low density residential development up to a maximum 7
dwelling units per acre (dua) on a vacant approximately 50-acre site comprising two legal
lots most of which is currently in agricultural production Most of the site is currently
uncertified and the proposed LUP amendment would incorporate those areas into the
City's existing LUP and establish land use designations for those areas as well as for the
currently certified parts of the site
The geographic area that is the subject of this proposed LUP amendment can be divided
into three areas See Exhibit C4 The largest section is an area of the City that was
deferred certification by the Commission at the time the City s Land Use Plan (LUP) was
originally certified in 1982 and that deferral carried through to the eventual LCP
certification in 1985 The area of deferred certification (ADC) is approximately 40 acres '
1 The staff report and Commission findings from the 1982 LUP certification are not entirely clear about how much area
was deferred certification However the City has clearly depicted the area subject to this LCP amendment(through the
Exhibit A - Resolution No 2008 31
Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications)
Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside)
Page 18
This amendment request proposes to certify this area by bringing it within the City s
existing LUP and applying land use designations to the area Just northwest of the ADC is
a 5 acre area that is currently certified (see footnote 1) and designated Open Space-Parks
The City has resubmitted this area for certification with the same designations Finally
there is a five acre area southwest of the ADC that was under the jurisdiction of the County
of Orange until it was annexed by the City in 2004 Like the ADC the City proposed to
certify that area by bringing it within the broader City LUP and land use designations are
proposed for this area as well The proposed amendment would allow the majority of the
site to be developed with low density residential development and would also set aside a
portion of the site for open space uses including parks and conservation
The amendment does not propose to create any new land use designations that are not
already used in the existing LUP Each of the land use designations proposed already
exist within the certified Land Use Plan (LUP) The land use designations that are
proposed to be applied at the subject site have been applied elsewhere within the City s
certified LUP However because the site is an area of deferred certification or was
recently annexed no land use designation has ever been approved by the Commission at
the subject site (with the exception of the 5 acre area designated and zoned Open Space-
Parks) The current zoning of approximately 38 acres of the site is Residential Low
Density which has not been certified by the Commission
Specifically the amendment request proposes the following land use designations (see
exhibit C)
Land Acres
Use
RL - 7 Low Density Residential-Maximum 7 units per acre 38 4 acres
OS-P Open Space-Park 8 2 acres
OS-C Open Space-Conservation 3 3 acres
As stated the area of deferred certification is forty acres and the former County parcel is
five acres In addition to the 45 acre area the City has also included in this amendment
the five acre area that was not deferred certification The certified area totals
approximately 5 acres and is land use designated and zoned Open Space — Parks Most
of the certified five acre parcel is slope area and not usable as an active park area The
proposed amendment would retain that land use and would expand that designation into
the formerly deferred area for a total of 8 2 acres of Open Space — Parks This five acre
segment brings the total size of the subject site to 50 acres (40 acre ADC 5 acre former
County parcel 5 acre certified area)
exhibit to its resolution)and clearly resubmitted any portions of that area that may currently be certified For
purposes of this staff report we refer to the uncertified area as being 40 acres and the acreage of the other areas subject
to this LUP amendment are calculated accordingly However if the City does not accept the Commission s certification
with suggested modifications and the current status quo remains the Commission does not by these descriptions take
any position on the issue of what area is currently certified and what area is ADC
Exhibit A - Resolution No 2008 31
Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications)
Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside)
Page 19
Of the approximately 5 acre former County area 1 7 acres are proposed to become low
density residential and 3 3 acres are proposed to become Open Space —Conservation
(these figures are included within the totals in the chart above)
In addition to establishing land use designations for the subject site the amendment also
proposes text changes to the LUP The certified LUP includes a section of area-by-area
descriptions In this section of the LUP the acreage figure is proposed to be changed to
reflect the annexation of the former County parcel (from the current 44 acre figure to the
proposed 50 acre figure) In addition language describing the area as vacant and an area
of deferred certification is proposed to be replaced with the following language
The Coastal Element land use designation for the vacant 45 acre area next to the
East Garden Grove-Wintersburg Flood Control Channel was recently certified as
RL-7(Low Density Residential) and OS-P (Open Space—Park) In addition
approximately 5 acres of land was annexed from the County of Orange into the City
of Huntington Beach This area is designated RL-7(Low Density Residential) and
OS— C (Open Space— Conservation)
The subject area is currently comprised of two parcels one 45 acre parcel (historic City
parcel) and one 5 acre parcel (former County parcel)
B Site Description and History
The site address is 17301 Graham Street Huntington Beach Orange County It is
bounded by Graham Street to the east East Garden Grove Wintersburg Flood Control
Channel (EGGWFCC)to the south unincorporated Bolsa Chica area to the west and
existing residential uses to the north (along Kenilworth Drive) The development to the
north is located within the City The land to the north and to the east of the project is
located outside the coastal zone The areas located east of Graham Street, south of the
EGGWFCC and immediately north of the subject site along Kennilworth Drive are all
developed with low density residential uses To the northwest a multi-family condominium
development Cabo del Mar exists To the west of the subject site, are undeveloped
properties known as the Goodell property and Signal Landmark property To the southwest
of the subject site lies the Bolsa Chica wetlands restoration area The 3 3 acre area on the
subject site proposed to be land use designated Open Space-Conservation is adjacent to
the wetlands restoration area West of the Goodell property is the site of the recently
approved Brightwater development for 349 residential units (coastal development permit 5-
05-020) The Brightwater site the Goodell property and the Signal Landmark property are
located on the Bolsa Chica mesa
The majority of the subject site has been more or less continuously farmed since at least
the 1950s
The majority of the site is roughly flat with elevations ranging from about 0 5 foot below
Exhibit A - Resolution No 2008 31
Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications)
Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside)
Page 20
mean sea level to approximately 2 feet above mean sea level The western portion of the
site is a bluff that rises to approximately 47 feet above sea level Also generally near the
mid-point of the southerly property line is a mound with a height of just under ten feet The
EGGWFCC levee at the southern border is approximately 12 feet above mean sea level
Historically the site was part of the extensive Bolsa Chica Wetlands system In the
southwest corner of the site on the former County parcel the City property owner and
Commission are in agreement that an approximately 0 45 acre wetland is present In the
1980s as part of the review of the County s proposed LUP for the Bolsa Chica the
Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) in the document titled Determination of the Status
of Bolsa Chica wetlands (as amended April 16 1982) identified this area as severely
degraded historic wetland — not presently functioning as wetland and considered it within
the context of the entire Bolsa Chica wetland system
Also in 1989 the U S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published its delineation of
an approximately 8 acre wetland area in the northwest area of the site near the base of
the bluff At the time of the EPA delineation the area was being farmed The topography
of the agricultural field has been significantly altered since about 1998 As a result the
area delineated by EPA no longer is inundated or saturated for long periods except during
exceptionally wet years Water now tends to inundate an area near the flood control
channel (designated WP") and an area at the base of the western bluff (designated `AP )
both of which were sari identified as wetlands by the Commission s staff ecologist
However. the Commission found at its November 14, 2007_meeting that the WP is
not wet enough long enough to result in the formation of hydric soils and does not
exhibit sufficient hydrology that would support a predominance of hydrophytes in
most years The City and property owner do not contest designation of the AP as
wetland
In addition on the site s western boundary generally along the base of the bluff are two
groves of Eucalyptus trees The trees are used by raptors for nesting roosting and as a
base from which to forage
At the time the City s LUP was first considered for certification in 1981 the Commission
denied certification in part because the City proposed low density residential land use
designation for the site that is the subject of the present amendment request and the
Commission found the site to contain wetlands The City re-submitted the LUP in 1982,
but it made no change to the proposed low density residential land use designation for the
subject site Once again the Coastal Commission in its action on the City's proposed
Land Use Plan denied the certification for the MWD site (as the subject site was
previously known) finding that it did contain wetland resources and that the designation of
this parcel was an integral part of the ultimate land use and restoration program for the
Bolsa Chica The Commission findings for denial of the LUP for this area note the
importance of this area in relation to the Bolsa Chica LCP Of the 3 3 acres proposed to
be Open Space — Conservation none is located within the 40 acre area that was deferred
certification The site was being farmed at the time of the Commission s denial of the low
Exhibit A - Resolution No 2008 31
Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications)
Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside)
Page 21
density residential land use designation for the subject site
A related coastal development permit application had been submitted for the subject site
5-06-327 Shea Homes but that application has since been withdrawn similar to prior
applications (previously submitted and then withdrawn were application Nos 5-06-021, 5-
05-256 and 5-03-029 for the same development proposal), as well as an appeal of a City
permit for the certified area (A-5-HNB-02-376) The appealed action remains pending but
the applicant waived the deadline for the Commission to act on the appeal The
Commission anticipates acting on the appeal in conjunction with a future permit
application The permit application and appeal request subdivision of the site to
accommodate 170 single family residences construction of the residences and associated
infrastructure preservation of the wetland identified on the former County parcel and
dedication and grading of active public park area
C LCP History
The LCP for the City of Huntington Beach minus two geographic areas was effectively
certified in March 1985 The two geographic areas that were deferred certification were
the bulk of the subject site (known at that time as the MWD site — see footnote 1) and an
area inland of Pacific Coast Highway between Beach Boulevard and the Santa Ana River
mouth (known as the PCH ADC) The subject site is northeast of the Bolsa Chica LCP
area At the time certification was deferred the subject area was owned by the
Metropolitan Water District (MWD) The site has since been sold by MWD and is currently
owned by Shea Homes Both of the ADCs were deferred certification due to unresolved
wetland protection issues Certification of the subject site was also deferred due to
concerns that it might be better utilized for coastal-dependent industrial facilities since
MWD at that time had a transmission corridor parcel within the Bolsa Chica Lowlands
that it indicated could be used to connect seawater intake facilities located offshore to
facilities located on its switchyard parcel in the City of Huntington Beach through the
subject parcel This is no longer a possibility since the State has taken over the lowlands
and given the development of the areas surrounding the subject parcel since 1982 (and
pending development that has already been approved) this site is no longer appropriate
for coastal dependent industry
The PCH ADC was certified by the Commission in 1995 The wetland areas of that former
ADC are land use designated Open Space — Conservation and zoned Coastal
Conservation No portion of the former PCH ADC is part of the current amendment
request
A comprehensive update to the City s LUP was certified by the Commission on June 14
2001 via Huntington Beach LCP amendment 3-99 The City also updated the
Implementation Plan by replacing it with the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (while
retaining existing specific plans for areas located within the Coastal Zone without
changes) The updated Implementation Plan was certified by the Coastal Commission in
April 1996 via LCP amendment 1-95 Both the LUP update and the IP update maintained
Exhibit A - Resolution No 2008 31
Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications)
Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside)
Page 22
the subject site as an area of deferred certification
This LCP amendment was originally submitted as LCPA No 2-02 LCPA 2-02 was
subsequently withdrawn and re-submitted as LCPA 1-05 LCPA 1-05 was also withdrawn
and re-submitted The current amendment LCPA 1-06 is the most recent submittal of the
same amendment No changes have been made to the amendment proposal during any
of the withdrawal and re-submittals The withdrawal and re-submittals were done in order
to provide the property owner additional time to prepare and submit additional information
regarding the presence of wetlands on-site and the use of the eucalyptus grove by raptors,
and to allow Commission staff adequate time to review the additional information LCPA
1-06 was received on April 13 2006 On June 13 2006 the Commission granted an
extension of the time limit to act on LCPA No 1-06 for a period not to exceed one year
Thin donelffna Few n L ^mow Ain 7 na me f.d , On May 10.
2007. the Commission voted to deny the subject Land Use Plan amendment, as
submitted A motion ji a the main motion) was made to approve the Land Use Plan
amendment with modifications, but upon deliberation, the hearing was continued
The LCPA was subsequently scheduled for Commission action at its July 9-13. 2007
heanng The LCP amendment originally proposed changes to both the Land Use
Plan (LUP) and the Implementation Plan (IP) On July 3. 2007. the city withdrew the
IP portion of the LCPA The Commission recognized the withdrawal of the IP
amendment at its July 11, 2007 hearing Also at its July 11, 2007 hearing. the
Commission postponed action on suggested modifications for the LUP portion of
the LCPA At its November 14, 2007 meeting. the Commission approved the LUP
amendment with suggested modifications On April 10, 2008, the Commission
granted an extension of the time limit for the City to act on suggested modifications
to the LCPA
D Land Use Plan Format
The City s certified Land Use Plan includes a section of Goals Objectives and Policies
These are organized by specific resources including headings such as Land Use
Shoreline and Coastal Resource Access and Recreational and Visitor Serving Facilities
among many others These are the certified policies that apply City—wide within the
coastal zone Another section of the certified LUP is the Technical Synopsis The
Technical Synopsis is an area-by-area description of each segment of the City s coastal
zone This section includes the descriptions of the existing land use designations It also
includes after a narrative description of the sub-areas Table C-2 Table C-2 is titled
Community District and Sub-area Schedule and it provides greater specificity of what is
allowed and encouraged within each subdistrict This greater level of specificity provides a
more detailed site specific description than would be provided if the land use designation
or general policies were considered alone Table C-2 provides language on how general
policies and designations would apply to specific sub areas of the coastal zone Taken all
together these work well as the standard for development in the coastal zone
Exhibit A - Resolution No 2008 31
Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications)
Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside)
Page 23
The format of the suggested modifications applies this same structure to the amendment
site Many of the issues addressed by suggested modifications would be required by the
general LUP policies but consistent with the format of the LUP the suggested
modifications are intended to provide a greater level of detail that applies to the specific
circumstances of the subject site For example, although the City s public access policies
may be adequate to require a bike path along the EGGWFCC levee the LUP format calls
the reader s attention to the fact that at this particular site, a bike path is appropriate and is
therefore being required in this amendment If one were working from the policies alone
some opportunities at certain sites may not be recognized The LUP s existing format
significantly maximizes the protection of resources within the coastal zone The suggested
modifications carry out that same format in order to assure protection of resources at the
amendment site
E Approval of the Land Use Plan Amendment if Modified
1 Incorporation of Findings for Denial of Land Use Plan as Submitted
The findings for denial of the Land Use Plan as submitted are incorporated as if fully set
forth herein The Commission denied the LUPA as submitted at the Commission's May
10 2007 hearing The findings for denial of the LUPA as submitted that were provided in
the May 2007 recommendation are found in _Attachment A attached to this
staff report '
2 Wetland
The proposed amendment includes an Open Space Conservation designation on a 3 3
acre area within the former County parcel The 3 3 acre area includes an undisputed
wetland area (see 3`d revised exhibit NN) The proposed Conservation designation is
appropriate for this area However, additional wetland areas exist at the subject site that
are not proposed to be protected with the Open Space Conservation (OSC) designation
and are addressed in the following findings
Wetlands often provide critical habitat nesting sites, and foraging areas for many species
some of which are threatened or endangered In addition wetlands can serve as natural
filtering mechanisms to help remove pollutants from storm runoff before the runoff enters
into streams and rivers leading to the ocean Further wetlands can serve as natural flood
retention areas
Another critical reason for preserving expanding and enhancing Southern California's
remaining wetlands is because of their scarcity As much as 75% of coastal wetlands in
southern California have been lost and statewide up to 91% of wetlands have been lost
Section 30121 of the Coastal Act states
Exhibit A - Resolution No 2008 31
Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications)
Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside)
Page 24
"Wetland means lands within the coastal zone which may be covered periodically
or permanently with shallow water and Include saltwater marshes freshwater
marshes, open or closed brackish water marshes, swamps, mudflats and fens
The Commission has further specified how wetlands are to be identified through
regulations and guidance documents Section 13577(b)(1) of the Commissions
regulations states in pertinent part
Wetlands shall be defined as land where the water table is at near, or above the
land surface long enough to promote the formation of hydric soils or to support the
growth of hydrophytes For purposes of this section the upland limit of a wetland
shall be defined as
(A) the boundary between land with predominantly hydrophytic cover
and land with predominantly mesophytic or xerophytic cover
(B) the boundary between soil that is predominantly hydric and sod that
is predominantly nonhydric or
(C)In the case of wetlands without vegetation or sods the boundary
between land that is flooded or saturated at some time dung years
of normal precipitation and land that is not
Section 30231 of the Coastal Act states in pertinent part
The biological productivity and the quality of wetlands appropnate to maintain
optimum populations of manne organisms and for the protection of human health
shall be maintained and where feasible restored through among other means,
preventing depletion of ground water supplies and substantial Interference with
surface water flow maintaining natural vegetation buffer areas that protect riparian
habitats
Section 30233(a) of the Coastal Act states
The diking filling or dredging of open coastal waters, wetlands, estuanes and
lakes shall be permitted in accordance with other applicable provisions of this
division where there is no feasible less environmentally damaging alternative, and
where feasible mitigation measures have been provided to minimize adverse
environmental effects and shall be limited to the following
1) New or expanded port energy, and coastal-dependent Industrial facilities,
including commercial fishing facilities
2) Maintaining existing or restonng previously dredged depths in existing
navigational channels, turning basins vessel berthing and moonng areas,
and boat launching ramps
3) In open coastal waters other than wetlands Including streams estuaries,
Exhibit A - Resolution No 2008 31
Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications)
Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside)
Page 25
and lakes new or expanded boating facilities and the placement of structural
pilings for public recreational piers that provide public access and
recreational opportunities
4) Incidental public service purposes including but not limited to burying cables
and pipes or inspection of piers and maintenance of existing intake and
outfall lines
5) Mineral extraction including sand for restoring beaches except in
environmentally sensitive areas
6) Restoration purposes
7) Nature study aquaculture or similar resource dependent activities
Section 30250 of the Coastal Act states in pertinent part
(a) New residential development shall be located where it will not have
significant adverse effects either individually or cumulatively, on coastal resources
In addition, the City's LUP includes Policy C 6 1 20, which limits filling of wetlands to the
specific activities outlined in Section 30233 of the Coastal Act And LUP policy C 7 1 4
states in pertinent part Require that new development contiguous to wetlands or
environmentally sensitive habitat areas include buffer zones '
The Coastal Commission staff ecologist has reviewed considerable amounts of information
regarding the extent of wetlands at the site much of which are listed in his memorandum
which is attached as Exhibit K The property owner has submitted numerous documents
intended to demonstrate that there are no wetlands on site, beyond the wetlands
recognized on the former County parcel (i a the CP wetlands) Local citizens have
submitted documents intended to demonstrate that there are significantly more wetlands
on site than that recognized in the CP wetlands These citizens are concerned by the
prospect that development may be allowed to occur within wetlands at the site if the LUP
amendment were approved as submitted (and as reflected in the related coastal
development permit application 5-06-327, Shea Homes and appeal A-5-HNB-02-376) In
addition the staff ecologist has reviewed historical information regarding the subject site
and surrounding area All this information has been reviewed by the staff ecologist and is
considered in his memoranda attached as Exhibits K LLL and QQQ to this staff report
and are hereby incorporated into these findings in their entirety
The Commission s Mapping/GIS Program Manager has also reviewed numerous historic
and more recent aerial photographs and topographical information The purpose of the
Mapping/GIS Program Manager's review was to identify changes due to landform
alterations such as grading and filling, and to attempt to delineate disturbed areas dating
from the time the Coastal Commission's jurisdiction began at the project site (1/1/77) The
results of his review are reflected in his memoranda dated 712/07 and 10/25/07 attached
as exhibits MMM and RRR of this staff report and which are hereby incorporated into these
findings in their entirety
Exhibit A - Resolution No 2008 31
Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications)
Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside)
Page 26
In brief summary results of the review of the aerial photos and topographic maps indicates
that topography has changed on site particularly in the area delineated by the EPA as
wetlands in their 1989 publication (generally in the northwest area of the site) Changes
are also identified in the area of the former equestrian facility (generally in the
southwestern portion of the site between the CP and WP areas) However, at its
November 14. 2007 hearing, the Commission found. +base_d on evidence presented,
that no wetlands exist in the WP area
In the aerial photo taken on May 21 1970, the western extension of Slater Avenue is
visible just north of the flood control channel embankment on the subject property The
1970 photo establishes a pre-Proposition 20 pre-Coastal Act baseline for gauging the
extent of land alterations and other changes that occurred later(post Coastal Act 111/77)
A clearly distinguishable topographic depression in the area of the EPA wetlands is
depicted on topographic maps from 1970 1980 and 1996 However by 2005 that
depression was no longer present in the same configuration The lowest area had been
displaced to the west abutting the base of the mesa and the historic EPA wetland area had
been relatively flattened In the area of the former equestrian facility the aerial photos and
topographic maps also show disturbance In the images from 1981 on fill is evident in the
area that was developed as an equestrian facility It appears that fill first appears in
conjunction with establishment of the equestrian facility with additional fill being placed
over the life of the facility The extent of fill has migrated primarily to the north, but also, to
some extent to the southwest
€� o WP and AP Areas 46ge s
With regard to existing wetlands based on his review of the available data the
Commission s staff ecologist determined that additional wetland areas exist at the subject
site The Commission s staff ecologist considered first questions of whether additional
wetland areas exist at two specific areas of the subject site The results of the staff
ecologists review regarding the presence of additional wetland at the two specific sites
(described below as areas AP and WP) are reflected in his Memorandum dated 7/27/06
attached as exhibit K to this staff report For the reasons listed in that memorandum and
below the Commission concurs and adopts its ecologists conclusions with regard to the
area known as the Agricultural Pond (AP)
wedands Vw4 Two specific areas ®f were evaluated for the presence of additional
wetland area The two sites are referred to as the Wintersburg Pond or WP which is
adjacent to the East Garden Grove Wintersburg Flood Control Channel (EGGWFCC)
levee along the southern edge of the site and the Agricultural Pond or AP, located near
the base of the bluff along the western edge of the property The proposed LUP
amendment would designate these wetland areas Low Density Residential and Open
Space-Parks These land use designations allow grading and the construction of houses,
roads and active parks which wcould necessitate the dredging and filling of the wetlands
if wetlands are present in these areas Such uses within wetlands are inconsistent with
Section 30233 of the Coastal Act and with LUP Policy C 6 1 20 which limits filling of
Exhibit `A - Resolution No 2008 31
Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications)
Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside)
Page 27
wetlands to the specific activities outlined in Coastal Act Section 30233
The memorandum dated July 27 2006 from the Commission s staff ecologist states The
available data suggest that portions of the agricultural field are inundated or saturated at
a frequency and duration sufficient to support a preponderance of wetland plant species
Such areas meet the definition of wetlands under the Coastal Act and the Commission s
Regulations
There are three factors or parameters that are used to determine whether or not a
wetland exists the presence of hydrophyec vegetation the presence of hydric soils and
the presence of wetland hydrology The Commission fords an area to be wetland if any
one of the three parameters is present Usually the presence or absence of hydrophytes
or hydric soils is sufficient to determine whether a wetland exists However those two
indicators are not necessary as they do not actually define a wetland Rather, an area is
defined as a wetland based on whether it is wet enough long enough that it would support
either of those two indicators Therefore the removal of vegetation by permitted activities
does not change a wetland to upland
Section 30121 of the Coastal Act provides the statutory definition of wetlands " lands
within the coastal zone which may be covered periodically or permanently with shallow
water and include saltwater marshes freshwater marshes Section 13577(b)(1) of the
California Code of Regulations provides the regulatory definition of wetlands land
where the water table is at near or above the land surface long enough to promote the
formation of hydric soils or to support the growth of hydrophytes Thus the Coastal Act
and the Regulations provide that a determination of the presence of wetlands may be
made based on whether an area demonstrates the presence of sufficient water to promote
hydric soils or to support hydrophytes whether or not the soils and vegetation are present
under existing conditions
Because this area was historically a salt marsh and because the site has been historically
farmed and continues to be farmed as of the adoption of these findings the typically used
field indicators cannot be relied upon The grading and repeated discing and plowing
associated with the existing agricultural use destroys hydric soil features and prevents the
development of natural vegetation The evidence presented in the
ecologists memo and summarized below yj& su that the AP and WP areas
are wet enough long enough to support the growth of hydophytes T4ws If so the WP
and AP areas would meets_the definition of wetlands contained in the Commission s
regulations The WP and AP would also meets the Coastal Act definition of
wetlands iLthe-y-a-re it fperiodically covered in shallow water " However, based
on all the evidence presented~'including the memoranda prepared by Commission
staff. information submitted by the City, the property owner the public, and public
testimonW the Commission found that the area of the WP is not wet enough Iona
enough or frequently enough for the development of a preponderance of
hydrophytic vegetation or hydric sods Therefore. the Commission finds that the
area known as WP is not a wetland
Exhibit A - Resolution No 2008 31
Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications)
Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside)
Page 28
The wetland conclusion is based on two lines of evidence (1) an examination of the
vegetation at a nearby location that is similar in history physical characteristics and
hydrology to the depressions in the agricultural field,2 and (2) an informed estimate of the
frequency and duration of continuous inundation at
various sites
Areas WP and AP were matched by the Commission s staff ecologist with wetland areas
on the County parcel that were similar in elevation and topography Inundation in the
agricultural and AP areas and at the reference wetlands was similar in pattern further
suggesting that the latter is a good proxy for the former Therefore since the dominant
vegetation at the reference areas is mostly comprised of wetland species it is reasonable
to expect that the agricultural aread AP would also support a predominance of
hydrophytes in the absence of farming (i a that thgy4 a it is wet enough Iona enough
and frequently enough to support such vegetation)
Although prior to about 1990, inundation hadn t been apparent in the depression adjacent
to the EGGWFCC (WP area) and inundation occurred there less frequently than in the
area of the AP- in recent years a le the Commission consddered avmlen€e
nformation regarding whether the WP is inundated for long
duration following significant rainfall Weighing the conflicting information submitted.
the Commission found that the WP was not inundated for long duration following
significant rainfal!
Establishing the extent of wetlands at the site given its history of farming and disturbance
is not straightforward The best approach for this site regarding WP and AP known to the
Commission at this time is to base the wetland boundary on current conditions as inferred
from recent topography and the available photographs of recent inundation
EPA Delineated Wetland (1989)
Prior to about 1990 it appears from aerial photographs that significant inundation was
generally confined to the area delineated as wetland Oust east of the area of the AP) by
the EPA in its 1989 publication Based on analysis of aerial photographs dating from 1958
to 1985 the property owners biological consultant concluded that inundation in that area
tended to have a different footprint in different years and, based on this observation he
z In the second to last footnote in Dr Dixon s memo he notes that the topography of the reference site is actually
similar to that of WP as it existed in 2003 not at present More recently a box plough was used to fill area WP which is
apparent in 2006 topographic maps The box plough fill is under investigation by Commission staff as an alleged
violation Accordingly relying on the topography prior to the alleged violation yields the appropriate comparison
Additionally the hydrology section of Dr Dixon s memo states that LSA biologists stated that WP didn t pond until
after about 1973 However if this is due to changes in topography that occurred before 1973 it is again appropriate to
focus on the post 1973 topography as that represents current conditions Conditions prior to 1973 may be irrelevant if
topographical conditions changed prior to 1973 as such changes were pre Coastal Act and therefore not Coastal Act
violations
Exhibit A - Resolution No 2008 31
Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications)
Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside)
Page 29
argued that no particular area should be identified as a wetland However all his
estimated wetland polygons in the western portion of the agricultural field appear to fall
within the area delineated by the EPA In the absence of wetland vegetation the drawing
of wetland boundaries is an approximate exercise based on a small and haphazard
collection of aerial photographs or ground observations and estimates of topography
Given the approximate nature of such delineations, it appears the consultants results are
actually additional evidence that the EPA delineation was reasonable at the time it was
made However it appears that the area of the EPA delineation (8 3 acres)was based on
extra-normal site circumstances As described in the October 25 2007 memorandum
prepared by the Commission s staff ecologist the 8 3 acre estimate of the wetland size
appears to have been based largely on observations made during the period when
increased runoff from off-site was temporarily directed onto the subject site This appears
to have occurred during the construction of the Cabo del Mar condominiums on the
adjacent property from sometime after 1978 until sometime before 1986 if one considers
the area delineated by EPA under normal conditions (i a no excess off site drainage
directed on-site) a more likely estimate for the wetland area can be made Based on the
Bilhorn (1987) and EPA (1989) estimates of wetland area during the period of construction
of the Cabo del Mar condominiums estimates of water availability during the period of
interest and the estimated size of ponded areas in available photographs a reasonable
estimate of the average area that ponded is 4 0 acres The 1987 and 1989 studies by
Bilhorn and EPA were based on field work done prior to 1987 The October 25, 2007
memorandum is attached to this staff report as exhibit QQQ and is hereby incorporated by
reference as though fully set forth herein
As discussed in detail below the EPA wetland is no longer present
Existing CP Wetland
Substantial evidence suggests that the wetland area of the CP is larger than what has
been recognized in the LCP amendment submittal The wetland area recognized by the
City and property owner on what is known as the former County parcel totals 0 45 acres
However additional CP area should be included in the CP wetland acreage This wetland
area was filled without authorization from the Commission In a letter dated 9/7/82 from
the Department of Fish and Game (DFG) to Coastal Commission staff the DFG
determined the area, prior to placement of the unpermitted fill to be wetlands and
recommended removal of the fill and revegetation (see exhibit BBB) Pursuant to Coastal
Development Permit No 5-82-278 the unpermitted fill was to have been removed and the
area revegetated
Based on comparison of topographic (1980) and vegetation maps (Vegetation
Communities Exhibit 26 of the Bolsa Chica Land Use Plan dated January 1982) created
before the unpermitted fill was placed with topographic maps (1986 and 1982) created
subsequent to the time the fill was placed the elevation of the subject area was increased
by at least 2 feet Because of the unpermitted fill, the pickleweed within the filled area was
no longer viable Development approved pursuant to Coastal Development Permit 5-82-
Exhibit A - Resolution No 2008 31
Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications)
Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside)
Page 30
278 included removal of the unpermitted fill to an elevation of approximately three inches
below the grade of the existing adjacent pickleweed stand [area of the recognized CP
wetland] and revegetation of the area with one or more of the following species
pickleweed spiny rush frankenia, sea lavender and shoregrass However elevations in
the fill area are not consistent with pre-fill elevations Rather topographic maps prepared
subsequent to the unpermitted fill and subsequent to the issuance of Permit 5-82-278
depict the fill area at an elevation at least two feet above the adjacent CP wetland This
leads to the conclusion that removal of the fill and revegetation never occurred Were it
not for this unpermitted development the area would have remained wetlands area
Unpermitted development cannot be used as a basis to justify development in areas
where were it not for the unpermitted development such development would not be
allowed Thus consideration of appropriate land use designation must consider site
conditions as if the unpermitted development had not occurred Therefore this area is
considered a wetland As proposed the amendment would allow land uses like residential
and related uses, like roads within wetland areas Thus the proposed land use
designation is not consistent with Section 30233 of the Coastal Act
Potential Unpermitted Development
Unpermitted development cannot be used as a basis to justify development in areas
where were it not for the unpermitted development such development would not be
consistent with the requirements of the Coastal Act The site as has been mentioned has
historically been farmed Discerning changes in topography on the order of a few feet to
fractions of a foot over the course of 30 years and ascertaining that such changes are not
due to normal farming activities at a site where farming activities are on-going is
problematic Nevertheless it is important to assure that if wetland areas have been
eliminated due to unpermitted activity that those areas are considered as if the
unpermitted activity had not occurred Thus if areas that would have met the
Commission s definition of a wetland have been altered such that they no longer meet that
definition only due to unpermitted activity that area must be afforded the same protection
as would be required had the unpermitted activity not illegally altered the wetlands
It has been suggested that the land alterations in the area of the EPA delineated wetland
were the result of normal farming activity and so could not be considered unpermitted
development in terms of the need for a coastal development permit However any
activities whether normal farming activities or other that would result in the fill of wetlands
cannot be exempt from the need to obtain approval of a coastal development permit
Regarding leveling of land as a normal farming activity", a joint EPA and Department of
the Army memorandum3 states grading activities that would change any area of water of
the United States including wetlands into dry land is not exempt Furthermore Section
323 4(a)(1)(iii)(D) of the Army Corps of Engineers regulations pertaining to discharge of
dredged or fill material into the waters of the United States states that the term plowing
'Memorandum Clean Water Act Section 404 Regulatory Program and Agricultural Activities United States EPA and
United States Department of the Army May 3 1990
Exhibit A - Resolution No 2008-31
Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications)
Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside)
Page 31
does not include the redistribution of soil rock sand or other surficial material in a manner
which changes any area of the water of the United States to dry land The Commission
agrees and finds that if a wetland is filled and no coastal development permit has been
obtained the fill activity constitutes unpermitted development
The Commission makes no determination at this time whether the fill activity
constitutes unpermitted development Regardless of the precise nature of the long-
time farming activity, because the LCPA proposes allowing non-farming uses such
as the proposed residential and park uses outside of the modified wetland and
buffer area, and reguares restoration of a 4 0-acre modified EPA wetland. along with
establishment of a 900-foot buffer adjacent the Commission finds that the modified
EPA wetlands es protected as a wetland under the Coastal Act
In a letter dated July 9 2007 submitted to the Commission at its July 2007 hearing from
the California Farm Bureau Federation (see exhibit XXX) raises three issues regarding the
LCPA staff report 1) staffs recommendation relies on an EPA study but there may no
longer be any federal jurisdiction authority based on more recent EPA guidance
documents 2) the subject site s status of prior converted cropland and 3) what
constitutes "normal farming activities
Regarding more recent EPA guidance documents the letter states In light of new USEPA
and USACOE memorandums and the Staff Report s reliance on these agencies findings
there may no longer be any federal jurisdictional authority over the disputed wetlands In
turn this may alter key conclusions in the staff report The documents referenced
describe procedures to be followed in determining when the EPA/USACE have jurisdiction
in implementing the Clean Water Act The guidance documents assist only in determining
when a Section 404 permit is necessary from the EPA and have no bearing on a past
wetland delineation and cannot be interpreted as negating a past delineation
Furthermore one of the referenced documents (Memorandum Clean Water Act Section
404 Regulatory Programs and Agricultural Activities) states `For example if a farmer has
been plowing planting and harvesting in wetlands he can continue to do so without the
need for a Section 404 permit so long as he does not convert the wetlands to dry land
[emphasis added] " Thus even by the standards cited by the Farm Bureau farming that
converts a wetland to dry land is not exempt from the requirement to obtain Section 404
review
Furthermore the 1989 EPA wetland delineation assessed the presence of wetlands and
found that wetlands did exist at the site Commission staff have reviewed that study as
well as a great deal of other information (as cited in the Commission staff memoranda)
and as is outlined in the staff memoranda found the EPA wetland delineation valid (with
adjustments as described elsewhere) A change in other agencies guidance documents
has no bearing on the results of the earlier wetland delineation
The letter also raises the question of whether the subject site should be considered "prior
converted cropland The Farm Bureau letter states Farm Bureau also believes that the
Exhibit A - Resolution No 2008 31
Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications)
Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside)
Page 32
Coastal Commission should apply and document the site specific facts of this issue
against USACOE RGL 90-7 and USEPA's applicable regulations and guidance documents
regarding prior converted cropland The letter further states However, attention should
be given to the disputed area s present and recent past characteristics and use as prior
converted crop land The letter refers to a November 20 1998 letter from the Natural
Resource Conservation Service designating the subject site as prior converted cropland
That November 20 1998 Natural Resource Conservation Service letter states that it based
its determination that the site is prior converted cropland on two factors 1) the site has
been farmed prior to 1985 and 2) designation of the property as "Prior Converted
Cropland by the Army Corps of Engineers in 1992, review of their designation in 1998 and
an independent report from Lisa Kegarice of Tom Dodson and Associates in December of
1997 have determined that this property meets the criteria for Prior Converted Cropland
However the Commission's staff ecologist's memo dated July 27, 2006 (exhibit K)
includes review of the Natural Resource Conservation Service's 1998 letter (among many
other documents) and addresses the issue of"prior converted cropland at length As
described in greater detail in the Commission ecologists 7/27/06 memo, the decision to
dismiss the site from regulation under the Clean Water Act was based on the faulty work
contained in the Kegance report of 1997 and the fact that errors in that report have been
perpetuated without challenge until now Furthermore designation of a site as prior
converted cropland simply allows on-going farming to continue The proposed LUP
amendment would not continue farming at the site so that designation even if it had been
accurately applied is moot when considering allowing non-farming uses such as the
proposed residential and active park uses
Finally the Farm Bureau letter questions Commission staff s assessment that activities
that have occurred on site are not normal farming activities On-going farming activities
such as plowing and discing that are consistent with the continuance of existing wetlands
constitute normal farming activities However, methods such as grading that go beyond
normal farming activities have occurred on site, resulting in the loss and/or fill of wetlands
and do not constitute normal farming activities
Moreover members of the public have also presented evidence to suggest that activities
that are employed at the site do not constitute normal farming activities And they have
argued those activities have, over time substantially reduced the presence and extent of
areas that would otherwise have met the Coastal Act definition of wetland Such activities
include but may not necessarily be limited to use of a bulldozer and a box plough to move
earth in the area of the agricultural field The Commission concurs that use of such earth
moving equipment particularly when it results in the fill of wetlands, is not typically
associated with normal farming activities Development, including earth movement on a
scale that requires a bulldozer or box plough in an area of known wetland presence (i e
1989 EPA wetland delineation Commission s 1982 and 1984 actions deferring certification
of the site DFG Study of Wetlands at Bolsa Chica) without an approved coastal
development permit may constitute unpermitted development
Also other non-farming activities have historically occurred on the site In 1982 the
Exhibit A - Resolution No 2008 31
Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications)
Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside)
Page 33
Commission approved the above mentioned coastal development permit No 5-82-278
The approved development was located near the southwest corner of the site straddling
the former City/County boundary (see exhibit BBB) Fill (1 500 to 3,000 cubic yards)for an
expanded parking area was explicitly approved as part of that coastal development permit
Evidence shows that only the area of the expanded parking lot that was explicitly
described in the approved permit was approved for placement of fill under that coastal
development permit approval If so any additional fill in the area of the remaining
equestrian facility el may constitute unpermitted fill
The development described in the application for the coastal development permit requests
the following placement of mobile home as a caretaker facility additional stable facilities
[emphasis added] grading and fill of a parking facility for approximately 50 cars removal
of fill and revegetation [described previously] and placement of a fence around the
revegetated area The City s 1981 Conditional Use Permit for the project (CUP No 81-13)
refers to a request to expand [emphasis added] an existing horse facility The City s CUP
staff report states The existing [emphasis added] temporary horse stable on the site has
been in operation since 1966 and According to the applicant most of the existing
[emphasis added] facilities were installed prior to 1977 These characterizations of
portions of development existing prior to the Commission s jurisdiction in the area (which
began on 1/1/77) were carried over into the Coastal Commission staff report for 5-82-278
However review of aerial photos indicates that the equestrian facility was not present until
1978 after the Commission s jurisdiction in the area began Both the City and County of
Orange planning staff have reviewed their records for permits for the stable facility that
predate 1978 but have found no permits earlier than 19814
Regardless of whether or not any portion of the equestrian facility pre-dates the Coastal
Act review of historic aerial photos and topographic maps indicate subsequent actions at
the subject site have resulted in fill beyond the footprint and/or at higher elevations than
what was approved under coastal development permit 5-82-278 Any fill placed on the site
other than that specifically approved for the 50 space parking area approved under cdp 5-
82-278 jo mmaa��be unpermitted
It should be noted that a coastal development permit application was submitted in 1993 5-
93-376 (Hole in the Wall Stable) The 1993 application requested approval of continued
use of the existing equestrian facility (formerly Smokey s Stables) At that time
Commission staff determined the request was exempt from the need for a coastal
development permit because it simply requested continued use of an existing facility no
construction or grading/fill was proposed (see exhibit DDD) It appears the request was
mischaractenzed in that the equestrian facilities present in 1993 were larger still than even
those requested in 1982
In addition at the direction of Commission staff the current property owner submitted a
4 The County approved CUP No 80 92 to permit the establishment of a commercial stable on the County portion of the
site on 2/26/81
Exhibit A - Resolution No 2008 31
Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications)
Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside)
Page 34
coastal development permit application for discing the site in 1999 (5-99-303 Shea
Homes) In response to that application staff informed the applicant at that time that no
permit was needed based on the property's prior usage for agricultural purposes n (see
exhibit NNN) However staffs determination that no permit was necessary was based on
a 1998 letter from CDFG (Exhibit YYY) stating that based on a consultant s report no
wetlands were present and the likelihood of wetland restoration on site was slim But that
CDFG assessment relied not on an actual wetland delineation by CDFG but rather on the
flawed analysis contained in a wetlands assessment of the site conducted by Tom Dodson
and Associates (Kegance, 1997P Thus staffs determination that no permit was needed
was in error, based on faulty information prepared by others
Furthermore staffs determination that no permit was necessary was also based on the
characterization by the applicant (Shea Homes) that the development requested was
discing of the site The letter from staff indicating no permit was necessary responded only
to the request to continue shallow discing of the farmed area However the site has been
subjected to farming practices that may go beyond what can be considered normal
farming activities and which were not described as part of the project description in the
permit application Supporting this conclusion are recently documented incidents at the
site that include use of a bulldozer and a box plough In addition in his memorandum
dated 7/2/07 (exhibit MMM) regarding the history of the EPA wetland area the
Commission s Mapping/GIS Program Manager concludes dramatic changes have
occurred in this decade The 7/2/07 memorandum states "Although agriculture has gone
on in this area since the 1930 s the elevations have consistently indicated a topographic
depression here Aerial photography shows repeated instances of ponding in the area In
this decade the topography has changed dramatically, with the obliteration of the
depression in its original location and the creation of a smaller narrower depression at the
western margin of the agricultural field
However, other than permit 5-82-278 and the two circumstances mentioned above no
other permit history for the site has been discovered The question of whether
development occurred without benefit of an approved coastal development permit is
particularly important due to the history of wetlands on site There is evidence to suggest
that areas where topography has been modified may have supported wetlands If
wetlands were present at the time of past development the Coastal Act requires that those
wetlands be protected Review of historic aerial photos of the site comparison of various
historic and recent topographic maps of the site photos of earth moving equipment not
normally associated with farming activities and earth moving in the area of previously
delineated wetlands (i e EPA) also raise significant questions as to whether the site has
been altered in ways that would have required a coastal development permit
Construction of the Cabo del Mar condominiums —outside the coastal zone but adjacent
to the subject site —appears to have included development that extended onto the subject
'See exhibit K Memo from the Commission s staff ecologist explaining why that analysis is flawed and does
not reflect actual site conditions
Exhibit A - Resolution No 2008-31
Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications)
Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside)
Page 35
site and thus within the coastal zone Prior to the development of the Cabo del Mar
condominiums (c 1983 — 1985) a portion of the runoff from the approximately 22-acre site
drained onto the Parkslde property and contributed to the hydrology of the wetland
mapped by EPA At some point after the Cabo del Mar construction the drainage was
directed to new drain pipes that were installed across the subject site Section 30231 of
the Coastal Act requires that all wetlands be maintained by preventing substantial
interference with surface water flow Construction of the drainage pipes impacted one
source of water that fed the EPA wetland inconsistent with Section 30231 of the Coastal
Act Such development would have required a coastal development permit from the
Coastal Commission However no such permit was obtained
Regarding the EPA wetland area evidence suggests that this wetland relied on surface
water rather than groundwater Any loss of runoff would have a negative effect on the
wetland that was historically present in the EPA area and on the wetlands that are
currently present
Open Space Conservation Area
In summary in order to be most protective of wetlands, the additional wetland area
beyond what is proposed to be designated Open Space-Conservation must be recognized
and appropriately designated under this LUP amendment At a minimum that would
include the AP and expanded CP areas and portions of the wetland area identified by
the EPA in a document published in 1989 Although it is very likely the area between the
former equestrian facility and the WP would be considered wetland area now were it not
for unpermitted development that determination cannot be conclusively made
mcud r e.w..rwwe. 4hw gjr=e/ h...
7and rnnt®-fnr—//ier9s - .. 4hw a thni m,tai him daclesnotarl Annion cnnoe
The area delineated by the EPA as wetland totaled approximately 8 3 acres However as
described in the October 25 2007 memorandum prepared by the Commission s staff
ecologist the 8 3 acre figure appears to have been based on observations during a period
when construction activities on an adjacent property resulted in a temporary direction of
excess off-site drainage onto the subject site Several lines of evidence suggest that a
reasonable estimate for the size of the wetland before and after the construction is about
4 0 acres Long-time farming activities resulted in the loss
of the 4-acre EPA wetland area Section 30233 of the Coastal Act requires that loss of
wetlands due to fill must be mitigated The Commission typically requires mitigation at a
ratio of 4 1 (area of mitigation to wetland area lost) The Commission finds that the kwfi
a 4 0-acre modified EPA wetland ^ 40 • ^^•�•��^�' �^4••-•4'-must beffl—#W@t@d
restored However the activates that resulted in the
loss of the EPA wetland area also contributed to the creation of wetlands in the area of the
AP Thus it would be appropriate to fl^••• 4hw === wf 4hw '"/D M AG .. 01
Exhibit A - Resolution No 2008 31
Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications)
Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside)
Page 36
preserve the area of the AP (0 61 acres) Ln hn '•^,� tn.w,arrd ihn {nip/ wr^^ ^f.w—
and mitigate the loss of the 4-acre EPA wetland area thr ucqh
restoration of the 4 0-acre modified EPA wetland, as delineated by the Staff
A1: in h^ n wL^nd A AG' wi.r^c.
1:9 aor^c /AD7 - / Ia.` wnroa I A Al 4 /.'L: porn - IQ ?A 4A AA
.,r„t ar.d area %t.11 to hn nrnat^ Therefore in addition to the araea af A. AP an
additional 4444 4 0 acres of wadgnd ar. restoration on site surrounded y a 900-
foot buffer would be required to nuftgto address the loss of the 4-acre EPA wetland
Thus area that must be preserved on site includes the AP 1 expanded CP areas
modified 4 0 acre EPA wetland wa ochageind wrae/ .,..•ar ESHA areas wetland
and ESHA buffer area, Preservation and/or
restoration of the AP 14e expanded CP and restored d 4 0-acre EPA
wetlands may require supplemental water
Thn COM..e.,....,.., f nde rho rJnr.."nat.nr. ..hnrrlrl ra/rr oarnaa ahn , ninrr. rinrtroM ni
n ..rrhrnoi r..Lo io wr.lo ..a{n/.r .. n{nni ahn oerr r.roarwt n e.aw/ r
detvns"aw of thn r.r.h.nnt ., mire eAnrn r. nrf na►l.r ahn nr.nra gran
"v�-
F.
/fin rl r.n rarer irn r. •./..r.. aLn r.l w rrlwl nvtn Mrl �nrr. 4hn r+ rrth nrM ..r^w^rL.r Irrw^ wl.�.ra
.+ CM211AIrun ` F nrr.t Wawa of{hn nanangiant h ahn
CE40 in n ranrthorr. nra bran wt w rat Want nF 4hn .+ or.owr.r hr.FF r it i n CDA
The area to be designated Open Space Conservation is depicted on —4T revised
Exhibit NN
A Uhnggesh__thnro am n oLn{o nF Iar.rJ .rrrthrr. Lho a a {ho ^nr arr.rr.ornra f ncle rniggi h
.atnri Crag—ants; Lha{ .. ..Irl rani r ah/.r ho r�/o.rn in ra ors/ i r za o.r,/n ra i.al nr
ihn h on Monroe and thorn r somerar^..n l.rnrJ ry oL.n ra w.. Lo .w rhnihnr r.
nw urnrr/� hw.rn r�tnlrMnwin r/ a of/and rraara
ratter r�M�o rn r/ntw . nrn
wh/o 2nd4 r M ri taro r/ a/fora trnn hwrdM!a noorrrrnd C•.r-ihnrr.lnrn {w/iora to Nnihnr
ihn a' 2 that m of ho einorrrMai-d /1C is an M ntnoa ICCLJA Hand aMd thnrr
a .urth rM 4hn arna t^ ho rJnorrinni^ 1 Thnrnirn G. ihaa nMirrn am
wtnt.,„/n...rYMwtn,a nC
1M w.�,a.a. r.hr.taMt.al n,:.r.rnMnn nr.r,.rXnQar. that nthnr.rrntlanCI !3=QQ QVICil0d
M rrnr in rwrhaL a r.n..rc� to harm hnnM nrwartan r.I rdn.rn/ r'.1n Mi Thn (ten .a+rr.orn
implanth'
r requ e. r.a.t.rvairnM it.wrn{lancl rr.Nnaotc canMnrat►rr n4 w rain nP A �1 l
,wr MrJ wrnwr. h MrJ thnc•^ o orF owI/.r rJnr.orrh ad ohn an orLn 14fam /no{
.rMM^rrr.ratad aot.rrra.r nt nMl.r uingtW ihn ..,^stand wrnwr+ nand to ho Mrnanntnri wMrt
hr.L rrarir—boM it the Manr.rra /nor. in'hah•iwa.ralr.nr. .wrn 'd hio �'� � Th
_
_..- .r,.ai.nn amnrrMa n-.rrndaMr-I • na -..- thn M nrJ i r wa.t ..rnrr/r./ ra. r.a w Mrratn/.r hhn
Exhibit A - Resolution No 2008 31
Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications)
Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside)
Page 37
of tho f..r.� w I.4wI efmj,aI^.,...AH{ h Ir�I* r ih— c14,. .c. ,.^ne.Idera,J
T
It 100,
rwfl.,,1 Mai fig w •,. d I nefor th III
Mf M^f r. w/.Iwl^ wrrr^rw rlw4� •a.^�/w n r/ r wfI^r rwe.L^rw it^aw wmwl
rv•^ • w., .+raw/II,J. el rho daclegnohnM �r
rae.4^904.^ and Md ohnn In
ncdimr in m that imnnI.,.t, ..r,.a Fr. of w.+Ida i r 211
mighars
,J^..^rlL,,,,1 _The Commission finds that only if
modified consistent with the land use designations depicted on 41' revised exhibit NN,
can the proposed LUP amendment be found to be consistent with Sections 30233 and
30231 of the Coastal Act which require protection of wetlands
Moreover the entire area was originally deferred certification due to the historic presence
of wetland on site In deferring certification originally the Commission found
North Properties of the Bolsa Chica (Between Wintersburg Channel& base of
Bluffs)
(MIND Site #1 (virtually identical to the subject site of current LCP amendments])
The LUP designates this site for low density residential uses No modifications
were made in the LUP from the previous denial by the Commission
The Commission found in its `Preliminary Wetlands Determination for the Bolsa
Chica Local Coastal Plan March 11 1980 that all available information
demonstrated that the vast majority of the Bolsa Chica low lands exhibit all the
characteristics set forth for the identification of wetlands pursuant to Section 30121
of the Coastal Act and concluded that the information supported a preliminary
determination that areas identified on Exhibit J of the "Preliminary Determination
are wetland for the purposes of the Coastal Act The Commission had also
previously found in its denial of the City's LUP that this area contained wetland
resources
Since that action and the previous review of the City's LUP the Commission and
staff have examined additional information concerning the Bolsa Chica wetlands
system As part of the review of the Bolsa Chica LUP the Dept of Fish and Game
in the document "Detennination of the Status of Bolsa Chica wetlands (as amended
April 16 1982) identified this area as severely degraded Historic wetland— Not
Presently Functioning as Wetland and considered it within the context of the entire
6 As indicated in footnote 1 the boundaries of the MWD site at the time of the 1982 staff report were not entirely clear
However the site clearly covered what is now the 40 acre ADC and may have covered the former County parcel and
some of the 5 acre certified area as well Moreover it did not extend south of the flood control channel so the
observations recounted here are definitely applicable to the site that is the subject of the current application
Exhibit A - Resolution No 2008 31
Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications)
Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside)
Page 38
Bolsa Chica wetland system The DFG determined that this area is part of a 1,000
acre degraded wetland system in the area outside State ownership which is capable
of being restored The DFG report noted
The 440 acres of historic wetland which no longer function viably as wetland
consists of approximately 250 acres of roads and pads, 70 acres of
agricultural land(including the subject site], and about 120 acres of viably
functioning upland habitat The roads and fill areas presently function as
resting substrate for wetland-associated wildlife and form narrow ecotones
which add to and enhance the diversity of habitat available to wildlife The
120 acres of upland habitat considered in union may be considered
environmentally sensitive because of their special role in the Bolsa Chica
wetland ecosystem Were it not for the involvement of dikes, roads and
relatively shallow fills these 440 acres would be viably functioning wetlands
The entire 1 324 acre study area, including 1 292 acres of historic wetland(in
which 852 acres still function viably as wetlands[sic]constitutes a
fundamentally inseparable wetland system of exceptional value to wildlife
The DFG also discussed potential restoration of these areas and noted that the
amount of acreage and location of wetlands to be restored will be dependant on the
amount of till and existing wetlands which could be consolidated to allow some
development in the lowlands
Thus when the Commission originally deferred certification of the subject site, it did so
based on the presence of wetlands The Commission found that the site contained
wetlands even though the wetland functions were impaired as is the case today
Moreover farming was on-going at the time certification was deferred Thus, the area was
deferred certification even though the wetlands were impaired and farming was on-going
No change to those conditions have occurred in the intervening years Thus one cannot
argue today that the site does not contain wetlands due to on-going farming activities or
due to the impaired condition of the wetlands Furthermore unpermitted activities cannot
be used as a basis to say that wetlands no longer exist at the site
In addition in deferring certification of the site the Commission recognized that the site
was an integral part of the overall Bolsa Chica wetland system and could feasibly be
restored If the site were to be restored it would be a valuable addition to the Bolsa Chica
wetlands restoration project Sources to feed a restored wetland at the site would come
from rainfall and possibly from the adjacent EGGWFCC as well as urban runoff And
perhaps also from re-establishing the site as the location to accept runoff from the Cabo
del Mar condominiums In any case restoration of the site as a freshwater wetland would
be consistent with the historic wetland system which would typically have included a
freshwater component albeit significantly inland of the subject site The addition of
freshwater habitat to the Bolsa Chica wetlands restoration would greatly increase the
biodiversity of the overall restoration project In addition taken with the preservation of the
Exhibit A - Resolution No 2008 31
Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications)
Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside)
Page 39
eucalyptus grove described below the area would provide significant habitat benefits
In addition to protecting the wetland area itself it is important to establish buffer areas
between the wetland and development Buffers by separating development from
wetlands minimize the adverse effects of development on wetlands thereby avoiding
significant adverse effects to resources Buffers also provide transitional habitat and
upland area necessary for survival of various animal species The Commission has
typically found that a minimum 100-foot buffer or larger is necessary to protect wetlands
Without the establishment of a minimum buffer size protects could be approved with an
inadequate buffer jeopardizing the continuing viability of the wetland Section 30250 of
the Coastal Act requires that new development be located where it will not have significant
adverse effects either individually or cumulatively on coastal resources Wetlands
constitute a coastal resource In addition Section 30231 of the Coastal Act requires that
all wetlands be maintained by providing natural vegetation buffer areas The City's
certified LUP includes Policy C 7 1 4 which requires buffers around wetlands This policy
would apply to the subject site but it allows a lesser buffer area if existing development or
site configuration preclude a full 100 feet In this case, such circumstances do not apply
because the site is 50 acres in size and is not constrained by the site configuration or by
existing development A buffer less than 100 feet from all on-site wetlands is not
adequately protective of the wetland The proposed amendment does not recognize all
wetland areas present on site and does not provide any buffer requirements specific to the
site Thus as proposed the amendment could result in locating development too close to
the wetland threatening the survival of the resource inconsistent with Section 30250
which requires that the location of development avoid significant adverse effects on coastal
resources such as wetlands and Section 30231 which requires natural vegetation buffer
areas
The extent of wetlands on site over the last 30 years and past activities on the site that
may have impacted those wetlands are difficult to determine with certainty The
Commission is charged with protecting wetlands and limiting uses allowed within
wetlands as well as assuring that any allowable use is the least environmentally damaging
alternative and that adequate mitigation is provided The Commission must also assure
that the quality of wetlands is maintained by among other things preventing substantial
interference with surface water flow In order to achieve these requirements the
Commission must review the evidence available to it even when that evidence may
conflict or be incomplete and arrive at a conclusion that is most protective of wetlands In
this case the Commission after reviewing available evidence finds that on balance there
is stronger evidence to support the conclusion that there are significantly more wetlands at
the site than has been recognized in the LUPA request At a minimum, the additional
wetland area includes the AP expanded CP the area delineated by the EPA in 1989
(as adjusted
Any wetland delineation prepared for the subject site must recognize that the site is both a
difficult site to delineate (i a an area where conditions make the use of standard field
indicators of wetland parameters difficult fe g soils formed under hydric conditions
Exhibit A - Resolution No 2008 31
Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications)
Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside)
Page 40
associated with tidal inundation that is no longer present]) and atypical because human
activities (i a farming) have resulted in the lack of positive indicators of one or more
wetland parameters The wetland delineation must account for circumstances where
indicators are absent or difficult to interpret but other evidence demonstrates that the
component(s) recognized by the Commission that comprise a wetland are present or
would be present if not for the difficult' or atypical situation For example, the wetland
delineation must recognize and account for circumstances where vegetation indicators
cannot be expected hydnc soil indicators may be artifacts of prior conditions the sod
surface is frequently disturbed which removes indicators of recent inundation plowing
may drastically alter the soil profile irrigation might confound the interpretation of the
presence of recruiting wetland plants and the presence of indicators of recent hydric
conditions Because the site historically has been, more or less continuously farmed
these indicators may be lacking even though the area may be "wet enough long enough
that wetland features would develop It is critical that future wetland delineations of the site
recognize this protocol and that, consequently even if the usual wetland indicators are not
observable wetland areas must still be identified if those areas meet Coastal Commission
criteria Wetland delineations must be sufficiently current to represent present site
conditions As proposed the LUP amendment does not include this clarifying information
Therefore a modification is suggested to specifically incorporate this standard into the site
specific section of the LUP
It should be noted that construction of a flood protection levee within the wetland buffer
area provided it is the least environmentally damaging alternative would not be
incompatible with the continuance of the wetland In order to be the least environmentally
damaging alternative the flood protection levee should be placed outside the buffer
wherever possible and as close to land designated for residential and/or active park uses
as much as possible According to the related coastal development permit application for
the subject site and the project proponent the type of flood protection levee to be
constructed would be a vegetated flood protection feature (VFPF) essentially vegetated
earthen berm with an internal sheet pile wall The VFPF would not be expected to
adversely impact the wetland because 1)there would only be temporary construction-
related impacts 2) once constructed the VFPF would be planted to provide upland habitat
that complements the wetland vegetation and 3) the VFPF would not require
maintenance once constructed thus intrusions into the buffer would be limited only to
those necessary during construction For these reasons locating a flood protection levee
such as the one described above within the wetland buffer would be consistent with
Sections 30233 and 30250 of the Coastal Act regarding wetland protection
.,.,..,1,....,,, th..t a ar-16sionfint amn th..t h..c h,00" e,I„e...r.,. io d nr.,,., cr...,.e.
r1rd •.mot e. ...t.. �t/.�r..�le. �.r.far to nniar.s..tte.el ..e.t....t.� r th .t
w..rre...1 that aff e.te..d wail.+r.da th..t e..r.ele....ag &0
..t the, t.ma th., iminnaint eimnoldnnmiant narmii onnit If
■e•.e.nnal..e...ee./...,1., by the, .�.i.eJones that r alcL nis 1 r w4
_ Atf1II Ilth/M tho nc. !� Idi1e..MN tAiJ r/�A th t /I / I./
Exhibit A - Resolution No 2008 31
Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications)
Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside)
Page 41
n cIn/ r�e �•.r�i.e. •t may, h w0/110 to .11:160tb.o
amandma mug.
big Magi 19notaoinfon niannaint nel go ArAlar.in Aft an hoc-el
Qnnga
Furthermore Section 30250 of the Coastal Act requires that new development be located
where it will not have adverse effects on coastal resources Wetlands constitute a coastal
resource Section 30231 of the Coastal Act requires that all wetlands be maintained and
where feasible restored by preventing depletion of ground water supplies and substantial
interference with surface water flow and by maintaining natural vegetation buffer areas
Based on information submitted with the related coastal development permit application, a
significant amount of earthwork would be necessary to prepare the site for residential
development It is essential that any earthwork undertaken on the site not interfere with
the continuance of all on-site wetlands No grading is allowed within the wetland and its
buffer area under the Coastal Act (unless the grading is for the express purpose of wetland
restoration) Grading outside of the wetland ESHA and necessary buffers, could only be
considered if no adverse impacts to the wetlands resulted If grading redirected
groundwater and/or surface water flow such that water from the site no longer fed the
wetlands it would create an adverse effect on the wetland which is a coastal resource
inconsistent with Sections 30231 and 30250 of the Coastal Act The proposed
amendment does not include any requirements that other site development including
earthwork assure that no adverse effect occur to the wetlands Thus even if no grading
were to occur within the wetlands and buffer areas adverse impacts to on-site wetlands
might result from the LUP amendment as proposed However if the amendment is
modified to include language that requires the protection of the wetlands from all
development on-site the amendment could be found to be consistent with Section 30250
of the Coastal Act which requires no adverse effects to coastal resources occur
In addition to the modifications suggested above, additional measures must be
incorporated into the LUP amendment for the subject site to assure that future
development adjacent to the wetland and buffer areas and throughout the site does not
adversely impact the wetland For example if no restrictions were placed on landscaping
throughout the site invasive plants within the residential areas could invade the wetland
areas, potentially displacing the wetland plants In addition pets from the residential
development if unrestricted may enter the wetland area causing disruption As proposed
the LUP amendment does not include any site specific restrictions regarding potential
impacts to continuation of the wetland inconsistent with Section 30250 of the Coastal Act
However if modified to include a prohibition on invasive plants throughout the site and a
requirement for a domestic animal management plan and fencing along the
buffer/development interface as part of the site specific LUP language the amendment
could be found consistent with Section 30250 of the Coastal Act Specific suggested
modifications to accomplish this are necessary to bring the proposed amendment into
conformance with the Coastal Act
Exhibit A - Resolution No 2008 31
Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications)
Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside)
Page 42
Members of the public have raised concerns that unpermitted development has taken
place on the property that is the subject of this amendment and that such unpermitted
development has affected the extent of wetlands on the site Unpermitted development
cannot be used as a basis to justify development in areas where, were it not for the
unpermitted development such development would not be allowed This is true whether
there is a specific policy reflecting this in the LUP or not In this case however #fie
the Commission has estabhshed the
extent of wetlands on the property and a development footpnntAMM14--con hips
a4 4hw pa-&-n-if / I g a a 44ww/ 1/w..w/ws3.ww.e4 w4 430 w.4w
ww. w4w/.Jw / 4 4 r 4h.w�ity 4w
6®i pi Flw,ii9�9 C9w7�oi9-7�9�i9®i�i99a9ig 6699�
4rw.iwrw1
4
the ^wmm.ww.w rw ni 4hw
.+ / //Q ..w/.wa.4hw4 .....Lime .4 w/wwr 4h..4 impar.r..44
ycff
ra ss
not GCOUFMO-F
The Commission finds that only if modified as indicated on staff exhibit NN
f4th Revised) can the proposed land use plan amendment be found to be consistent with
and adequate to carry out Sections 30233 and 30250 of the Coastal Act regarding
wetlands
3 Eucalyptus ESHA
The subject site contains environmentally sensitive habitat areas (ESHA) The trees within
the eucalyptus grove, within and adjacent to the subject site s western boundary are
ESHA due to the important ecosystem functions they provide to a suite of raptor species
Section 30240 requires that ESHA be protected from significant disruption and that only
uses dependent upon the resource are allowed within ESHA In addition Section 30240
requires development adjacent to ESHA be sited and designed to prevent impacts which
would significantly degrade those areas Section 30240 further requires that development
be compatible with the continuance of the habitat area This policy is carried over into the
City s certified LUP ESHA policies
In order to assure the ESHA is not significantly degraded and is protected and remains
viable, in addition to precluding non-resource dependent development within the ESHA a
buffer zone around the ESHA must be established A buffer zone would require that
development adjacent to the ESHA be set back an appropriate distance from the ESHA
The setback is intended to move the development far enough away from the ESHA so as
to reduce any impacts that may otherwise accrue from the development upon the ESHA
and that would significantly degrade the ESHA or be incompatible with its continuance
The distance between the ESHA and development the buffer zone must be wide enough
to assure that the development would not degrade the ESHA and also would be
compatible with the continuance of the ESHA
Exhibit A - Resolution No 2008 31
Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications)
Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside)
Page 43
The property owner has suggested a variable width buffer as a means of protecting the
ESHA (see Attachment C. exhibits 1 and 2) A variable width buffer would be
appropriate The variable width buffer proposed by the property owner would
establish a minimum distance of 297 feet between the ESHA and residential or
active park development(note 100 meters is 328 feet) The vanable w►dth buffer
proposed by the property owner would establish a maximum buffer distance of at
least 650 feet between the ESHA and residential or active park development In
some areas of the site the effective width of the buffer area would substantially
exceed 100 meters due to the relative location of the EPA wetland area and buffer
and the AP wetland and buffer The area occupied by EPA and AP wetlands and
their buffers would provide appropriate ESHA buffer in that development with the
related nose and activities would not occur within them and also those areas would
remain viable as raptor foraging-area
The property owner's proposed variable width ESHA buffer►ncludes a water auahty
Natural Treatment System (NTS) as an allowable use within the ESHA buffer near
the southern grove (see Attachment C. exhibits 1 and 2) The NTS as proposed by
the property owner►s setback a minimum of 246 feet from the ESHA Port►ons of a
Natural Treatment System (NTS), would be appropriate within the ESHA buffer as
long as it is located as shown on Attachment C exh►b►ts 1 and 2 An NTS within the
ESHA buffer. subject to the setback described above, would be acceptable because
it would occupy only a very small portion of the overall buffer area Furthermore.
the NTS itself will provide some habitat value The shallow water habitat will
increase the variety of habitats within the buffer area For these reasons, allowing
an NTS type system within the outer ESHA buffer as shown on Attachment C.
exhibits 1 and 2 would not be expected to degrade the ESHA and would be
compatible with its continuance
As proposed by the property owner, the variable width ESHA buffer would prevent
development that is not compatible with the continuance of the ESHA from
occurring in a location where it would disrupt the ESHA and disrupt it Therefore.
the Commission finds the variable width buffer proposed by the property owner will
adequately protect the entire ESHA
The buffer should not be measured from myoporuin It is important to note
however, that the "eucalyptus"ESHA is an area that includes several species of
non-native trees that provide important habitat for a large suite of raptors These
trees are predominantly eucalyptus, but also include pines and palms Using aerial
photographs, staff has drawn the boundaries of the ESHA by connecting the
apparent drip lines of the outmost trees It has been suggested that this has
resulted in including a clump of mvoporum, an invasive exotic that probably►s not
important to raptors Although. it is appropriate to ignore the myoporum when
drawing the boundary if other nearby trees are species that provide habitat for
raptors, the latter should be included within the ESHA boundary even if that results
in some mvoporum being present within the ESHA
Exhibit A - Resolution No 2008 31
Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications)
Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside)
Page 44
'•. =17 L..... Encl...afa d E/..w+ ..••. /+
l., ..•Jt/. l...fi ..I.J ...�•,r.. 79A f t / C Q f 1�...«....paag�...f..
'ue i9®ai94S'®09�® i® ®��®®9�' �i tl3I�c:S ig
v®t�'ai�i v�aa® ®v a®a®�i�m�ign�aei�ag��r-A
�r it •e. abIJEF13160 that 9160 •� rl•J / anf M. L. r.wl...lio e.
9��i�E7rri®�®� 9®®®1_F=1I`1®i9 6i�99�i�99 6i�®�.S
th- pnp* fit face than lied fmat A Mi0forr.1 from 030 r.O•.fla .r.. C•....,I.•r.t••..
AA Mato r-Rud .. ...�••.rad b.•
As proposed ESHA area would be land use designated Open Space Parks which would
allow active park uses within the ESHA In order to assure the ESHA is protected in
addition to precluding development within the ESHA, a buffer zone around the ESHA must
be established As proposed the LUP amendment designates necessary buffer area
Open Space Parks and Low Density Residential The proposed designations would allow
residential and park uses within the required buffer areas Residential and park uses
within ESHA and its buffer are inconsistent with Section 30240 of the Coastal Act The
land use designation that protects ESHA by limiting uses within ESHA to those allowed
under Section 30240 and that prevents disruption of the habitat is Open Space
Conservation In order to assure that development adjacent to the ESHA does not
significantly degrade or impair the continuance of the ESHA the appropriate land use
designation for both the ESHA and its buffer area is Open Space Conservation
Uses allowed within the ESHA buffer for the southern grove are limited to resource
dependent uses, habitat restorat►on. and VFPF(described below) In addition.
within the northern grove ESHA buffer passive park use may be allowed if 11 1-s
located more than 150 feet from the ESHA but the uses within the passive park are
limited to nature trails, benches for passive use, and habitat enhancement
restoration, creation and management Such_uses are acceptable within the ESHA
buffer because they are compatible with the continuance of the ESHA
It is also worth noting that California gnatcatchers (Polioptila californica californica) a
species listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act are known to frequent
the subject site especially the western portion Also Southern tarplant (Centromedia
parryi ssp Australis) a California Native Plant Society 1 b 1 species (seriously
endangered in California) also exists at the site However the Southern tarplant exists in
scattered areas on the site A focused survey documented the presence of 42 individuals
distributed in 6 locations The Commissions staff ecologist in a memo dated 12/19/06
(see exhibit N) concludes that neither the seasonal gnatcatcher foraging habitat nor the
Southern tarplant on the subject site meet the Coastal Act definition of ESHA
Nevertheless regarding gnatcatcher habitat on-site the staff ecologists memo states it is
worth noting that the areas of marginal habitat where gnatcatchers have been observed
Exhibit A - Resolution No 2008 31
Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications)
Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside)
Page 45
are not proposed for development " Regarding the Southern tarplant the memo states
In contrast to the habitats on the Bolsa Chica mesa, the scattered areas containing
southern tarplant on the Parkside property do not appear to be significant habitat for this
species and it is my opinion that these areas do not meet the definition of ESHA under the
Coastal Act In any case, if the amendment is modified as suggested the gnatcatcher s
habitat and the southern tarplant on site will be retained within the Open Space-
Conservation designation
The land use designations within the ESHA must be limited to the designation that allows
only those uses dependent upon the ESHA In addition the land use designation within
the buffer zone must be the designation that allows only those uses compatible with the
continuance of the ESHA, and that will not degrade the ESHA Furthermore it is important
to assure the continuance of the raptor community by reserving adequate foraging area
In fact, the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) provided statements to this
effect in a letter to the City dated June 15, 1998 commenting on the Draft Environmental
impact Report for the Parkside project (see Exhibit 777) in that letter CDFG states that
If
[a]gricultural areas grasslands and wetlands are of seasonal importance to several
species of raptors in Orange County by providing important if not vital staging and
wintering habitat These habitats also provide foraging areas for resident breeding
raptors " CDFG goes on the express concern about the loss of raptor foraging areas
within the project site and vicinity and the impacts such loss may have on the adjacent
Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve However CDFG didn't suggest any specific mitigation
for this loss in this letter The wetland areas, their buffers as well as the ESHA buffers
wrll provide some raptor foragmg area r n ^^�` -am r^C^
onan ,.. War= 4h•e_ ihe b er es-o eet
edoc. 0joel/mean inn^ems /�^M.+e+sw e.+4•e.n n+L fin .++•4•ev+�o she, line.
ls
^�� ~�~•`�` ^`r^n`^ ^ As proposed the LUP amendment would not preserve all
ESHA areas or provide required buffers
and thus is not consistent with Section 30240 of the Coastal Act In addition because the
proposed land use designations within and adjacent to ESHA do not limit the uses to those
consistent with Section 30240 of the Coastal Act the proposed LUPA is inconsistent with
this Coastal Act requirement to protect ESHA Therefore the amendment must be denied
as proposed However if the proposed amendment were modified to land use designate
all ESHA and necessary ^— n buffer area Open Space-Conservation as depicted
on _ 4th revised exhibit NN the amendment would be consistent with Section 30240 of
the Coastal Act
The above referenced exhibit depicts all areas on site that are recommended for
designation as Open Space-Conservation (OS-C) The recommended OSC area
encompasses all known wetland areas on site and necessary buffer n area
all ESHA on site and the required buffers
By retaining adequate area on site as OS-C a Residential designation on
the remainder of the site could be found compatible with continuance of the ESHA
Exhibit A - Resolution No 2008 31
Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications)
Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside)
Page 46
■rl.sl...+ -.....sr., ne:fillad w—fland =Rldod nr messeerael Miff r nne ....srro..s..... ..fie
eaaeanLet•• .,-.s.rr..I sr....sw.....s r. .r.s...,.. /,ter..ro...3"al n'ti Wild be .,r...,r...s., A.. A/TC
la.
_ __-rs
rnr.*ror E rnro.rnro a ron Tho . hollw..r.unsar hnh.sg4.e n..l..l Inamn.00 ih nnrf 6
r
It should be noted that construction of a flood protection levee within the ESHA buffer
provided it is the least environmentally damaging alternative, would not significantly
degrade the ESHA Alternatives that minimize encroachment into buffer area are
preferred According to the related coastal development permit application for the subject
site and the project proponent the type of flood protection levee to be constructed would
be a vegetated flood protection feature (VFPF), essentially a vegetated earthen berm with
an internal sheet pile wall The VFPF would not be expected to degrade the ESHA
because 1)there would only be temporary construction-related impacts 2)once
constructed the VFPF would be planted thus providing habitat and, 3) the VFPF would
not require maintenance once constructed thus intrusions into the ESHA buffer due to the
VFPF would be limited only to those necessary dunng construction For these reasons
locating a flood protection levee such as the vegetated flood protection levee described
above within the ESHA buffer would be consistent with Section 30240 of the Coastal Act
regarding protection of ESHA The actual design and construction of the flood protection
levee would depend on its location
In addition to land use designating all ESHA area and necessary buffer and mitigation
areas Open Space-Conservation additional measures must be incorporated into the LUP
amendment for the subject site to assure that future development does not adversely
impact the ESHA For example fuel modification requirements necessary to protect future
development from fire hazard must be addressed to assure habitat values within the ESHA
and required buffer areas are not adversely affected In addition, if no restrictions were
placed on landscaping throughout the site, invasive plants within the residential areas
could invade the ESHA areas potentially displacing the ESHA plants In addition, pets
from the residential development if unrestricted may enter the ESHA area causing
disruption As proposed the LUP amendment does not include any site development
restrictions intended to eliminate the site developments potential disruptions to the ESHA
inconsistent with Section 30240 of the Coastal Act However if modified to include a
prohibition on invasive plants throughout the site and a requirement for a domestic animal
management plan and fencing as part of the site specific LUP language the amendment
can be found consistent with Section 30240 of the Coastal Act Specific suggested
modifications to accomplish this are necessary to find the proposed amendment consistent
with the Coastal Act
Therefore the Commission finds that only as modified can the proposed amendment be
found to be consistent with Section 30240 of the Coastal Act
Exhibit A - Resolution No 2008 31
Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications)
Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside)
Page 47
4 Density
As proposed the amendment would allow a density of up to 7 dwelling units per acre on
approximately 38 acres of the 50 acre site which would yield a maximum of 266 units on
the area proposed to be designated residential However the related coastal development
permit application contemplates just 170 detached single family homes on relatively large
lots The City has proposed a residential land use designation of RL (Residential Low
maximum of 7 units per net acre) However the City s certified LUP includes a residential
land use designation of RM (Residential Medium from 7 to a maximum of 15 units per net
acre) The Commission's suggested modifications necessary to protect coastal resources
would reduce the allowable development footprint from the proposed approximately 38
acres to approximately 26 5 acres If developed at the maximum allowed under RL, a total
of 119 units would be the maximum number possible This would still provide a viable use
of the site However density consistent with the RM designation would also be acceptable
within the allowable development footprint If the RM designation were applied to the site
the maximum total number of units possible would be 255 units significantly more than the
number currently contemplated by the property owner s development plan Although 255
units are not guaranteed under the RM designation the ability to establish more units
under RM leaves the property owner with greater flexibility in determining the best use of
its property
It is worth noting that although the project site abuts a low density single family detached
residential development to the north (along Kenilworth Drive and Greenleaf Avenue) there
are also higher density multi family residential developments adjacent to and nearby the
project site The previously described Cabo del Mar condominium complex is adjacent to
the subject site Immediately to the north and west of Cabo del Mar are additional multi
family residential developments Thus developing at a higher density at the subject site
would not be out of the scale or character of the surrounding development
In addition, Section 30250 of the Coastal Act encourages residential development to be
concentrated in areas able to accommodate it The higher residential density allowed
under the RM designation would allow development at the site to be concentrated in the
northeast portion of the site consistent with this Coastal Act requirement Thus a
modification is suggested which would allow the City at the time it considers accepting the
suggested modifications recommended herein to apply either the RL or the RM
designation
5 Water Qualilty
Section 30230 of the Coastal Act requires that marine resources be maintained, enhanced
and where feasible, restored Section 30231 of the Coastal Act requires that the biological
productivity and quality of coastal waters be protected The City's certified LUP includes
policies that reflect the requirements of 30230 and 30231 of the Coastal Act
Development has the potential to adversely impact coastal water quality through the
Exhibit A - Resolution No 2008 31
Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications)
Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside)
Page 48
removal of native vegetation increase of impervious surfaces increase of runoff erosion
and sedimentation introduction of pollutants such as petroleum sediments metals
cleaning products pesticides and other pollutant sources
The 50 acre protect site is currently undeveloped with the exception of farming activities
Under existing conditions no runoff leaves the site during most rainfall events However
installation of impervious surfaces and activities associated with residential development
and related hardscape represent a potentially significant impact to water quality
downstream of the project which include the Inner and Outer Bolsa Bay, Muted Tidal
Pocket wetlands Huntington Harbour, and Anaheim Bay Wildlife Refuge These
downstream areas are likely to suffer increases in water quality impairment when site
development produces greater volumes and velocities of runoff as well as introducing
increased pollutant loads
It is important that LUP language for the subject site clearly address potential adverse
impacts arising due to post development runoff into the channel and significant water
bodies downstream This is especially true because little or no runoff currently leaves the
site during most rainfall events However the proposed amendment does not include such
language Without such language the LUP amendment is not consistent with the water
quality policies of the Coastal Act
The subject site represents an excellent opportunity to incorporate a natural treatment
system such as a wetland detention system There are multiple benefits from natural
treatment systems such as pollutant removal groundwater recharge habitat creation and
aesthetics Furthermore maintenance needs are typically more apparent and less
frequent with natural/vegetative treatment systems and thus are more likely to remain
effective than mechanical systems such as storm drain inserts and the like which can
become clogged and otherwise suffer mechanical difficulties If mechanical treatment
control BMPs are not continually maintained they will cease to be effective and
consequently water quality protection would not be maximized
Incorporating a natural treatment system such as wetland detention pond system is
feasible at the site The site is an appropriate candidate for a natural treatment system
because it is a large site unconstrained by existing development limited lot size or limited
by topography There is plenty of space on the site to accommodate a wetland detention
or similar type system while still allowing a reasonable development footprint Moreover
because little or no drainage currently leaves the site it is important that development of
the site not result in creation of new adverse water quality impacts such as would result
from increased runoff leaving the site In order to achieve the goal of not creating new
adverse water quality impacts all dry weather flow would need to be retained on site to the
maximum extent practicable The best way to accomplish retention of dry weather flow on
site typically is some type of natural treatment system Furthermore, in order to protect
water quality year round it is appropriate to impose a standard that any runoff that leaves
the site must meet The generally accepted standard for stormwater runoff is a
requirement to treat at least the 85t' percentile storm event with at least a 24-hour
Exhibit A - Resolution No 2008-31
Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications)
Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside)
Page 49
detention time If dry weather runoff cannot be retained on site it should be treated (e g
detained for at least 48 hours and where practicable for seven days in a natural treatment
system) The current LUP amendment does not require these site-specific water quality
measures and standards Therefore there is no assurance that water quality will be
protected Consequently the amendment is not consistent with the water quality policies of
the Coastal Act and must be denied
In addition, although the existing LUP includes policies that require projects to incorporate
water quality BMPs none of the existing LUP policies express a preference for types of
treatment control BMPs The preferred option for treatment control BMPs is first a natural
treatment system (e g bio-swales vegetative buffers constructed or artificial wetlands)
then second a combination of natural treatment and mechanical systems or BMPs and
last use of mechanical treatment systems or BMPs alone (e g site-specific water quality
treatment plants storm drain filters and inserts) In addition application of appropriate site
design and source control BMPs reduces the amount of runoff that would need treatment
control measures Thus site design and source control BMPs should be considered first
in order to adequately size any necessary treatment control BMPs
In addition the LUP does not contain any policy citing a hierarchy of preference for
different types of BMPs Without such an LUP policy there is no guarantee they will be
incorporated into projects when it is feasible to do so Natural treatment systems, for the
reasons described above provide better water quality protection, among other benefits
Consequently the amendment is not consistent with the water quality policies of the
Coastal Act and must be denied However, if the amendment is modified as suggested to
include this in LUP policy language it would be consistent with the water quality policies of
the Coastal Act
The use of permeable materials for paved areas in new developments is a site design and
source control measure which can reduce the rate and volume of the first flush of
stormwater runoff and can help to minimize or eliminate dry weather flow The proposed
amendment does not include any discussion on the benefits of incorporating permeable
materials into the design of future projects However if the amendment is modified as
suggested to include this in LUP policy language, it would be consistent with the water
quality policies of the Coastal Act
In addition as proposed the amendment does not include any requirements to minimize
or eliminate dry weather flows through the use of site design and source control BMPs
Consequently adverse water quality impacts due to dry weather flows are not minimized
However if the amendment were modified as suggested to incorporate policy language
addressing this measure the amendment would be consistent with the water quality
policies of the Coastal Act
The current City of Huntington Beach LCP Policy 6 1 6 (paragraph 4) states that, the City
shall continue implementation of the Municipal Non-Point [sic] Source National Pollution
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards program which is required by an order
Exhibit A - Resolution No 2008 31
Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications)
Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside)
Page 50
of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board The policy also states that the
City will continue to require a Water Quality Management Plan for all applicable new
development and redevelopment in the Coastal Zone The Commission finds this policy
should be modified to include the correct name and date of the permit and to incorporate
this permit by reference into the Local Coastal Program Updates to the NPDES permit
(such as the update expected in 2007) should be submitted to the Executive Director for
an LCP amendment
While the Commission recognizes that the City s existing policies address water quality
protection and improvement within the City it also recognizes that there are additional
more specific steps that could be taken to further protect restore and/or enhance the water
quality of downstream sites (EGGW flood control channel Bolsa Chica wetlands
restoration area Huntington Harbour, and Anaheim Bay Wildlife Refuge)that will be
effected by runoff generated by development of the site The proposed amendment could
not be found consistent with Sections 30230 and 30231 of the Coastal Act if feasible
measures known to positively impact water quality were not included in language specific
to the subject site as part of the current amendment proposal The Commission s standard
of review which requires the preservation protection and enhancement of coastal
resources including water quality necessitates that the additional measures outlined
above be imposed Thus the Commission finds that only if modified as suggested is the
proposed amendment consistent with Sections 30230 and 30231 of the Coastal Act
regarding water quality
6 Public Access and Recreation
Section 30210 of the Coastal Act states
In carrying out the requirement of Section 4 of Article X of the California
Constitution maximum access which shall be conspicuously posted, and
recreational opportunities shall be provided for all the people consistent with public
safety needs and the need to protect public nghts rights of pnvate property owners
and natural resource areas from overuse
Section 30252 of the Coastal Act states in pertinent part
The location and amount of new development should maintain and enhance public
access to the coast by (3) providing nonautomobile circulation within the
development, (4) providing adequate parking facilities or providing substitute means
of serving the development with public transportation, (6) assunng that the
recreational needs of new residents will not overload nearby coastal recreation
areas by correlating the amount of development with local park acquisition and
development plans with the provision of onsite recreational facilities to serve the
new development
Coastal Act Section 30212 5 states
Exhibit A - Resolution No 2008 31
Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications)
Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside)
Page 51
Wherever appropriate and feasible, public facilities including parking areas or
facilities shall be distributed throughout an area so as to mitigate against impacts
social and otherwise, of overcrowding or overuse by the public in any single area
Coastal Act Section 30213 states in pertinent part
Lower cost visitor and recreational facilities shall be protected encouraged and,
where feasible, provided Developments providing public recreational opportunities
are preferred
Coastal Act Section 30223 states
Upland areas necessary to support coastal recreational uses shall be reserved for
such uses, where feasible
In addition the City s certified LUP contains the following policies regarding public access
Provide coastal resource access opportunities for the public where feasible and in
accordance with the Cahfomia Coastal Act requirements
Encourage the use of City and State beaches as a destination point for bicyclists
pedestrians shuttle systems and other non-auto onented transport
Encourage the utilization of easements and/or rights-of-way along flood control
channels public utilities railroads and streets wherever practical for the use of
bicycles and/or pedestrian (emphasis added)
Maintain existing pedestrian facilities and require new development to provide
pedestrian walkways and bicycle routes between developments
Link bicycle routes with pedestrian trails and bus routes to promote an
interconnected system
Develop a riding and hiking trail network and support facilities that provide linkages
within the Coastal Zone where feasible and appropriate
Balance the supply of parking with the demand for parking
Maintain an adequate supply of parking that supports the present level of demand
and allow for the expected increase in private transportation use
Maintain and enhance where feasible existing shoreline and coastal resource
access sites
Exhibit A - Resolution No 2008 31
Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications)
Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside)
Page 52
Promote and provide, where feasible additional public access including handicap
access to the shoreline and other coastal resources
Promote public access to coastal wetlands for limited nature study passive
recreation and other low intensity uses that are compatible with the sensitive nature
of these areas
Maintain and enhance where necessary the coastal resource signing program that
identifies public access points bikeways recreation areas and vista points
throughout the Coastal Zone
Preserve protect and enhance where feasible existing public recreation sites in
the Coastal Zone
Ensure that new development and uses provide a variety of recreational facilities for
a range of income groups including low cost facilities and activities
Encourage where feasible facilities programs and services that increase and
enhance public recreational opportunities in the Coastal Zone
Promote and support the implementation of the proposed Wintersburg Channel
Class l Bikeway
The provision of public access in new development proposals is one of the main tenets of
the Coastal Act This emphasis has been carried over into the City s certified LUP In
certifying the LUP the Commission recognized via the approved LUP policies the
importance of including measures such as providing and enhancing public access to the
sea and other coastal resources adequate parking and alternate means of transportation
low cost recreational uses and public access signage, with new development
The 50-acre site is located in close proximity to the Bolsa Chica wetlands restoration area
(see exhibit BBBB) The Bolsa Chica Wetlands at approximately 1 000 acres is the
largest remaining wetland in Southern California Because it is tidally influenced the Bolsa
Chica wetlands constitute sea according to the Coastal Act definition (Section 30115)
Because there is no public road between the subject site and the Bolsa Chica wetlands
the site is between the sea and the first public road As such the area is given special
significance with regard to the requirement for the provision of public access Given the
prominence of the adjacent Bolsa Chica wetlands appropriate public access and passive
recreational opportunities must be provided and conspicuously posted Further, the
Coastal Act gives priority to land uses that provide opportunities for enhanced public
access public recreation and lower cost visitor recreational uses
Beyond the Bolsa Chica wetlands restoration area is the Pacific Ocean and its sandy
public beaches Thus public access across the subject site to the Bolsa Chica area
Exhibit A - Resolution No 2008 31
Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications)
Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside)
Page 53
would in turn facilitate public access via alternate means of transportation (bicycle and
pedestrian) to the ocean beach beyond
It is also worth noting that the visitor serving uses available within the Bolsa Chica reserve
(such as walking nature study or bird watching) are served by only two small parking
areas One located at the Interpretive Center at the corner of Warner Avenue and Pacific
Coast Highway and the second at about the midway point along the reserves Pacific
Coast Highway frontage There is no public parking available along Pacific Coast Highway
adjacent to the reserve Thus the benefits of providing alternate forms of transportation to
access the area such as biking or hiking from inland areas, are substantially increased
The lack of adequate parking to serve the reserve area is also a limiting factor in
maximizing public use of the reserve s amenities Assuring that any future streets within
the subject site are public and provide public parking is critical to maximizing public access
in the area
It is also important to note that the Brightwater residential development approved by the
Coastal Commission under Coastal Development Permit No 5-05-020 (Brightwater), is
located less than one half mile west of the subject site That development was originally
proposed as a private guard gated community However as approved by the
Commission the development will be open to general public vehicular and pedestrian
access also allowing public parking on all subdivision streets Also as approved by the
Commission the development will include a public trail along the bluff edge of the
development with public paseos and pocket parks throughout (see exhibit BBBB) The
Commissions approval also required public access signage
In approving the Brightwater development the Commission found
The provision of public access in new development proposals is one of the main
tenants [sic]of the Coastal Act especially in conjunction with new development
located between the sea and the first public road such as the subject project The
225-acre Bolsa Chica Mesa is located between the first public road and the mean
high tide of the sea At roughly 50 ft above mean sea level, spectacular views of
the wetlands and the associated wildlife and uninterrupted views of the Bolsa Chica
State Beach and Pacific Ocean are available from the upper bench of the Bolsa
Chica Mesa Santa Catalina Island is also often visible from the project site The
Bolsa Chica Wetlands at approximately 9 000 acres is the largest remaining
wetland in Southern California Following the 1997 State acquisition of most of the
remaining wetlands that were under private ownership a comprehensive Bolsa
Chica wetlands restoration effort is now underway Given the prominence of the
adjacent Bolsa Chica wetlands appropnate public access and passive recreational
opportunities must be provided and conspicuously posted Further, the Coastal Act
gives pnonty to land uses that provide opportunities for enhanced public access
public recreation and lower cost visitor recreational uses
A trail connection between the Brightwater trail system and the East Garden Grove
Exhibit A - Resolution No 2008 31
Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications)
Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside)
Page 54
Wintersburg Flood Control Channel levee trail is also anticipated in the future and shown
on the approved public access plan for the Brightwater development The public access
trails of the approved Brightwater protect link to the trail system along the Bolsa Chica
wetlands and beyond These trails in addition to providing recreational opportunities also
provide significant opportunities for nature study and views of the wetlands and ocean
beyond The Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve public trail system is a public access
resource of regional significance Members of the general public come from throughout
the entire County of Orange and beyond to bird watch hike or bike the trail system As
the largest remaining wetland in Southern California the public trail system leading to and
within the Bolsa Chica area constitutes a resource of statewide significance Further
Bolsa Chica State Beach located across Pacific Coast Highway from the Bolsa Chica
wetland area can be accessed via this trail system
The proposed LUP amendment contains no language to assure public access will be
provided throughout the site in conjunction with future site development Although the
certified LUP includes (as listed above) strong public access policies the proposed LUP
amendment does not include any public access language specifically addressing public
access needs appropriate for the site taking into consideration the recreational needs of
both the new residents and other users of the adjacent public recreational resources
Specifically identifying the necessity of these provisions in the LUP is especially important
at the subject site due to its unique position to link with and expand the very significant
public trail systems within the Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve the Brightwater
development and the public beaches beyond In order to assure that access is maximized
at the time of future site development specific language addressing access in the site
specific section of the LUP is necessary As proposed no such language is included in
the LUP amendment Some specific methods for assuring the provision of public access
at the subject site are described further below
a) Bicycle Path
The subject site is immediately adjacent to the north levee of the East Garden Grove
Wintersburg Flood Control Channel (EGGWFCC) The County s Commuter Bikeways
Strategic Plan (the regional bikeways plan for Orange County) identifies a Class I bikeway
along the flood control channel This is also reflected in the City s certified LUP Figure C-
14 Trails and Bikeways Map in the certified LUP identifies a proposed bikeway along the
EGGWFCC adjacent to the site A letter from the County s Public Facilities & Resources
Department dated January 8 1998 (exhibit J) states
`Regarding the City s proposal to continue the Class I bikeway northerly along the
Wintersburg Channel to Graham Street The County supports this It would provide
an excellent bikeway connection between the City's road system and the off-road
wetlands perimeter route (We suggest referring to this entire route — between
Graham Street and PCH —as the Bolsa Chica Bikeway)
In addition a letter from the County s Public Facilities & Resources Department dated
Exhibit A - Resolution No 2008 31
Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications)
Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside)
Page 55
February 13 1998 (exhibit J) commenting on a proposed tentative tract map for the
subject site states
A bicycle trail along the CO5 [East Garden Grove-Wintersburg Channel] north
levee maintenance road will be required
A bike route in this area would provide substantial public access benefits It is encouraged
in existing LUP policies It would provide a connection between existing inland routes and
the Bolsa Chica area and is expected to be extended in the future along the remainder of
the EGGWFCC levee adjacent to the Bolsa Chica Restoration area When such an
extension occurs (as is anticipated in the City s LUP and by the County Public Facilities &
Resources Department) the bike route would eventually link to the coast An off road
bicycle path already exists along the entire length of the City s ocean fronting beach A
bike path at the subject site and along the remainder of the EGGWFCC would provide a
new connection from inland bicycle paths to this coastal path Not only would such a
bicycle path provide substantial public recreational benefits but it would also improve
public access opportunities by providing alternate means of transportation to get to the
coast and to the trails within the Bolsa Chica area The City and the County have both
indicated that a bicycle path in this location is desirable and appropriate However, the
proposed LUP amendment does not include any language specific to this site assuring that
implementation of the bicycle trail will occur prior to or concurrent with site development
Current LUP policy merely states promote and encourage the bicycle path s
implementation Therefore there is no assurance that it will be built in a timely manner or
perhaps that it will be built at all Thus the amendment as proposed cannot be found to be
consistent with Sections 30210 30213 and 30252 of the Coastal Act regarding maximizing
public access
b) Public Streets and Parking
In addition if the residential development that the proposed land use designation would
allow were to be a private and/or gated development public access would not be
maximized or enhanced inconsistent with Sections 30210 30212 5, 30223 and 30252 of
the Coastal Act All public entry controls such as gates gate/guard houses or other
guarded entry signage that discourages access and any other restrictions on the general
public s entry by and use of any streets or parking areas (e g private streets, preferential
parking districts resident-only parking periods/permits etc ) would constrain the publics
ability to access the area proposed as public park as well as the public's ability to access
the public bike path along the EGGWFCC levee In turn public access to the Bolsa Chica
area and ocean beyond would also not be provided As stated previously the site is
between the first public road and the sea (in this case the Bolsa Chica wetlands) The
provision of public parking within the area would allow visitors to begin a bike ride or walk
along the levee through the Bolsa Chica area and on to the ocean front Public streets
and public parking within the residential area would not only support public recreational
use in the vicinity of the subject site but also allow visitors from beyond the immediate
vicinity to use the park area and public recreational and open space resources in the
Exhibit A - Resolution No 2008 31
Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications)
Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside)
Page 56
Bolsa Chica area
In addition ungated public streets would facilitate the use of interior public trails within the
development Interior trails would further maximize support and enhance public access
opportunities Public trails could be established leading from Graham Street to the outer
edge of the area recommended to be designated Open Space conservation and from
within the development back onto the bike way along the north levee of the EGGWFCC
Establishing such trails would provide an excellent public access experience consistent
with the requirements of Sections 30210 30212 5 30213 30223 and 30252 to maximize
and enhance lower cost public recreational and public access opportunity with new
development and assure adequate support facilities are provided The provision of interior
trails within a future development at the site would be especially consistent with Section
30252's requirement that non-automobile circulation be provided within the new
development
In order to assure that this aspect of public access (the provision of public parking within
an ungated residential area with public streets and interior trails) is provided at the time the
site is developed language reflecting this must be incorporated into the LUP However, no
such language is proposed as part of the LUP amendment Thus the amendment cannot
be found to be consistent with Sections 30210 30212 5 30213 30223 and 30252 of the
Coastal Act regarding maximizing and enhancing public access
c) Provision of Recreation and Public Access Benefits
Residential development of the subject site that would occur pursuant to the proposed
amendment would have adverse impacts on public access and recreation unless the
above described measures are incorporated into the design of a future protect In order to
assure maximum public benefit the public recreation and access measures would need to
be provided in a timely manner However nothing in the proposed amendment or in the
City s LUP currently requires that lower priority developments (such as residential) be
phased to assure the provision of those uses that are a higher priority under the Coastal
Act (such as public trails parks and parking) occur prior to or concurrent with the lower
priority development Without such a phasing requirement it is difficult to assure that
necessary public benefits would occur in a timely manner, or possibly even at all Thus as
proposed the amendment is inconsistent with Sections 30210 30212 5 30213 and 30252
of the Coastal Act regarding maximizing and enhancing public recreation and access
Coastal Act Section 30210 requires that public coastal access be maximized Coastal Act
Section 30252 requires that public access be maintained and enhanced through the
provision of nonautomobile circulation within the development adequate parking and
adequate recreational opportunities These requirements are carried over and re-
emphasized in the City s Land Use Plan public access policies As proposed the LUP
amendment would allow significant residential development to occur with no corresponding
requirement for public access specific to the site The site is located between the sea and
the first public road
Exhibit A - Resolution No 2008 31
Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications)
Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside)
Page 57
Although a portion of the site is proposed to be designated park, nothing in the proposed
amendment would assure that it would be available to the general public via public streets
and trails The certified LUP identifies a Class I bicycle path along the flood control
channel levee at the subject site However, the proposed amendment makes no reference
to the suitability of a bicycle path at the subject site If a future residential development at
the site included gates or private streets a significant public access opportunity would be
lost in addition public parking in the area would increase public access opportunities to
public resources including the park area the bicycle path the public trails of the
Brightwater development and to the Bolsa Chica area beyond as well as ultimately to the
coast However there is nothing in the LUP amendment that would require the residential
streets to be open and available to the public Nor is there any requirement for interior trail
connections between Graham Street any future public park areas and the bicycle path to
areas within the development and beyond In addition, nothing in the proposed
amendment or in the City s LUP requires that lower priority developments (such as
residential) be phased to assure provision of associated recreation and public access
(such as public trails parks, and parking) occur prior to or concurrent with the lower priority
development Without such a phasing requirement it is difficult to assure that Coastal Act
high priority uses would occur in a timely manner or possibly even at all
However the proposed amendment could be modified such that site specific language in
the LUP include reference to the Class I bicycle path along the flood control channel levee
interior trail connections public parking and access on residential streets This would
allow direct public access throughout the site, the public trails within the Brightwater
development and the Bolsa Chica area and to the beach beyond Furthermore the
proposed amendment could be modified to incorporate a policy requiring phasing of
recreation and public access uses prior to or concurrent with lower priority uses
Modifications to accomplish these goals would bring the proposed amendment into
conformity with Coastal Act Sections 30210 30212 5, 30213 30223 and 30252 which
require that public access and recreation be maximized and enhanced Therefore, the
Commission finds that only if modified as suggested is the proposed amendment
consistent with Sections 30210 and 30252 of the Coastal Act
7 Visual Resources
Section 30251 of the Coastal Act requires that the scenic and visual qualities of coastal
areas shall be considered and protected as a resource of public importance The subject
site offers the opportunity to provide public views from the site to the Bolsa Chica wetlands
area and toward the ocean beyond The VFPS would provide an excellent opportunity to
provide public views to and along the coast and scenic areas as required by Section
30251 However the proposed LUP amendment does not include any discussion
regarding provision of public view points in association with development of the site
Future residential development of the site is expected to include a wall separating
residential development adjacent to the flood control levee from the anticipated public
Exhibit A - Resolution No 2008 31
Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications)
Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside)
Page 58
bicycle path along the top of the levee If such a wall is proposed in the future it could
create adverse impacts to public views along the bicycle path However adverse impacts
could be minimized by incorporating measures such as open fencing/wall landscaped
screening use of an undulating or off-set wall footprint or decorative wall features (such
as artistic imprints etc ) or a combination of these measures In addition any such wall
should be located upon the private property for which it is intended to provide privacy
The proposed amendment does not provide language to address site specific visual
impacts and does not assure that potential visual resources will be protected at the time
the site is proposed for development Therefore the proposed amendment is inconsistent
with Section 30252 of the Coastal Act regarding protection of visual resources within the
coastal zone and must be denied However if the amendment were modified to
incorporate measures specific to the site that protect and enhance public views, the
amendment would be consistent with Section 30252 of the Coastal Act regarding
protection of public views
8 Archaeological Resources
Coastal Act Section 30244 requires that any impacts to significant archaeological
resources be reasonably mitigated The City s certified LUP includes policies which
require among other things identification of resources and mitigation of any impacts
Significant archaeological resources are known to exist in the project vicinity and may
occur on the subject site
However the proposed LUP amendment does not include a specific requirement to avoid
and/or mitigate archaeological impacts even though the site is known to be in a potentially
significant archaeological area Without a cross reference in the site specific area
discussion of the proposed LUP amendment to the archaeological policies in the LUP
there is no assurance that the potential for archaeological resources to occur on the site
will be recognized in conjunction with future development proposals If the potential for
archaeological resources at the site is not recognized in the proposed LUP amendment for
the site application of the policies cited above may be overlooked The proposed LUP
amendment which specifically addresses the subject site provides the appropriate
opportunity to make clear that archaeological resources may be present on this site and
therefore these specific policies must be applied
If the amendment were modified to include a cross reference to the archaeological policies
of the LUP adverse impacts may be avoided and reasonable mitigation for unavoidable
impacts could be implemented in conjunction with future site development, consistent with
Section 30244 of the Coastal Act Therefore the Commission finds that only if modified as
suggested is the proposed amendment consistent with Section 30244 of the Coastal Act
which requires that reasonable mitigation be required for adverse impacts to
archaeological resources
Exhibit A - Resolution No 2008 31
Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications)
Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside)
Page 59
9 Hazards
Coastal Act Section 30253 state in pertinent part
New Development shall
(2) Minimize risks to life and property in areas of high geologic flood, and
fire hazard
(3) Assure stability and structural integnty and neither create nor
contribute significantly to erosion geologic instability or destruction of
the site or surrounding area or in any way require the construction of
protective devices that would substantially alter natural landforms
along bluffs and cliffs
The proposed LUP amendment would designate much of the subject site for residential
development land use The Commission s staff geologist has reviewed a great deal of
technical information submitted in conjunction with the proposed LUP amendment and
related coastal development permit application Potential geotechnical and hydrological
issues are identified in the staff geologists memo The staff geologists memo is attached
as exhibit I and is hereby incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein
Residential development of the site carries with it certain risks Although information
submitted relative to the related coastal development permit application indicates there are
feasible mitigation measures available to minimize the level of risk involved with site
development there is no specific requirement in the proposed amendment to assure that
measures necessary for risk reduction would be incorporated into future site development
Without such requirements in the amendment there is no assurance that risks will be
minimized as required by Section 30253 of the Coastal Act However if the amendment
were modified to include such a requirement it would be consistent with Section 30253 of
the Coastal Act
The subject site and much of the surrounding area are susceptible to tidal flooding Tidal
flooding could occur when extreme high tides occur concurrently with storm surge events
According to some studies the existing tidal flooding risk was increased with the opening
of the ocean inlet into the Bolsa Chica Restoration area Regardless of the cause of the
flooding high tides and storm surge will create tidal flooding The worst case scenario
would occur when high tide and storm surge occurs during failure of the levees of the
lower reaches of the East Garden Grove Wintersburg Flood Control Channel (EGGWFCC)
(which is possible as the levees are not FEMA certified) Under any of these scenarios up
to 170 acres of inland developed area would be flooded Consequently contemplation of
any development of the subject site must address this flooding issue
With or without development of the subject site the inland 170 acres of existing
development must be protected from flood hazard The path the tidal flooding would follow
unavoidably crosses the subject site The only way to adequately insure protection of the
s
Exhibit A - Resolution No 2008 31
Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications)
Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside)
Page 60
inland 170 acres of existing development is to install a flood protection levee (a k a VFPF)
on the subject site or to the southwest of the subject site within the Bolsa Chica Pocket
Wetlands" between the EGGWFCC and the Bolsa Chica mesa Protection of the inland
170 acres would also protect the 50 acre subject site from flooding
The property owner has indicated in documents submitted with the related coastal
development permit application that a vegetated flood protection feature (VFPF) is
proposed The EGGWFCC is approximately 11 feet above sea level and the bluff at the
western site boundary raises some 40 feet above sea level A flood protection levee at
this site could effectively capture tidal floods if it is constructed to an elevation above the
expected flood flow The existing EGGWFCC levee in the area adjacent to the subject site
is expected to be reconstructed to meet FEMA certification standards and would have an
elevation of 11 feet above sea level (the existing levee's elevation is also 11 feet above
sea level) If a flood protection levee were constructed to the same elevation flood waters
would be prevented from flooding the subject site as well as the additional 170 inland
acres With or without development of the proposed site some form of flood protection is
necessary to minimize risks to life and property in areas of high flood hazard and to assure
stability and structural integrity and not contribute significantly to destruction of the
surrounding area As it happens the subject site provides the optimum location for the
flood protection levee necessary to minimize risk to life and property in the 170 developed
acres inland of the subject site
Construction of some type of flood protection levee would be necessary with development
of the subject site However, such a feature would be necessary even without site
development The flood protection levee expected to be constructed as an earthen levee
with an internal sheet pile wall would serve an important function Without construction of
the flood protection levee even with reconstruction of the north levee of the EGGWFCC
along the subject site flooding of 170 inland acres (including the subject site)would result
during either a tidal surge or a levee failure downstream of the subject site The 170 acre
inland area is developed with approximately 800 homes Floodwater depth in some
homes it is estimated would be at least two feet
However construction of a flood protection levee on the site would be adequate to assure
structural integrity and neither create nor contribute significantly to erosion geologic
instability or destruction of the site or surrounding area in addition construction of the
flood protection levee would minimize risks to life and property from flood hazard In order
for the flood protection levee to function effectively it would have to be placed within the
site s necessary buffer areas However as described previously, a flood protection levee
in the ESHA or wetland buffer area may be an allowable use within a buffer provided it is
the least environmentally damaging feasible alternative
Furthermore the construction of the flood protection levee may eliminate the need for the
flood control levee downstream of the flood wall If the flood control levee downstream of
the flood wall is not reconstructed, potential impacts to wetlands in the CP wetland area
can be avoided The appropriateness of reconstructing the downstream levee area will be
Exhibit A - Resolution No 2008 31
Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications)
Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside)
Page 61
considered when the related coastal development permit is processed It should be noted
that an emergency coastal development permit was issued to the County of Orange to
install sheet pile within the north levee of the flood control channel adjacent to the subject
site However the County has indicated it is willing to consider alternatives that limit
changes to the levee downstream if such an alternative is deemed feasible and
environmentally desirable Construction methods proposed by the County to install the
sheetpiles will not involve any wetland fill Impacts to coastal resources may occur which
will be addressed in the follow-up permit
The question of whether the bluff along the western edge of the property should be
considered a "coastal bluff has been raised The Commissions staff geologist has
evaluated the bluffs status The staff geologists evaluation is contained in a
memorandum attached as exhibit P The subject bluff was carved by the ancestral Santa
Ana river as it meandered across the Bolsa Chica lowlands Assertions have been made
that the bluff was subject to marine erosion within the past 200 years based on an 1873 T-
sheet that shows tidal channels adjacent to the toe of the bluff The staff geologist's
response to these assertions is I concur that there is strong evidence that there were tidal
wetlands in the Bolsa Chica lowlands prior to dike construction in the early twentieth
century but tidal wetlands generally are not the site of extensive marine erosion Indeed
they are commonly depositional not erosional and serve as an efficient buffer from marine
erosion The staff geologist concludes In summary I believe that the bluff at the Shea
Home property is best described as a river bluff and is not a coastal bluff in a genetic or
geomorphic sense Thus, the Commission finds that the bluff on the subject site is not a
coastal bluff
For the reasons described above, the Commission finds that only if modified can the
proposed amendment be found to be consistent with Section 30253 of the Coastal Act
which requires that risks to life and property be minimized and that development assure
stability and structural integrity and neither create nor contribute significantly to erosion,
geologic instability or destruction of the site or surrounding area
10 Priority of Use
Section 30222 of the Coastal Act states
The use of pnvate lands suitable for visitor-serving commercial recreational facilities
designed to enhance public opportunities for coastal recreation shall have prionty
over private residential general industrial or general commercial development, but
not over agnculture or coastal-dependent industry
The LUP amendment does not propose to designate any portion of the site visitor serving
commercial Generally in the City of Huntington Beach the areas recognized as best for
visitor serving commercial development are the areas along Pacific Coast Highway, and
adjacent to and inland of the pier and areas within and around Huntington Harbour The
subject site is surrounded on three sides by existing single family residences and does not
Exhibit A - Resolution No 2008 31
Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications)
Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside)
Page 62
lend itself to visitor serving commercial development Moreover the LUP amendment as
proposed and as amended will provide a Class I bicycle path a public view area public
park area and interior trails as well as public parking along the residential streets Such
uses constitute lower cost visitor serving recreational uses As modified the recreational
and public access provisions will be constructed prior to or concurrent with the residential
uses Therefore the Commission finds that the proposed LUP amendment is consistent
with Sections 30213 and 30222 of the Coastal Act which requires visitor serving
commercial recreational facilities have priority over residential development and
encourages provision of lower cost public recreational facilities
11 Conclusion
As proposed the Land Use Plan amendment contains significant deficiencies with regard
to consistency with the Coastal Act As proposed the amendment cannot be found
consistent with Sections 30210 and 30252 regarding maximizing and enhancing public
access 30251 regarding protection of public views 30233 and 30250 regarding wetlands
30240 regarding ESHA 30244 regarding archaeological resources and 30230 and 30231
regarding water quality of the Coastal Act However if the proposed amendment were
modified as suggested in Section 11 of this staff report the amendment would be consistent
with the Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal Act Therefore, the Commission finds that only if
modified is the proposed amendment consistent with the Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal
Act
IV CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
Section 21080 9 of the California Public Resources Code —within the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) - exempts local governments from the requirement of
preparing an environmental impact report (EIR) in connection with its activities and
approvals necessary for the preparation and adoption of a local coastal program (LCP)
instead the CEQA responsibilities are assigned to the Coastal Commission However the
Commission s LCP review and approval program has been found by the Resources
Agency to be functionally equivalent to the EIR process Thus under Section 21080 5 of
CEQA the Commission is relieved of the responsibility to prepare an EIR for each LCP
Nevertheless the Commission is required in approving an LCP submittal to find that the
LCP does conform with the provisions of CEQA including the requirement in CEQA
section 21080 5(d)(2)(A) that the amended #P LUP will not be approved or adopted as
proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which
would substantially lessen any significant adverse impact which the activity may have on
the environment 14 C C R Sections 13542(a) 13540(f) and 13555(b) The City of
Huntington Beach LCP amendment 1-06 consists of an amendment to beffi the Land Use
Plan (LUP) onl and the faw and .,,.� ®�a"
As outlined in this staff report the LUP amendment is not consistent with the Chapter 3
Exhibit A - Resolution No 2008-31
Adopted Findings (Approval of LUP with Modifications)
Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside)
Page 63
polices of the Coastal Act regarding public access and recreation wetland ESHA marine
resources and land resources as proposed "„d °s^ as ^•d"•„^d ai„ r^„^•t
the orages--' "® .,„e.,nd—mo-n-9 . ..tent. 01th tha r_Q ..4^..F...
Iry i
of tho ,.,,rs. 19-1 ° and Ilea pion =a Madif�+..° However if modified as
suggested the amendment will be consistent with the public access and recreation
wetland, ESHA marine resource and land resource policies of the Coastal Act
Thus the Commission finds that the proposed LUP
amendment as modified meets the requirements of and conforms with the Chapter 3
policies of the Coastal Act
t�nn^�A• ^d non .+.■ aste .° is in gh with
and Ut, thq °ws.rl
Therefore the Commission finds that approval of the
LUP amendment as modified will not result in significant adverse environmental
impacts under the meaning of CEQA Therefore the Commission certifies L=GP LUP
amendment request 1-06 if modified as suggested herein
HN8 LCPA 1 06 Parkside AdptdF 5 08 my
Res No 2008-31
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
I JOAN L FLYNN the duly elected qualified City Clerk of the City of
Huntington Beach and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City do hereby
certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of
Huntington Beach is seven that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted
by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of all the members of said City Council
at a regular meeting thereof held on June 16, 2008 by the following vote
AYES Hansen Bohr Coerper Green Carchio
NOES Hardy Cook
ABSENT None
ABSTAIN None
iV
CU Clerk and ex-office Jerk of the
City Council of the City of
Huntington Beach California