Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
File 1 of 2 - White Hole Area - Code Amendment 93-8 - Local
P PROOF (?f PUBLICATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA) II ) SS. County of Orange ) I am a Citizen of the United States and a PUBLIC NOTICE resident of the County aforesaid; I am PUBLIC NOTICE EA ORFNc over the age of eighteen years, and not a CODER ND ENT 3-8 party to or interested in the below (To Co di)the entitled matter. I am a principal clerk of Conservation —COASTAL STATUS: This Provision of the code amendment must be the HUNTINGTON BEACH INDEPENDENT, a Coaal ity'sLocal pomatl r viewetheCaand liforn. newspaper of general circulation, printed NOTICE IS ia HEREBY Coastal Commission. GIVEN that the City Council ON FILE: A copy of the and published in the City of Huntington will hold a public hearing in nropeo d st iDeoVnnlofile the Council Chamber at the hh Community Develop. Beach County of Orange, State of Huntington Beach Civic ment Department, 2000 Center, 2000 Main Street, Main Street, Huntington California, and that attached Notice is .a Huntington Beach, Califor- Beach, California 92648, nia, on the date and at the for Inspection by'the pub- time indicated below to re- lic. A copy of the staff re- true and complete copy as was printed ceive and consider the ,port will be available to In- statements of all persons terested parties at City.Hall and published in the Huntington Beach who wish to be heard rela. Ior the Main City Library tive to the application de- (7111 Talbert Avenue)after and Fountain Valley Issues of said scribed below. September 1,1994. DATE/TIME: . Tuesday, ALL INTERESTED PER. newspaper to wit the issue(s) of: September 6, 1994, 7:00 SONS are Invited to attend PM said hearing and express APPLICATION NUMBER: opinions or submit evi- Code Amendment No.93-8 dence for or against the APPLICANT: City of Hun- application as outlined tin gton Beach above.Written communica- LOCATION: The non- tions may be sent to the August 25, 1994 certified coastal area of the City Clerk. If you challenge City of Huntington Beach the City Council's action in generally located on the in- court, you may be limited land side of Pacific Coast to raising only those issues Highway between Beach you or someone else Boulevard and the Santa raised at the public hearing Ana River. described In this notice, or REQUEST: To amend Ar- in written correspondence ticle 942, Coastal Conser- delivered to the City at, or I declare, under penalty of perjury, that vation and Article 969.9, prior to,the public hearing. Coastal Zone of the Hun- If there are any further the foregoing is true and correct. tington Beach Ordinance questions please call Scott code for consistency with Hess, Senior Planner at the City's Local �Coastal (714)536-5271. Program and to require a Connie Brockway, conceptual development. Huntington Beach City plan,environmental studies Clerk, 2000 Main Executed on August 25 1994 and restrictions on parcels Street, Huntington which contain the "CC"' Beach, CA 92648 at Costa Mesa, California. Suffix should any portion (714)536.5227 be proposed for develop- ton Published Huntington 9 ENVIRONMENTAL STA. .Beach-Fountaln Valley In- TUS: Categorically exempt dependent August 25, pursuant to Section 15265 1994. of the California Environ- 084-852 mental Quality Act. Signature NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CODE AMENDMENT NO. 93-8 (To modify the Coastal Conservation Provisions of the City's Local Coastal Program) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council will hold a public hearing in the Council Chamber at the Huntington Beach Civic Center, 2000 Main Street,Huntington Beach, California,on the date and at the time indicated below to receive and consider the statements of all persons who wish to be heard relative to the application described below. DATE/TIME: Tuesday, September 6, 1994, 7:00 PM APPLICATION NUMBER: Code Amendment No.93-8 APPLICANT: City of Huntington Beach LOCATION: The non-certified coastal area of the City of Huntington Beach generally located on the inland side of Pacific Coast Highway between Beach Boulevard and the Santa Ana River. REQUEST: To amend Article 942, Coastal Conservation and Article 969.9, Coastal Zone of the Huntington Beach Ordinance code for consistency with the City's Local Coastal Program and to require a conceptual development plan,environmental studies and restrictions on parcels which contain the"CC"Suffix should any portion be proposed for development. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15265 of the California Environmental Quality Act. COASTAL STATUS: This code amendment must be ultimately reviewed and approved by the California Coastal Commission. ON FILE: A copy of the proposed request is on file in the Community Development Department, 2000 Main Street,Huntington Beach, California 92648, for inspection by the public. A copy of the staff report will be available to interested parties at City Hall or the Main City Library(7111 Talbert Avenue)after.-September 1, 1994. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. Written communications may be sent to the City Clerk. If you challenge the City Council's action in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing. If there are any further questions please call Scott Hess, Senior Planner at (714) 536- 5271. Connie Brockway Huntington Beach City Clerk g:legalkx0377 2000 Main Street / Huntington Beach, CA 92648 (714) 536-5227 CITY COUNCIL PLui U13LIC HEARING REQUEST SUBJECT: � � — e3 kk V W UL, DEPARTMENT: MEETING: 3-: •MaME.R OF OTHM FU,A6TROPJZAT10N.-- L Asslstmat Cky A " ' trator' N/A YES NO ( ) Does Heading and Closing of Notice Reflect Cif Council Hearing (Not PC) ( ) Is a Map attached and/or is a quarter page legal ad required? ( ) ( ) If aj2peal, is appellant's name shown on legal notice? ( ) ( ) If housing is involved, is"legal challenge paragraph" included? ( ) ( ) If Coastal Development Permit, are the RESIDENT labels attached and is the Coastal Commission Office on the labels? ( ) ( ) If Coastal Development Permit, has the Master Legal Notice Document been used? Is TitVC*pang verification letter attached? ( ) ( ) Were the latest Assessor's Parcel Rolls used? (Please attach N erification of Title Co.or indicate that rolls used were derived from Assessor's Rolls in Planning Dept.,whichever applicable) ( ) ( ) Is the appellant's name and address part of the labels? ( ) Is day of public hearing correct -Monday/Tuesday? ( ) Has the City Administrators Office authorized the public hearing to be set? ( ) Is day of public hearing correct -Monday/Tuesday? ( ) ( ) Is there an Environmental Status to be approved by Council? ( ) ( ) Are the appellant/applicant's names and addresses on mailing labels? For Public Hearings at the City Council level, please insert the below paragraph of the public hearing notice "ALL-INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing-antes aFwons or submit to the City Clerk written evidence for or against the application as outlined above If there are any further questions, please call (insert name of Planner) at 536-5271 CONNIE BROCKWAY,CITY CLERK F CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET-2ND FLOOR_ _ HUNTINGTON BEACH,CALIFORNIA 92648 - (714)536-5227 ' G!es/PUBHER - - -- �- - -3^ ---- -- -- - - - - � -i I 1Robin I Hoff, 1605 W. Olympic #700, Los Angeles, Z� Gordon Smith, 6832 Bar Harbor, Q� Loretta Wolfe, 411-6th Street,- Linda Wilford, 2501 Pullman Street, Santa Ana,. _6�=_ I - --- --- -- -- - I , WITEHOL2-7/28/94 GC:) Amigos De Bolsa Chica Caltrans/District 7 Mark Shapiro P.O.Box 3748 120 S.Spring Street 21322 Ashburton Cir. Huntington Beach,CA 92605 Los Angeles,CA 90012-3606 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Attn: Adrianne Morrison Attn:Bob Dixon Paul D'Alessandro Jerry Dominguez U.S.Fish&Wildlife Svc. Deputy City Attorney So.Cal Edison Co. Jack Fancher City of Huntington Beach 7333 Bolsa Ave. 2730 Loker Avenue West 2000 Main Street Westminster,CA 92683 Carlsbad,CA 92008 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Dept.of the Army L.A.Dist,Corp Don Troy Assemblyman Frizzelle of Engr.-Env.Planning 5272 Allstone Drive 16265 Mt.Baden Powell St. 300 N.Los Angeles St. Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Fountain Valley,CA 92708 Los Angeles,CA 90053-2325 Attn: Alex Watt Dept.of Fish&Game Cal.Dept.of Fish&Game Katherine Stone/Margaret Sohagi 1416 9th St. 12th Floor Region 5 Freilich,Stone,Leitner,Carlisle Sacramento,CA 95814 330 Golden Shore,Ste. 50 The Wilshire Landmark,Ste 1230 Attn: Bob Radovich Long Beach,CA 90802 11755 Wilshire Blvd. Attn:Fred Worthy Los Angeles,Ca 90025-1518 _l Carl Nelson,Director Daisy Piccirelli Board President Env.Mgmt.Agency-P.W. P.O.Box 6202 HB/FV Board of Realtors 400 Civic Center Dr.W. Mesa,Arizona 85206 8101 Slater Avenue P.O.Box 4048 Huntington Beach,CA 92647 Santa Ana,CA 92702-4048 Senator Bergeson Bob Joseph Herb Nakasone,MGR. 140 Newport Center Dr. Ste 120 Caltrans/District 12 Flood Programs Division Newport Beach,CA 92660 Env.Ping.Brh C Env.Mgnt.Agency/Flood Ctrl. Attn: Julie Froberg 2501 Holman Street P.O.Box 4048 Santa Ana,CA 92705 Santa Ana,CA 92701 Coastal Conservancy 1330 Broadway,Suite 1100 Evano Stamegna 114-160-72 Oakland,CA 94612 ISCO Ind,NESI Investment Grp Robert Mandic/Gary Gorman Attn:Reed Holderman/Wendy Eliot 15342 Hawthorne Blvd.Ste.400 H.B.Wetlands Conservancy Lawndale,CA 90260 P.O.Box 5903 Huntington Beach,CA 92615 F.William Olson,Mgr. Analysis Sec/Env Mgmt Agency Mills Land and Water 12 Civic Center Plaza 18090 Beach Blvd.Ste.6 Gordon Smith Santa Ana,CA 927024048 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 6832 Bay Harbor Attn: Robert London Moore,Jr. Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Steve Ross 9562 Hightide Drive Mr.Lary Sitton Title Energy of California Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Calif.Dept.of Fish&Game 10537 Santa Monica Blvd. 330 Goldenshore,Ste.50 3rd Floor Long Beach,CA 90802 Los Angeles,CA 90025 Attn:Wildlife Management Attn: Bill Curtis Cal Coastal Commission South Coast Area Steve Bone Paul Gonzales,Chief Branch"C" 245 W.Braodway Ste. 380 Robert Mayer Corporation Env.Ping.D.O.T.,Dist 12 Long Beach,CA 90802 660 Newport Center Drive#105 2501 Pullman Street Attn:Teresa Henry Newport Beach,CA 92658 Santa Ana,CA 92705 Pg.2 John Toyama 114-150-78-80 Coastal Magnolia Group Space 288 Howard Chapman/Ted A.Broedlow 5576 Dover Street 21851 Newland Street Signal Mortgage Suite 200 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 11 Golden Shore,Ste.300 Chino,CA 91709 Long Beach,CA 90802 148-027-52 Mills Land&Water Co. Joyce Riddell,Pres. Robert Ujihara P.O.Box 7108 H.B.Chamber of Commerce ' 2901 Rebano Huntington Beach,CA 92615 2100 Main Street,Ste.200 San Clemente,CA 92672 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Anne Pepper 148-02746 Manager, Orange County Register John T.Clark Huntington By the Sea 16340 Beach Blvd. 21276 Chesterbrook 21851 Newland St. Westminster,CA 92683 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Dick Harlow Geri Ortega 149-041-21 1742 Main Street Huntington Beach Tomorrow Carolyn Crockett Huntington Beach,CA 92648 P.O.Box 865 9062 Adelia Circle Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Chuck Damm Daily Pilot 148-091-11 Calif.Coastal Comm. P.O.Box 1560 Roger Gasteiger South Coast Dist. Costa Mesa,CA 92627 21421 Antigua Lane 245 W.Broadway,380 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Long Beach,CA 90801 Cabrillo Mobilehome Home 148-081-12 Owners Association Keith Belew 21752 Pacific Coast Hwy. 21401 Antiqua Lane Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Attn: Ron Yocrem/Manager William B.Rice Reg.Water Quality Control Board Barbara Kaiser 149-014-02 Santa Ana Region BB Redevelopment Agency Gerald Gartland 2010 Iowa Avenue,Ste 100 2000 Main Street 21832 Kiowa Lane Riverside,CA 92507-2409 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Beverly Titus 9062 Bobbie Circle Mark Rutter Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Moore&Rutter 149-371-24 5150 E.PCH Ste. 360 Kaushal Sharma Long Beach,CA 90804 22381 Harwich Lane Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Kim Barone,Asst.Mgr H.B.Chamber of Commerce City Councilperson 149-014-01 2100 Main Street,Ste.200 Victor Leipzig Michael Stracner Huntington Beach,CA 92648 City of Huntington Beach 21822 Kiowa Lane 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Norman Vander Molen H.B.Comm. Services Comm. 114-150-75 148-027-55 9472 Mokihana Drive John Lindsey/Ascon Properties Roy Lothringer Huntington Beach,CA 92648 21602 Surveyor Circle 20311 Brentstone Lane Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Pg. 3 John Yeager 148-081-10 149-041-17 Pettis,Tester,Kruse&Krinsky John Hill Joseph Johnson 18881 Von Karman Ave., 16th Mr. 21431 Antigua Lane 9002 Adelia Circle Irvine,CA 92715 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 1 _ 148-027-53 Linda Wilford 148-027-60 Russell Berg Caltrans/Dist. 12 Katherine Vermillion 8125 Foxhall Drive 2501 Pullman St. 8132 Foxhall Drive Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Santa Ana,CA 92705 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 149-021-01 149-041-30 148-027-56 Arthur Ashley David Archibald Ralph Gumberg 21842 Kiowa Lane 9031 Rhodesia Drive 8112 Foxhall Drive Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 148-021-25 148-081-07 Huntington Breakers 148-027-54 Wayne Lewis 21270 Beach Blvd. Hang Weber Jr. 8512 Sandy Hook Drive Huntington Beach,CA 92648 8121 Foxhall Dr. Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 148-027-57 148-027-01 149-023-08 Don Dickerson Jeff Reardon William Wells 8116 Foxhall Drive 8136 Foxhall Drive 21911 Kiowa Lane Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 148-081-08 148-121-04 149-371-14 Lawrence Ayers City of Hunt.Bch. Nagesh Shetty 8502 Sandy Hook Drive 8641 Edison Ave. 9332 Gatehead Drive Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Loretta Wolfe 411 6th Street 148-027-51 149-371-25 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Susan Caine Dale Vaznaian Mailbox Station 22391 Harwich Lane 419 Main St.Ste.A Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 148-027-58 James Hetrick 148-027-62 1562 Quail Run Richard Barnes 149-023-09 Santa Ana,CA 92705 8142 Foxhall Drive Paul Howard. Huntington Beach,CA 92646 21931 Kiowa Lane Huntington Beach,CA 92646 148-081-09 Gay Boyer 148-027-52 149-371-15 21441 Antigua Robert Ujihara Gerald Anderson Huntington Beach,CA 92646 2901 Rebano 9342 Gateshead Drive San Clemente,CA 92672 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 148-027-59 Bernardino Hidalgo 148-027-63 149-371-26 8126 Foxhall Drive Jerrold Dunlap Dale Holmsen Huntington Beach,CA 92646 8146 Foxhall Drive 3247 Karen Ave. Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Long Beach,CA 90808 Pg.4 149-023-10 Robert Marlow Brown James Hetrick Fares Jahshan 9061 Rhodesia Drive 1562 Quail Run 21941 Kiowa Lane Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Santa Ana,CA 92705 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 149-041-28 148-027-58 Byron Tarnutzer 149-371-16 114495-01 4 Upper Newport Plaza,Ste.201 Artemio R.Ramil Helen Viala Tr. Newport Beach,CA 92660 22301 Harwich Lane George Rogers Law Corp. 148-121-03 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 9272 Christine Drive Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Kerry Shaw 149-371-27 Mary F.Porcaro/Occupant 21391 Antiqua Lane Steven Peters 8135 Foxhall Drive Huntington Beach,CA 92646 22411 Harwich Lane Huntington Beach,CA 92646 148-081-13 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 149-023-11 148-081-06 148-027-33 Don McKinney James Niemann Keith Campbell 21961 Kiowa Lane 32032 Mt.Rainier Drive 8121 Ridgefield Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Laguna Beach,CA 92677 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 149-371-17 114-481-10(R) 148-027-35(R) James Brady Resident Resident 22311 Harwich Lane 22042 Hula Cr. 8131 Ridgefield Dr. Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntignton Beach,CA 92646 149-371-28 Robert Van Zandt 148-027-35 Tom Angelovic P.O.Box 4345 Gary R.Buchanan 22421 Harwich Lane Glendale,CA 91222 1315 Willow St. Huntington Beach,CA 92646 148-027-30 Sumner,WA 98390 149-023-12 Julius Paldi Richard D.Gilespie 148-121-01 21832 Windsong Circle 8145 Foxhall Dr. Bernard Kaplan Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 8881 Belshire Drive 148-02749 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Harry Anderson 8136 Pawtucket Robert Coffman Huntington Beach,CA 92646 8141 Pawtucket Drive 148-02743 148-027-25 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Darlene Giacone 148-027-24 8126 Ridgefield Drive Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Anthony D.Lee 8115 Ridgefield Dr. Patricia Yamazaki Resident Huntington Beach,CA 92646 8111 Ridgefield Drive 21861 Kiowa Lane 148-027-32. Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Ountington Beach,CA 92646 148-027-31 Lawrence Mallon 9041 Adelia Circle James Hill County Sanitation Dist.#1 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 9042 Niguel Circle P.O.Box 5175 149-041-13 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 10844 Ellis Ave. 149-041-04 Fountain Valley,CA92708 Pg. 5 County Sanitation Dist.#1 114481-12 114495-06 P.O.Box 8127 John Tad Graves Robert Simpson Fountain Valley,CA 92708 22012 Hula Circle 9222 Christine Drive Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 114-481-26 Keith R.Lipscomb 114481-22 Karl Wysocki 9062 Christine Drive Keith Tucker 9072 Christine Drive Huntington Beach,CA 92646 9032 Christine Drive Huntington Beach,CA 92646 114481-25 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 114-495-03 114-495-07 Terry Harrison Guenter Steuer Lucille Bagnoli C/O Lucille Harmon 9252 Christine Drive 9562 Hightide Drive 9582 Hamilton Ave. #343 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 149-371-23 149-023-13 114481-13 114495-08 Manuel Urzua Marcel Lourtie Herbert Ahn 9042 Aloha Drive 22001 Hula Circle 9202 Christine Drive Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Raymond Cole 114481-23 114495-09 22061 Susan Lane William Burke Farouk Shamoo Huntington Beach,CA 92646 9042 Christine Drive 9192 Christine Drive 114481-05 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 149-011-04 114495-04 114-495-10 Albert Ashurst Christopher Button Fred Galluccio 9051 Bermuda Drive 9242 Christine Drive 9182 Christine Drive Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 114-481-20 Don Brunk 114481-14 114-495-11 9012 Christine Lane Gary Gumbert Jack Buf1a Huntington Beach,CA 92646 22011 Hula Circle 9172 Christine Drive Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 114-481-11 Kathleen Mooney 114481-24 22101 Jonesport Lane Philip Beukema 114495-12 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 9052 Christine Drive Marshall Papke Huntington Beach,CA 92646 9162 Christine Drive Huntington Beach,CA 92646 114-481-21 Kourosh Khavari 114495-05 114495-13 9022 Christine Drive Robert Abdelnaby Timothy Fischer Huntington Beach,CA 92646 9232 Christine Drive 9152 Christine Drive Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 114-495-02 James Ibbotson 114481-15 114495-14 9262 Christine Drive Thomas Lenihan Greg Brenner Huntington Beach,CA 92646 22021 Hula Circle 9142 Christine Drive Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Pg.6 114495-15 149-011-02 114481-17 Wayne Murry Guy Adams Steven Hurlburt 9132 Christine Drive 9021 Bermuda Drive Jon Ely Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 22051 Hula Circle Huntington Beach,CA 92646 114481-27 114-495-16 149-013-05 Jahansouz,Foad Gary Gorman Don Homes 9082 Christine Drive 9122 Christine Drive 21821 Kiowa Lane Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 149-023-05 114481-07 149-013-02 Daniel Malloy Beverly Reason Tr Hilde Grantham 21881 Kiowa Lane 22091 Susan Lane 21781 Kiowa Lane Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 149-023-02 149-022-03 114481-18 Vinton Marriott David Nelson Kenneth Kimball 21851 Kiowa Lane 21862 Kiowa Lane 22071 Hula Circle Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 149-041-36 149-013-06 114-481-28 George Hutton-Potts Charles Carter Elmore Loranger 9042 Rhodesia Drive 21831 Kiowa Lane 9092 Christine Drive Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 149-013-03 149-023-06 114481-08 Louis Kastorff' Michael Erwin Robert White 21801 Kiowa Lane 21891 Kiowa Lane 22072 Hula Circle Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 149-023-03 Isolde Wittman 149-011-03 114481-19 9702 Toucan Ave. Ronald Charles Jett Richard Mortimer Fountain Valley,CA 92708 9031 Bermuda Drive 9002 Christine Circle Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 149-011-01 Victor Ziegler 149-023-06(R) 9001 Bermuda Drive Resident 114-481-29 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 21842 Kiowa Lane Alireza Vazni Huntington Beach,CA 92646 66 Balboa Coves Newport Beach,CA 92663 149-013-04 Tim Ferrill 149-023-07 114481-09 21811 Kiowa Lane Teresa Jean Lee Wanda Jones Huntington Beach,CA 92646 21901 Kiowa Lane 22052 Hula Circle Huntington Beach,CA 92647 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 149-023-04 Richard Svoboda 114481-06 114481-10 21871 Kiowa Lane Christopher Valsamakis Gerald Riley Huntington Beach,CA 92646 22081 Susan Lane 361 Ralcam Pl. Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Costa Mesa,CA 92627 Pg.7 114481-30 149-024-03 149-012-01 Marion Golfos Charles Gant Alex Mirand 22161 Wood Island Lane 21902 Kiowa Lane 21802 Kiowa Lane Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 926486 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 149-022-01 114481-10 149-371-21 Guy Martin Gerald Riley William Malkin 21882 Kiowa Lane 361 Ralcam Place 22351 Harwich Lane Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Costa Mesa,CA 92627 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 i 114481-03 149-041-32 149-371-18 Joan Javer Nasto Tad Buchoz/Michael Herman James Brink 22031 Susan Lane 9001 Rhodesia Drive 22321 Harwich Lane Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 149-371-29 149-371-12 1 149-012-02 Harvey Rudy Allen Gimenez Alva Battenfield P.O.Box 26134 9341 Gateshead Drive 21782 Kiowa Lane Santa Ana,CA 92799 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 149-024-01 149-371-22 149-022-02 John Acampora Ron Wiles Charles P.Priddy 21932 Kiowa Lane 22361 Harwich Lane 21872 Kiowa Lane Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 149-371-19 114481-04 149-041-33 Michael Harms Carol Cagle Shirlee Earley 22331 Harwich Lane 21572 Oakbrook 9002 Rhodesia Drive Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Mission Viejo,CA 92692 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 114481-01 Shirley Posadas 149-371-13 148-121-21 P.O.Box 553 Frank Chenelia Ken Brimlow Lakewood,CA 90714 9331 Gateshead 652 E.Culver Ave. Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Orange,CA 92666 149-024-02 Richard Finlay 148-12I49,20 21912 Kiowa Lane Paul Sandgren 148-121-22,23 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 8551 Edison Ave. Nabil Nasre ►. Huntington Beach,CA 92646 21632 Newland Ave. Huntington Beach,CA 92646 149-371-20 Robert Belanger 114481-05 149-011-01 22341 Harwich Lane Raymond Cole Victor Ziegler Huntington Beach,CA 92646 22061 Susan Lane 9001 Bermuda Drive Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 114-481-02 Harry Howell 149-041-31 114494-08 1815 Toyon Lane Odie Powell Demmon,Penny Adele Newport Beach,CA 92660 9021 Rhodesia Drive 22121 Islander Ln Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92647 Pg.8 114494-09 114492-15 114482-07 Tuttle,Julian M Mazzola,Margaret M. Johnston,J. 9121 Christine Dr. 9191 Christine Dr. 22092 Susan Lane Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 114482-08 114494-10 114492-16 Knerr,Frieda Hall,Clifford Security Trust Company Tr 9061 Christine Dr. 9111 Christine Dr. of No. 1878-0 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 P.O.Box 1589 San Diego,CA 92112 114492-17 114482-09 114494-11 Chaikumnerd,Natee MacKenzie,Malcolm L. Swanson,Richard D Tr. 9211 Christine Dr. 9071 Christine Dr. 9101 Christine Dr. Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 114494-12 114492-18 114482-10 Bemsen,James K Mortimore,Joseph D. Hayes,Steven J. P.O.Box 384 22161 Laguna Cir. 9081 Christine Dr. Los Alamitos,CA 90720 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 114-493-13 114491-01 114-482-11 Gregory Hansen/Laura Alvarez Fraser,Richard Merril Merritt,Robert H. 22141 Capistrano Lane 22162 Laguna Cir 31886 Via Pato Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Trabuco Canyon,CA 92679 114493-14 114491-03 114482-12 Thompson,James A. Breault,Joel T. Wilson,Steven L. 9171 Christine Dr. 9231 Christine Dr. 22081 Surfrider Lane Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 114-493-15 Kildow,Gregory H 114491-03 114481-16 9161 Christine Dr. Sanchez,Anthony G. Frank Gandara Huntington Beach,CA 92646 9241 Christine Dr. 22041 Hula Circle Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 114493-16 Lantow,Michael Richard 114491-04 9141 Christine Dr. Fox,Raymond J. 149-371-30 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 9261 Christine Dr. Peters,R.Steven Huntington Beach,CA 92646 22412 Wallingford Ln. Huntington Beach,CA 92646 114493-17 Donovan,Ruth E. 114481-25 149-371-31 20361 Seven Seas Lane Home Savings of America Boyle,John W. Huntington Beach,CA 92646 P.O.Box 5300 22392 Wallingford LN. Irwindale,CA 91706 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 114492-14 Scheffler,John E.Tr 114482-06 149-371-32 22152 Capistrano Ln. Byrd,Jack R. Stockunas,Joseph Huntington Beach,CA 92646 22072 Susan Lane 22382 Wallingford Ln. Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Pg. 9 149-37141 I 149-372-14 939480-03 Cheng,Send Tei Tr McCaleb,Joseph S. Stuart,Gary 9361 Gateshead Dr. 22352 Harwich Ln. 10172 Theseus Dr. Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92649 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 939480-04 149-37142 149-372-15 The Schuhrke Family Trust Walker,Michael A. Deering,Teunis J.Tr C/O Y&S Services 9351 Gateshead Dr. 22362 Harwich Ln. 21571 Surveyor Cir. Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 149-372-16 939480-05 149-372-05 Braithwaite,Nancy K.Tr Feher,Donald J. Stephen Noffsinger 22372 Harwich Ln. 2051 Orizaba Ave.#10 9382 Gateshead Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Signal Hill,CA 90804 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 i 149-372-06 149-372-17 939-480-06/07 McDonnell,Gary S. Preheim,Steven D. Brar,Harnek S.Tr. 9372 Gateshead Dr. 22382 Harwich Ln. 19502 Woodlands Ln. Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92647 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 149-372-07 149-372-18 939480-08 Hoffman,Mark Bush,Paul C Boucher,Raymond P. 9362 Gateshead Dr. 22391 Wallingford Ln. C/O Radon Corp. Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 21611 Surveyor Cir. Huntington Beach,CA 92646 149-372-08 149-372-19 939480-09 Bailey,Jack B. Brandt,Bruce J. Miorelli,Emil P.Tr 22322 Harwich Ln. 22381 Wallingford Ln. 9871 Hot Springs Dr. Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 149-372-09 Sher,Percy 149-372-20 939480-10 9381 Folkstone Cir. Souza,Gerald J. Yeh,Ning Huntington Beach,CA 92646 22361 Wallingford Ln. 21522 Surveyor Cir. Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92647 149-372-10 Adams,Terance L. 149-372-21 9371 Folkstone Cir. Hyink,William 939-480-11 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 22351 Wallingford Ln. Schnuerer,Gerhard M.Tr. Huntington Beach,CA 92646 6406 W.Oceanfront Newport Beach,CA 92663 149-372-11 Arrowhead Family LTD 939480-01 939480-12 Partnership Petersen,Donald M. Kraus,Gene Tr. 1101 Dove St.,Ste 230 21541 Surveyor Cir. 6502 W.Ocean Front Newport Beach,CA 92660 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Newport Beach,CA 92663 149-372-12 Haynes,Michael C. 939480-02 939480-13 9362 Folkstone Cir. Baron,Robert F.Tr Hill,Douglas Andrew Huntington Beach,CA 92647 16611 Carousel 21181 Hillsdale Lane Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Pg. 10 939A80-14 148-121-18 A-Med Health Care Center Thomas Lenihan 21572 Surveyor Cir. 22021 Hula Cir. Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 939A80-15 149-372-13 Minkofl•,Donald E. Khalap,Rawloo V. 1903 Yacht Enchantress 9372 Folkstone Cir. Newport Beach,CA 92660 Huntington Beach,CA 92647 Frank Bradley 939480-16 21851 Newland#224 Paylefl'International Corp. Huntington Beach,CA 92646 6161 Arrowroot Ln. Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90274 939480-17 Michael Harms Pearch,Howard C.Tr. 5 Civic Plaza,Ste.320 P.O.Box 1437 Newport Beach,CA 92660 Costa Mesa,CA 92626 939480-18 114481-25(R) Walters,William C. Resident Unit 8B 9062 Christine Dr. 21612 Surveyor Cir. Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 939-480-19 Grodach,Carl W.Jr. 117 Via Dijon Newport Beach,CA 92663 Resident 8142 Pawtucket Dr, Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Resident 8131 Ridgefield Dr. Huntington Beach,CA 92646 e 149-041-29 Ellis Palmer 9041 Rhodesia Dr. Huntington Beach,CA 92646 148-121-01 Bernard Kaplan 8881 Belshire Drive Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Connie Brockway,City Clerk City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk . ��' . „•;;i•4 .�ra. „, rl :. ��;s -'�=:.•: s.:4 '. :'•. •. •: P.O. Box 190 AuG'i'94 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 ,a aJ9 sE b i John Toyarrna t Space 289;',; MOVED, 21851 Newland St�,etn "dSUfFiCiEfri A, �.., • I Huntingto BeacFi CoA�c, 646 ATTEMPTED, UNK; V INGTpy c m Oar/v z d NO SUCH NUMBER -9y 0 UN T Y ` {FYI c0 ca LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING , , „ , ,,,, ;!:I.,,;I�I,II���i��l�li���,ll,l 11i11111i,1i1�:111i111!1111111l,I111,11111i111. - - ` Connie Brockway,City Clerk City of Huntington Beach '1 Office of the City Clerk +• .rSS C � I / m P.O.Box 190 AuG 215 '94 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 ;Prrt' NO ORDER -1.48-121-04 — 1.: j:f=;6tNT ADDRESS Hunt.Bch. '•fft�m��ff0, UNKNOWN /L. ' on Ave. � ! :� pNtINGTp lC'r, ii Beach,CA 92646 , ' I O�—a1aCORPOR4/F� �FA� �L � a•;�'n G pOUNTY Ca LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING ✓ Connie Brockway,City Clerk City of Huntington Beach f the City Clerk Office o e �..,w �h. .. /�•" c\ � ��s.l� :>,,.__ . ;��.� , P.O. Box 190 7. Nub�� .9�r T ti 1 s •^. F.'Si:•. .f Huntington Beach,CA 92648 3t.3 ; e.r ':, iti; } ) 148-0 7-5 r; Harry e er r. 8121 xha Dr. Hunting Beach,CA 92646 I N GTpy �O `NCORPOflAlfO "!" I=C3RWAr,;D-rNG21 TIME MeP:"IRED 1 t-11.II RETURN 'NTD� EM26(!5-6v41. 1 �NTy C LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING III,,,II,►,,,II,III„I I,I,II,,,II,,,III ►,,,III I,,III fill I,,,I : , Connie Brockway,City Clerk 1: I U:y •� City of Huntington Beach ;•,;1 * 4�� _j Office of the City Clerk ,�c .:�^ ;",�l j ;K,. :.•., • ;7.: {. ::di.;'.� ,,�.n .t P.O. Box 190 7. Huntington Beach,CA 92648 " Keith R.Lipscomb 9062 Christine Drive Huntington Beach,CA 92646 114-481-25 i I NG Tpy� 0 �. �RMf4fi Q t-.LI"S1 L.1•L 1\L.,1.T11 . IZ FCCUNTY C I'RETURN TO SENDER LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING �. . - II1,,,Il,,,,,11„II„l1,,,II,,,11,,,1l,,,,,,IIII,,,11,,,lI,,,I •. I n . i ` •; Connie Brockway,City Clerk I V,J City of Huntington Beach _ c Office of the City Clerk P.O. Box 190 i Huntington Beach,CA 92648 l � Byron Tamutr-Newzer -4-I3pper N aza, e. Newport Beach,CA 92660 148-121-03 1 " I 1 , :. INGTp�,�F I e'!RNQ13!`f i:.7-I F•^;�l.Q I)r,,] " 1tC13 08,/z77�qq TIME -M=rs I•'F.f-t�~3"1 +—�i L�:3.; :.;22—u • � FppUNry cT+,+�r�R� =Er�c�Glz LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING Connie Brockway,City Clerk w - City of Huntington Beach �` Office of the City Clerk P.O. Box 190 .*, It '94 Huntington Beach,CA 9264& lid Don Troy fs'/c 5272 Allstone Drive Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Epl I NGTpy i ,,rOR POR� v W i _ y cgto _�. puNTy LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING { [ lJ..1?1i?.1.01???1(��% • Connie Brockway,City Clerk _. .. ... ........., ,-.._ "�'. = .,. _.�,.. .•,_.. ....z._. .. . . F, City of Huntington Beach ��� ' "\� $� Ihs i, a Office of the City Clerk y- P.O. Box 190 untington Beach,CA 92648 i :. ,a;,a4 sv:�" i ::Teve:L.i Title Energy of California 10537 Santa Monic 3rd Floor �NTING Los es,CA 90025 /Y Bill Curtis o� =NGORPO R���O d/A . a `COUNTY LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING ! or z BY CITY COUNCIL t UEST FOR CITY COUNCIL, ACTION Date: September 6, 1994 Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members CD 94-56 Submitted by: Michael T. Uberuaga, City Adminis / (_� Prepared by: Melanie S. Fallon, Director of Community Development Subject: CODE AMENDMENT NO. 93-8 ("WHITE HOLE" AREA) Consistent with Council Policy? [XI Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception O 32S�1 0' ' in*vda e" - - 4/a Statement of Issue,Recommendation,Analysis,Funding Source,Alternative Actions,Attachments. STATEMENT OF ISSUE: Code Amendment No. 93-8 is a request by the City to amend Article 942 Coastal Conservation, Article 969.9 Coastal Zone and Article 902 General Information, of the Huntington Beach �. Ordinance Code in order to achieve consistency with tie adopted Land Use Plan. The amendment includes clean-up language; and will require a conceptual development plan, environmental studies and restrictions on"CC" (Coastal Conservation) zoned property should any portion be proposed for development. This is the third component necessary to complete certification of the City's Local Coastal Program for the area along the inland side of Pacific Coast Highway, between Beach Boulevard and the Santa.Ana River, commonly referred to as the"white hole". The first component is the Land Use Plan which was adopted in 1987 by the California Coastal Commission. Zoning on the property, which is the second component, was approved by the City Council in 1990. RECOMMENDATION: Planning Commission and Staff Recommendation: Motion to: "Approve Code Amendment No. 93-8 (Staff Recommendation) by adopting Ordinance No. (Attachment 1)." �. 1 r , t PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION ON FEBRUARY 15, 1994: THE MOTION MADE BY BIDDLE, SECONDED BY COOK, TO APPROVE CODE AMENDMENT NO. 93-8 WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: COOK, DETTLOFF, BIDDLE, RICHARDSON NOES: INGLEE ABSTAIN: GORMAN ABSENT: NEWMAN MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CODE AMENDMENT NO. 93-8: 1. The proposed code amendment amending Articles 902, General Information, 942 Coastal Conservation, and 969.9 Coastal Zone, of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code is consistent with the General Plan designations adopted by the City Council and the Coastal Commission because it recognizes the goals of the adopted Land Use Plan. 2. The proposed code amendment is consistent with the goals and policies of the Coastal Commission and the City's Coastal Land Use Plan and reconciles the inconsistency between the Land Use Plan and Implementation Plan. ANALYSIS: The City Council on June 21, 1993, directed staff to complete certification of the City's Local Coastal Program (Attachment 11). There three components of the Local Coastal Plan that need to be completed to achieve certification: (1) adopt a Land Use Plan, (2) adopt a Zoning designation, and (3) adopt Zoning Code provisions to implement the Land Use Plan and Zoning Map. The Land Use Plan was adopted by the City Council and the California Coastal Commission in 1987. Ordinance No. 3033 was adopted by the City Council in 1990 which established new zoning on the subject property (Attachment 4). That ordinance remains in effect, but is subject to certification by the California Coastal Commission. The last component is an amendment to the Zoning Code which was approved by the Planning Commission on February 15, 1994. History The City's Coastal Element was prepared in accordance with the California Coastal Act of 1976, and submitted to the South Coastal Regional Coastal Commission for a hearing in May, 1981. The Coastal Element Land Use Plan was rejected by the Coastal Commission at that time partly due to failure to adequately protect wetlands which had been delineated by the Department of Fish and Game in preliminary wetlands studies conducted in 1979 and 1981. RCA 9/6/94 2 CD 94-56 After completion of minor changes, a second rejection by the Coastal Commission, and further modifications, the Land Use Plan was finally certified in geographic part by the Coastal Commission on November 17, 1982. The Coastal Commission, however, denied certification of the geographic area along the inland side of Pacific Coast Highway between Beach Boulevard and the Santa Ana River("white hole"), due to the preliminary wetland status assigned to it by the Department of Fish and Game. In February, 1983, the Department of Fish and Game released their report entitled "Determination of the Status of the Huntington Beach Wetlands" (discussed in greater detail in Attachment 7). That study reaffirmed their preliminary assessment and concluded that 136.6 acres of land between Beach Boulevard and the Santa Ana River were either viable or restorable wetland. Most of this wetland area was within the non-certified area of the coastal zone. In 1986, the City of Huntington Beach prepared a study which was intended to resolve the wetland issue and resulted in a Land Use Plan for the non-certified area(Attachment 7). The study analyzed three (3) alternative land use scenarios which were intended to address a range of intensities from almost no development to almost complete development of the area. During an extended public hearing process, the Department of Fish and Game, the California Coastal Conservancy and the Coastal Commission staff emphasized that virtually the only certifiable land use designation under the provisions of the Coastal Act was conservation. The only exceptions were the Action Boat Brokers property at the southeast corner of Beach Boulevard and Pacific Coast Highway, the strip of land between Cabrillo Mobile Home Park and Pacific Coast Highway, and the developed Edison Company property. On June 2, 1986, the City Council concurred with that advice and adopted a Land Use Plan for the area. On April 13, 1987, the California Coastal Commission certified the Land Use Plan as submitted by the City. It designated approximately 7.0 acres as Visitor Serving Commercial, 125 acres as Conservation, 83 acres as Industrial Energy Production and 17.0 acres as Industrial Energy Production/Conservation(front of Attachment 7). The Land Use Plan is the guiding document for the regulation of land uses. To complete certification of the "white hole" area, it was necessary to bring the zoning into conformance with the Land Use Plan. Zone Change No. 88-18 was prepared in 1989, which proposed to change the base zones of several properties to "Coastal Conservation" (CC)District. In February 1989, the Planning Commission took action to withdraw the request based upon information from the City Attorney that the zone change may deny the subject landowners a viable economic use of their property and that the City may be found liable for the taking. In March, 1989, the City Council considered an appeal of the Planning Commission's action and requested a legal opinion of the proposed zone change from outside counsel. Based upon the conclusions of the legal opinion, the City Council in October, 1989, directed staff to refer the zone change back to the Planning Commission for reconsideration. RCA 9/6/94 3 CD 94-56 Subsequently, the Planning Commission approved and in February, 1990, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 3033 (Attachments 4 and 5)to change the zoning on the property as follows: - Designating Visitor Serving Commercial (VSC) on seven(7) acres at Pacific Coast Highway and Beach Boulevard; - Applying the Coastal Cone (CZ) suffix to 83 acres of existing Edison Facilities; and - Affixing the Coastal Conservation(CC) suffix to existing zoning on the remaining 142 acres. This zoning achieves consistency with the Land Use Plan as required by State law because the CC suffix becomes the primary land use regulation. Yet it includes a detailed removal procedure that allows applicants to challenge the economic viability of the permitted uses and the designation as wetlands as suggested in the legal opinion. The City Council sent a resolution with the adopted ordinance to the California Coastal Commission seeking final certification of the "white hole" area. In May, 1992, the California Coastal Commission adopted Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 90-2 (Zone Change No. 88-18) with modifications (Attachment 10)based upon several reviews of the proposal by legal counsels from both the City and Coastal Commission, staff and property owners. Because the California Coastal Commission's action included modifications, it was subject to acceptance by the City Council within a six (6) month time frame. In November 1992, the City Council reviewed the modifications and did not take action accepting them because some councilmembers wanted more time to evaluate their potential impacts. Since the six(6) months time period has elapsed, the City must resubmit to the California Coastal Commission. Before resubmitting, staff is processing Code Amendment No. 93-8 to reflect the modifications requested by the California Coastal Commission. Proposed Code Amendment On February 15, 1994, the Planning Commission approved Code Amendment No. 93-8 (Attachment 15). It will amend eight (8) sections of Articles 902, 942 and 969.9 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code (Attachments 1 and 2). This amendment is necessary to bring the zoning into conformity with, and adequate to carry out, the applicable provisions of the certified Land Use Plan for the subject area. These changes reflect the modifications approved by the California Coastal Commission in May, 1992. The following is a summary of the amendment: 1. Amends Section 9422.1(f) to reinstate the complete definition of wetlands as originally approved by the City and Coastal Commission in 1985. 2. Amends Section 9422.2.1 to require a conceptual development plan and environmental studies for any parcel zoned with"CC"suffix should any portion be proposed for development. Also requires that an easement, dedication or similar mechanism to assure permanent protection of wetlands against non-permitted development and/or uses 3. Amends 9422.3 relative to the content of certain findings that must be approved prior to removal of the "CC" suffix. 4. Minor language change to Section 9422.4. RCA 9/6/94 4 CD 94-56 5. Amends Section 9422.6 by expanding the uses permitted pursuant to a conditional us permit in accord with the Coastal Act. 6. Minor language change to Section 9422.9. 7. Amends Section 969.9.21(a)to be consistent with Section 9422.2.1. 8. Amends Section 9020 to clarify that the City's zoning ordinance is not intended to authorize the City to exercise its power in a manner which will take or damage private property for public use. The Code Amendment is necessary to assure that the CC and CZ zoning on the subject property is implemented in a manner consistent with the Coastal Act. If approved, this amendment in conjunction with Zone Change No. 88-18 (Ordinance No. 3033) will be forwarded to the California Coastal Commission for review and certification. Alternative Action- Coastal Commission Original Language: Item no. 2 on the preceding page differs from the Coastal Commission's May 1992 suggested modifications in that there is no reference to Assessor Parcel Numbers. The numbers referred to seven parcels at the northeast corner of Pacific Coast Highway and Beach Boulevard (Attachment 13). The language was such that should any of these parcels be proposed for development, an overall development plan for all the parcels (those which are geographically contiguous and under common ownership) would be required. In addition, environmental information would be required to be reviewed and concurred with by the Department of Fish and Game which identifies any existing wetlands. Some form of easement or other similar legal mechanism would be required to assure permanent protection against development on the portions of property identified as existing wetlands. The current language broadens the impact of the overall development plan requirement but excludes two parcels identified in the original language (APN 114-150-26 and 114-150-55). It pertains to all parcels which contain the"CC" suffix either partially or wholly on the property (Attachment 14). The overall development plan, supplemental information requirements and methods for a protection of existing wetlands will still apply. The Coastal Staff has reviewed the proposed modifications and recommends that the original Coastal Commission language be used (Attachment 19). They feel that the exclusion of two parcels reduces the ability to assure wetlands protection of the remaining parcels. Therefore, the alternative action is to approve the Code Amendment with the original Coastal Commission language. General Plan Advisory Committee: The City is in the process of updating its General Plan and has established a Committee to analyze and give direction to staff relative to the various elements of the Plan. In May 1993, they evaluated the ten areas within the"white hole" area and recommended that the updated General Plan Land Use Map identify the following: • Area I be designated as a Coastal Resort/Tourist Center; • Area 7 be designated as Wetlands Habitat; and • Areas 8, 9 and 10 be designated as a Utility District. RCA 9/6/94 5 CD 94-56 • Areas 8, 9 and 10 be designated as a Utility District. They evaluated the remaining areas and suggested that in the event the Conservation land use designation is changed, the following land uses be recommended: • Area 2 be designated as Coastal Resort/Tourist Center; • Area 3 be designated as Industrial; • Area 4 be designated as a Utility District; and • Areas 5 and 6 be designated as Single Family Residential These recommendations are based on surrounding land uses and location of these properties. They are secondary to the primary use of Conservation. Environmental Status: Pursuant to Section 15265 of the California Environmental Quality Act, Code Amendment No. 93-8 is classified exempt. Section 15265 states that CEQA does not apply to approvals by any local government pursuant to the preparation of a local coastal program. Rather, the burden of CEQA compliance is shifted to the California Coastal Commission for the certification of local coastal programs. Code Amendment No. 93-8 is amending Articles 902, 942 and 969.9 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code and the Implementing Ordinances portion of the City's Local Coastal Program. This amendment is subject to review and certification by the California Coastal Commission. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: The City Council may take the following alternative actions: 1. Approve Code Amendment No. 93-8 (Coastal Commission language)by adopting Ordinance No.�-B with findings; or 2. Deny Code Amendment No. 93-8 with findings. FUNDING SOURCE: Not Applicable RCA 9/6/94 6 CD 94-56 ATTACHMENTS: 1. Ordinance No.3,�51 -A (Staff Recommendation) 2. Legislative Draft (Staff Recommendation) 3. Ordinance No.3a_'-B (Coastal Commission language) 4. Ordinance No. 3033 5. Adopted Zoning Map 6. Discussion of Zone Change by Area 7. Non-Certified Coastal Areas Analysis dated May, 1986 (includes City Council Resolution No. 5760•A adopting Coastal Element Amendment No. 86-1 and DFG Wetlands Analysis dated June 2, 1986) 8. City Coastal Element, Chapter 6, Pages 57-64 9. Coastal Commission Report and Findings Certifying the Land Use Plan for the area of deferred certification dated April 13, 1987 10. California Coastal Commission Report dated September 28, 1992 approving Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 90-2 (Zone Change No. 88-18)with modifications 11. City Council Minutes dated June 21, 1993 12. Certified Land Use Plan 13. Map depicting Assessor Parcel Numbers cited in Coastal Commission's modified language for Section 9422.2.1 14. Map depicting parcels affected by staff proposed language for Section 9422.2.1 15. Planning Commission Minutes dated February 15, 1994 16. Letter from McCutchen, Doyle, Brown& Enerson dated January 31, 1994 17. Letter from County of Orange dated February 1, 1994 18. Letter from Michael S. Harms dated February 1, 1994 19. Letter from California Coastal Commission dated May 13, 1994 MTU:MSF:SH:jr RCA 9/6/94 7 CD 94-56 9l�-olq f COASTAL COMMISSION ALTERNATIVE ORDINANCE NO. 3251—B AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH ORDINANCE CODE BY AMENDING ARTICLES 902, 942 AND 969.9 THEREOF The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION 1. Article 942 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code is hereby amended by amending Section 9422.1(f) thereof to read as follows: (f) Wetland shall mean lands within the coastal zone which may be covered periodically or permanently with shallow water and include salt water marshes, freshwater marshes, open or closed brackish water marshes, swamps, mud flats and fens. SECTION 2. Article 942 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code is hereby amended by adding new Section 9422.2.1 thereof to read as follows: 9422.2.1 Coastal conservation suffix- Re uirements. As-it applies to parcels described as Assessors Parcel Numbers: 148-011-01, 148-011-02, 114- 150-26, 114-150-51, 114-150-53, 114-150-58 and 114-150-55, the Coastal Conservation"CC" suffix shall be a conservation overlay zone classification. Within areas identified as wetlands on the subject property, the uses of the Coastal Conservation District, as identified in section 9422.5 and 9422.6, shall supersede the uses of the VSC, RA and MI-A districts. Development prohibited by sections 9422.5 - 9422.7 on wetland portions of the subject property may be permitted in non-wetland areas only pursuant to an application for a single overall development plan for the entire overlay area, or such portion thereof as may be at the time of said application geographically contiguous and under common ownership. As part of any such application the applicant shall include topographic, vegetative, hydrologic and soils information, prepared by a qualified professional and reviewed and concurred in by the Department of Fish and Game, which identifies the extent of any existing wetlands on the property. Conservation easements, dedications or other identified similar mechanisms shall be required over all wetland areas as a condition of development, to assure permanent protection against development inconsistent with Sections 9422.5 - 9422.7. Specific drainage and erosion control requirements shall be incorporated into the project design to ensure that wetland areas are not adversely affected. No further subdivision of any 1 4\s\G:0rd:Whiteho1e Amd.902,942,969.9\08/24/94 i such parcel shall be permitted which would have the effect of dividing off environmentally sensitive habitat from other portions of such parcels for which urban uses are permitted in the City's Coastal Element until such time as the permanent protection on any wetland is assured. Alternatively, if the owner of an above parcel(s) wishes to develop only the parcel(s) which has coastal element land use designations other than conservation, the required overall development plan and coastal development permit application is not required to include the wetlands determination as stated above. However, a conservation easement, dedication or other identified similar mechanism shall be required over the parcel(s) area which have a conservation land use designation and are within the parcel(s) proposed for development. The conservation easement may be removed from those parcels or portions thereof which are found not to contain wetlands through a subsequent overall development plan and coastal development permit application which shall include a wetlands determination as specified above. The above drainage and erosion control and no further subdivision provisions also apply under this alternative. Public vehicular traffic (the extension of Hamilton Avenue) shall be permitted in wetland areas governed by a conservation easement provided the road is constructed in a manner consistent with Section 9.4.5; Area 1 (Beach Blvd. to Newland Street) and Section 6, Environmentally Sensitive Habitat of the certified Land Use Plan. SECTION 3. Article 942 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code is hereby amended by amending Section 9422.3 thereof to read as follows: 9422.3 Coastal conservation suffix-- Removal of. Prior to removal of the Coastal conservation suffix (-CC), the following findings shall be made: (a) No wetlands exist on the subject parcel as determined by a site-specific topographic, vegetative, hydrologic and soils analysis of the subject parcel, prepared by a qualified wetland biologist or other qualified professional and reviewed and concurred in by the Department of Fish and Game; and (b) That the proposed removal of the suffix is in accordance with the policies, standards and provisions of the California Coastal Act; and (c) That there is no feasible, less environmentally damaging alternative site for any proposed land use or development which may be allowed under California Public Resources Code sections 30233(a) (1) and 30264. 2 4\s\G:0rd:Whiteho1e Amd.902,942,969.9\08/24/94 Any such removal of the Coastal Conservation suffix(-CC) shall constitute an amendment to the Implementation Plan and, if applicable, the Land Use Plan portion of the Local Coastal Program. Pursuant to Section 30514 of the Coastal Act, an I.C.P. amendment shall not take effect unless and until it has been effectively certified by the California Coastal Commission. .SECTION 4. Article 942 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code is hereby amended by amending Section 9422.4 thereof to read as follows: 9422.4 Uses generally. The uses set out in this Article shall only be allowed where there is no feasible, less environmentally damaging alternative and where feasible mitigation measures have been provided. SECTION 5. Article 942 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code is hereby amended by amending Section 9422.6(a) thereof to read as follows: (a) New or expanded port, energy and coastal dependent industrial facilities, including commercial fishing facilities. SECTION 6. Article 942 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code is hereby amended by amending Section 9422.6(d) thereof to read as follows: (d) Only in conjunction with restoration plans, new flood control facilities where necessary for public safety and to protect existing development in the flood plain. SECTION 7. Article 942 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code is hereby amended by adding new Section 9422.60) thereof to read as follows: 0) Habitat Restoration projects. SECTION 8. Article 942 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code is hereby amended by amending Section 9422.9 thereof to read as follows: 9422.9 Development standards--Mitigation measures. Before any application is accepted for processing, the applicant shall meet the following standards of this article, and shall incorporate into the project design any feasible mitigation measures which will minimize adverse environmental effects. 3 4\s\G:0rd:Whiteho1e Amd.902,942,969.9\08/24/94 SECTION 9. Article 969.9 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code is hereby amended by amending Section 969.9.21 thereof to read as follows: 969.9.21 General Commercial District. Permitted Uses. Uses permitted in a general commercial district are: convenience, neighborhood and community oriented retail and business uses. (a) Development for any parcel or portion thereof designated with the Coastal conservation suffix (-CC) shall be permitted only pursuant to an overall development plan for all such parcels, if at said time of application the parcels are geographically contiguous, under common ownership, and carry the Coastal conservation suffix (-CC). All provisions of Section 9422.2.1 shall be applicable. SECTION 10. Article 902 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code is hereby amended by amending Section 9020 thereof to read as follows: 9020 Purpose. The Zoning Ordinance for the City of Huntington Beach is established to implement the objectives of the General Plan. It is further adopted for the purpose of promoting and protecting the public health, safety, and general welfare of Huntington Beach residents and to provide the physical, economic and social advantages which result from a comprehensive and orderly planned use of land resources. This zoning ordinance is not intended to authorize, and shall not be construed as authorizing the City of Huntington Beach to exercise its power in a manner which will take or damage private property for public use. This zoning ordinance is not intended to increase or decrease the rights of any owner of property under the constitution of the State of California or the United States. SECTION 11. The Community Development Director is hereby directed to amend Articles 902, 942 and 969.9 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code to reflect Code Amendment No. 93-8 described in Sections 1 through 10 hereof. Copies of said Articles as amended hereby, are available for inspection in the Office of the City Clerk. 4 4\s\G:0rd:Whiteho1e Amd.902,942,969.9\08/24/94 SECTION 12. This ordinance shall take effect following California Coastal Commission certification. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting held on the lothday of Spptember , 1994. Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: 2:, City Clerk City Attorney REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVED: i ty Administrator Director of Co unity Development 5 Ms\G:Ord:Whitehole Amd.902,942,969.9\08/24/94 Ord. No. 3251-B STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I, CONNIE BROCKWAY, 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 ordinance was read to said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 6th day of September. 1994, and was again read to said City Council at an adjourned regular meeting thereof held on the 20th of September, 1994, and was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of all the members of said City Council. AYES: Councilmembers: Bauer, Winchell, Leipzig, Sullivan NOES: Councilmembers: Silva, Robitaille ABSENT: Councilmembers: Moulton-Patterson City Clerk and ex-officio rk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California 1k'1'Rt�,��1 Y C1 FI'COUNCIL 19 UEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION 9E Date: September 6, 1994 C 'Y CLr K Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members CD 94-70 Submitted by: Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrato L Prepared by: Melanie S. Fallon, Director of Community Development Subject: RESOLUTION ADOPTING LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. 94-2 (CODE AMENDMENT NO. 93-8 AND ZONE CHANGE NO. 88-18) Consistent with Council Policy? JXJ Yes [ J New Policy or Exception �s Statement of Issue,Recommendation,Analysis,Funding Source,Alternative Actions,Attachments: STATEMENT OF ISSUE: Transmitted for City Council consideration is a Resolution adopting Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 94-2 which will incorporate Code Amendment No. 93-8 and Zone Change No. 88-18 into the City's certified Local Coastal Program. Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 94-2 represents two components necessary to complete certification of the City's Local Coastal Program for the "White Hole" area along the inland side of Pacific Coast Highway between Beach Blvd. and the Santa Ana River. Once approved,,it will be transmitted to the California Coastal Commission for final approval. RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: "Approve Resolution No.(wag which adopts Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 94-2 and transmit to the California Coastal Commission for final approval". ANALYSIS: The California Coastal Commission certified the City's Local Coastal Program in 1985 which excluded the"White Hole" area. The California Coastal Act requires that any amendments to the City's Local Coastal Program must be approved by the California Coastal Commission. Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 94-2 represents Code Amendment No. 93-8 and Zone Change No. 88-18. The method of transmitting these changes is to adopt a resolution and transmit the resolution to the California Coastal Commission. The following is a summary of the code amendment and zone change. "lem Rela*d to "tt tie. Ao lea i4em - ' Code Amendment No. 93 Code Amendment No. 93-8 represents an amendment to Article 942 Coastal Conservation, Article 969.9 Coastal Zone and Article 902 General Information, of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code in order to achieve consistency with the adopted Land Use Plan. The amendment includes clean-up language, and will require a conceptual development plan, environmental studies and restrictions on"CC" (Coastal Conservation) zoned property should any portion be proposed for development. Zone Change No. 88-18: In February, 1990, the City Council approved Zone Change 88-18 and adopted Ordinance No. 3 03 3 to change the zoning on the property as follows: - Designating Visitor Serving Commercial (VSC) on seven(7) acres at Pacific Coast Highway and Beach Boulevard; - Applying the Coastal Zone (CZ) suffix to 83 acres of existing Edison Facilities; and - Affixing the Coastal Conservation (CC) suffix to existing zoning on the remaining 142 acres. This zoning achieves consistency with the Land Us Plan as required by State law because the CC suffix becomes the primary land use regulation. Yet it includes a detailed removal procedure that allows applicants to challenge the economic viability of the permitted uses and the designation as wetlands. Summary: These components represent two of three necessary to complete certification of the City's Local Coastal Program for the"White Hole" area. The first component is the Land Use Plan which was adopted in 1987 by the California Coastal Commission. FUNDING SOURCE: Not applicable. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: The City Council may deny Resolution No. g�g which will prevent the transmittal of Code Amendment No. 93-8 and Zone Change No. 88-18 to the California Coastal Commission. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution No. MTU:MSF:RLF:lp RCA 9/6/94 2 CD 94-70 RESOLUTION NO. 6628 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ADOPTING LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. 94-2 (CODE AMENDMENT 93-8; ZONE CHANGE 88-18)AND REQUESTING ITS CERTIFICATION BY THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION WHEREAS, after notice duly given pursuant to Government Code Section 6-5090 and Public Resources Code Sections 30503 and 30510, the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach held public hearings to consider the adoption of the Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 94-2, and such amendment was recommended to the City Council for adoption;-and The City Council, after giving notice as prescribed by law, held at least one public hearing on the proposed Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 94-2, and the City Council finds that the proposed amendment is consistent with the Certified Huntington Beach Coastal Land Use Plan and Chapter 6 of the California Coastal Act; and The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach intends to implement the Local Coastal Program in a manner fully consistent with the California Coastal Act, NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby resolve as follows: SECTION 1. That the Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 94-2, consisting of Code Amendment No. 93-8 and Zone Change No. 88-18, attached hereto as Exhibits A and B, respectively, is hereby approved. SECTION 2. That the California Coastal Commission is hereby requested to consider, approve and certify Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 94-2. 1 4\s\LCPA 94-2\05/09/94 6628 SECTION 3. That pursuant to Section 13551(b) of the Coastal Commission Regulations, Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 94-2 will take effect automatically upon Coastal Commission approval, as provided in Public Resources Code Sections 30512, 30513, and 30519. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 6th day of September , 1994. Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk City P--'-- s--9-yy. INITIATED AND APPROVED: REVIEWED AND APPROVED: e or of Co ut"pment City Administrator 2 4\s\LCPA 94-2\05/09/94 Fti7R Res. No. 6628 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I, CONNIE BROCKWAY, 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 the 6th day of September,1994, by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers: Bauer, Moulton-Patterson, Winchell, Leipzig NOES; Councilmembers: Robitaille ABSENT: Councilmembers: Silva, Sullivan City Clerk and ex-officio Wrk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California I 6628 • • ' .. 5 r e.e ch eA-T 0/,7 COASTAL COMMISSION ALTERNATIVE a ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH ORDINANCE CODE BY AMENDING ARTICLES 902, 942 AND 969.9 THEREOF The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION 1. Article 942 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code is hereby amended by amending Section 9422.1(f) thereof to read as follows: (f) Wetland shall mean lands within the coastal zone which may be covered periodically or permanently with shallow water and include salt water marshes, freshwater marshes, open or closed brackish water marshes, swamps, mud flats , and fens. SECTION 2. Article 942 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code is hereby amended by adding new Section 9422.2.1 thereof to read as follows: 9422.2.1 Coastal conservation suffix- Requirements. As it applies to parcels described as Assessors Parcel Numbers: 148-011-01, 148-011-02, 114- 150-26, 114-150-51, 114-150-53, 114-150-58 and 114-150-55,the Coastal Conservation"CC" suffix shall be a conservation overlay zone classification. Within areas identified as wetlands on the subject property, the uses of the Coastal Conservation District, as identified in section 9422.5 and 9422.6, shall supersede the uses of the VSC, RA and MI-A districts. Development prohibited by sections 9422.5 - 9422.7 on wetland portions of the subject property may be permitted in non-wetland areas only pursuant to an application for a single overall development plan for the entire overlay area, or such portion thereof as may be at the time of said application geographically contiguous and under common ownership. As part of any such application the applicant shall include topographic, vegetative, hydrologic and soils information, prepared by a qualified professional and reviewed and concurred in by the Department of Fish and Game, which identifies the extent of any existing wetlands on the property. Conservation easements, dedications or other identified similar mechanisms shall be required over all wetland areas as a condition of development, to assure permanent protection against development inconsistent with Sections 9422.5 - 9422.7. Specific drainage and erosion control requirements shall be incorporated into the project design to ensure that wetland areas are not adversely affected. No further subdivision of any 1 4\c\G:0rd:NW1cho1c Amd.902,942,969.9=/24/94 such parcel shall be permitted which would have the effect of dividing off environmentally sensitive habitat from other portions of such parcels for which urban uses are permitted in the City's Coastal Element until such time as the permanent protection on any wetland is assured. Alternatively, if the owner of an above parcel(s) wishes to develop only the parcel(s) which has coastal element land use designations other than conservation, the required overall development plan and coastal development permit application is not required to include the wetlands detenmination as stated above. However, a conservation easement, dedication or other identified similar mechanism shall be required over the parcel(s) area which have a conservation land use designation and are within the parcel(s) proposed for development. The conservation easement may be removed from those parcels or portions thereof which are found not to contain wetlands through a subsequent overall development plan and coastal development permit application which shall include a wetlands determination as specified above. The above drainage and erosion control and no further subdivision provisions also apply under this alternative. Public vehicular traffic (the extension of Hamilton Avenue) shall be permitted in wetland areas governed by a conservation easement provided the road is constructed in a manner consistent with Section 9.4.5; Area 1 (Beach Blvd. to Newland Street) and Section 6, Environmentally Sensitive Habitat of the certified Land Use Plan. SECTION 3. Article 942 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code is hereby amended by amending Section 9422.3 thereof to read as follows: 9422.3 Coastal conservation suffix-- Removal of. Prior to removal of the Coastal conservation suffix(-CC), the following findings shall be made: (a) No wetlands exist on the subject parcel as determined by a site-specific topographic, vegetative, hydrologic and soils analysis of the subject parcel, prepared by a qualified wetland biologist or other qualified professional and reviewed and concurred in by the Department of Fish and Game; and (b) That the proposed removal of the suffix is in accordance with the policies, standards and provisions of the California Coastal Act; and (c) That there is no feasible, less environmentally damaging alternative site for any proposed land use or development which may be allowed under California Public Resources Code sections 30233(a) (1) and 30264. 4\s\G:0rd:V Ntehole Amd.902,942,969.9\08/24/94 2 Any such removal of the Coastal Conservation suffix(-CC) shall constitute an amendment to the Implementation Plan and, if applicable, the Land Use Plan portion of the Local Coastal Program. Pursuant to Section 30514 of the Coastal Act, an I.C.P. amendment shall not take effect unless and until it has been effectively certified by the California Coastal Commission. SECTION 4. Article 942 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code is hereby amended by amending Section 9422.4 thereof to read as follows: 9422.4 Uses generally. The uses set out in this Article shall only be allowed where there is no feasible, less environmentally damaging alternative and where feasible mitigation measures have been provided. SECTION S. Article 942 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code is hereby amended by amending Section 9422.6(a) thereof to-read as follows: (a) New or expanded port, energy and coastal dependent industrial facilities, including commercial fishing facilities. SECTION 6. Article 942 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code is hereby amended by amending Section 9422.6(d)thereof to read as follows: (d) Only in conjunction with restoration plans, new flood control facilities where necessary for public safety and to protect existing development in the flood plain. SECTION 7. Article 942 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code is hereby amended by adding new Section 9422.60)thereof to read as follows: . G) Habitat Restoration projects. SECTIONS. Article 942 of the Huntington Beach.Ordinance Code is hereby amended by amending Section 9422.9 thereof to read as follows: 9422.9 Development standards--Mitigation measures. Before any application is accepted for processing, the applicant shall meet the following standards of this article, and shall incorporate into the project design any feasible mitigation measures which will minimize adverse environmental effects. 3 4\s\G:0rdAVhiteho1e Amd902.942.969.9\08l24/94 SECTION 9. Article 969.9 of.the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code is hereby amended by amending Section 969.9.21 thereof to read as follows: 969.9.21 General Commercial District. Permitted Uses. Uses permitted in a general commercial district are: convenience, neighborhood and community oriented retail and business uses. (a) Development for any parcel or portion thereof designated with the Coastal conservation suffix (-CC) shall be permitted only pursuant to an overall development plan for all such parcels, if at said time of application the parcels are geographically contiguous, under common ownership, and carry the Coastal conservation suffix (-CC). All provisions of Section 9422.2.1 shall be applicable. SECTION 10. Article 902 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code is hereby amended by amending Section 9020 thereof to read as follows: 9020 Purpose. The Zoning Ordinance for the City of Huntington Beach is established to implement the objectives of the General Plan. It is further adopted for the purpose of promoting and protecting the public health, safety, and general welfare of Huntington Beach residents and to provide the physical, economic.and social advantages which result from a comprehensive and orderly planned use of land resources. This zoning ordinarice is not intended to authorize, and shall not be construed as authorizing the City of Huntington Beach to exercise its power in a manner which will take or damage private property for public use. This zoning ordinance is not intended to increase or decrease the rights of any owner of property under the constitution of the State of California or the United States. SECTION 11. The Community Development Director is hereby directed to amend Articles 902, 942 and 969.9 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code to reflect Code Amendment No. 93-8 described in Sections 1 through 10 hereof. Copies of said Articles as . amended hereby, are available for inspection in the Office of the City Clerk. 4 4\s\G:0rd;\%W1eho1e Amd.902,942,969.9\08l24l94 SECTION 12. This ordinance shall take effect following California Coastal Commission certification. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting held on the day of spntPmber , 1994. a Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk City Attorney „A REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVED: ty Administrator Director of ComMunity Development 5 4V\G:0rd:W1,iteho1e Amd.902,942,969.9\08/24/94 Ord. No. 3251-B STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss: CM OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I, CONNIE BROCKWAY, 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 ordinance was read to said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 6th day of f September. 1921 and was again read to said City Council at an adjourned regular meeting thereof held on the 20th of September, 1994, and was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of all the members of said City Council. AYES: Councilmembers: Bauer, Winchell, Leipzig, Sullivan NOES: Councilmembers: Silva, Robitaille ABSENT: Councilmembers: Moulton-Patterson City Clerk and ex-ofl cii .rk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California T-m ct�A—T— ORDINANCE NO. 3033 ZONE CHANGE NO. 88-18, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH ORDINANCE CODE BY AMENDING THE SECTION 9061 THEREOF TO PROVIDE FOR A CHANGE OF ZONING WITHIN VARIOUS DISTRICTS WITHIN THE "WHITEHOLE" AREA OF THE COASTAL ZONE WHEREAS, Pursuant to the State Planning and Zoning Law, the Huntington Beach Planning Commission and Huntington Beach City Council have had separate public hearings relative to Zone Change No. 88-18 wherein both bodies have carefully considered all information presented at said hearings, and after due consideration of the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission and all evidence presented to the City Council, the City Council finds that such zone change is proper, and consistent with the Huntington Beach General Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does ordain to amend §9061 of the Ordinance Code as follows: SECTION 1 . The following described real property consisting of approximately 7 acres, generally located on the inland side of Pacific Coast Highway at. the northeast corner of the intersection of Beach Boulevard and Pacific Coast Highway and extending east along Pacific Coast Highway to Newland Street, in the City of Huntington Beach, County of Orange, State of California, being that portion of fractional Section 13 and that portion of fractional Section 24 all in Township 6 South, Range 11•West, S.B.B. . & M. in the Rancho Las Bolsas, per map recorded in 3ook 51, Page 14 of Miscellaneous Maps in the office of the Recorder of said county, and designated as "A" on Exhibit "1" (overlay to District Map 14 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code) , is hereby changed from RA-O-FP2 (Residential -1- Agricultural within an Oil District within a Flood Plain) to VSA-CZ-FP2 (Visitor Serving Commercial within the Coastal Zone within the Flood Plain) . SECTION 2 . The . following described real property consisting of approximately 17. 5 acres, generally located on the east side of Beach Boulevard beginning approximately 200 feet north of the northeast corner of the intersection of Pacific Coast Highway and Beach Boulevard and extending north approximately 500 feet, in the City of Huntington Beach, County of Orange, State of California, being that portion of fractional Section 13 and that portion of fractional Section 24 all in Township 6 South, Range 11 West, S.B.B. & M. in the Rancho Las Bolsas, per map recorded in Book 51, Page 14 of Miscellaneous Maps in the office of the Recorder of said county, and designated "B" on Exhibit "l" (overlay to District Map 14 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code) , is hereby changed from RA-O-FP2 (Residential Agricultural within an Oil District within a Flood Plain) to RA-O-CC-CZ-FP2 (Residential Agricultural within an Oil District with a Coastal Conservation overlay within the Coastal Zone within a Flood Plain) . SECTION 3 . The following described real property consisting of approximately 23 .5 acres, generally located to the north and to the west of the Orange County Flood Control channel D1-2, that portion of the southwest 1/4 of Section 13, Township 6 south, Range 11 west, in the Rancho Las Bolsas, City of Huntington Beach, County of Orange, State of California, as shown on a map recorded in book 51, page 14 of Miscellaneous Maps, in the Office of the County Recorder of said County, designated as "C" on Exhibit "l" (overlay to District Map 14 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code) , is -2- 5' T!. 1 ;if hereby changed from M1-A-O-FP2 (Restricted Manufacturing within an Oil District within the Flood Plain) to M1-A-O-CC-CZ-FP2 (Restricted Manufacturing within an Oil District with a Coastal Conservation overlay within the Coastal Zone within a Flood Plain) .. SECTION 4 . The following described real property consisting of approximately 17 acres, generally located on the inland side of Pacific Coast Highway to the east of the Edison Company Power Plant and extending east along Pacific Coast Highway approximately 1, 000 feet and north to the Orange County Flood Control Channel Dl-1, in the City of Huntington Beach, County of Orange, State of California, being that portion of fractional Section 13 and that portion of fractional Section 24 all in Township 6 South, Range 11 West, S.H.B. & M. in the Rancho Las Bolsas, per map recorded in Book 51, Page 14 of Miscellaneous Maps in the office of the Recorder of said county, designated "D" on Exhibit "1" (overlay to District Maps 14 and 29 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code) , is hereby changed from M2-0-.FP2 (Industrial District within an Oil District within a Flood Plain) and RA-FP2 . (Residential Agricultural within a Flood Plain) to M2-0-CC-CZ-FP2 (Industrial District within an Oil District with a Coastal Conservation overlay within the Coastal Zone within a Flood Plain) and RA-CC-CZ-FP2 (Residential Agricultural with a Coastal Conservation overlay within the Coastal Zone within a Flood Plain) . SECTION 5. The following .described real property consisting of approximately 10 acres, generally located on the inland side of Pacific Coast Highway at the northwest corner of Pacific Coast Highway and Magnolia Street and extending approximately 700 feet west along Pacific Coast Highway and north to the Orange County Flood Control District Channel D1-1, that portion of the northeast -3- 3033 1/4 of Section 24 , Township 6 south, Range 11 west, in the Rancho Las Bolsas, City of Huntington Beach, County of Orange, State of California, designated as "E" , on Exhibit "l" (overlay to District Maps 14 and 29 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code) , is hereby changed from LUD-FP2 (Limited Use District within a Flood Plain) to LUD-CC-CZ-FP2 (Limited Use District with a Coastal Conservation overlay within the Coastal Zone within a Flood Plain) . SECTION 6 . The following described real property consisting of approximately 56 acres, generally located on the inland side of Pacific Coast Highway between Magnolia Street and Brookhurst Street and north to the Orange County Flood Control District Channels D1-1 and D2-2, that portion of the west 1/2 of Section 19 , Township 6 south, Range 10 west, in the Rancho Las Bolsas, City of Huntington Beach, County of Orange, State of California designated as "F" on Exhibit "1" (overlay to District Maps 22 and 29 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code) , is hereby changed from LUD-FP2 (Limited Use District within a Flood Plain) to LUD-CC-CZ-FP2 (Limited Use District with a Coastal Conservation overlay within the Coastal Zone within a Flood Plain) . SECTION 7. The following described real property consisting of approximately 16 acres, generally located on the inland side of Pacific Coast Highway between Brookhurst Street and the Santa Ana River extending north to. the Orange County Flood Control District Channel D2-1, that portion of -Section 19, Township 6 South, Range 10 West, in the Rancho Las Bolsas, in the City of Huntington Beach, County of Orange, as shown on map recorded in Book 51, page 14 of Miscellaneous Maps, in the office of the County Recorder of said County, acquired by the State of California by Parcel 3 of Final -4- �n� Order of Condemnation (State Parcel A1788) , filed in Superior Court Case No. 1233661" a certified copy of said final order being recorded April 29 , 1965 in Book 7502, page 533 of Official Records, in said office, designated as "G" on Exhibit "l" (overlay to District Map 22 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code) , is hereby changed from LUD-FP2 (Limited Use District within a Flood Plain) and LUD-FP1 (Limited Use District within a Flood Plain) to LUD-CC-CZ-FP2 (Limited Use District with a Coastal Conservation overlay within the Coastal Zone within a Flood Plain) and LUD-CC-CZ-FP1 (Limited Use District with a Coastal Conservation overlay within the Coastal Zone ' within a Flood Plain) . SECTION 8 . The following described real property consisting of approximately 55 acres and commonly known as the Edison Company, generally located on the inland side of Pacific. Coast Highway at the northeast corner of the intersection of Newland Street and Pacific Coast Highway and extending north to the Orange County Flood Control District D1-1 channel, in the City of Huntington Beach, County of Orange, State of California, being that portion of fractional Section 13 and that portion of fractional Section 24 all in Township 6 South', Range 11 West, S.B.B. & M. in the Rancho Las Bolsas, per map recorded in Book 51, Page 14 of Miscellaneous Maps in the Office of the Recorder of said County, designated as "H" on Exhibit "1" (overlay to District Maps 14 and 29 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code) , is hereby changed from M2-0-FP2 (Industrial District within an Oil District within a Flood Plain) to M2-0-CZ-FP2 (Industrial District within an Oil District within the Coastal Zone . within a Flood Plain) . (�I INAf-AIT AI/1 • 3033 SECTION _ 9 . The following described real property consisting of approximately 28 acres, generally located northwest of the intersection of Magnolia Street and the Orange County Flood Control District D1-1 and commonly known as the Edison Oil Tank Farm, that portion of the. southeast 1/4 of Section 13 , Township 6 south, Range 11 west, in the Rancho Las Bolsas, City of Huntington Beach, County of Orange, State of California, as shown on a map recorded in Book 51, Page 14 of Miscellaneous Maps, in the Office of the County Recorder of said County, designated as "I" on Exhibit "l" (overlay to District Maps 14 and 29 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code) , is hereby changed from M2-0-FP2 (Industrial District within an Oil District within a Flood Plain) to M2-O-CZ-FP2 (Industrial District within an Oil District within the Coastal Zone within a Flood Plain) and from Ml-A-FP2 (Restricted Manufacturing within a Flood Plain) to Ml-A-CZ-FP2 (Restricted Manufacturing within the Coastal Zone within a Flood Plain) . SECTION 10 . The following described real property consisting of approximately 2 acres, generally located at the northeast . intersection of Magnolia Street and the Orange County Flood Control District D1-1 Channel, that portion of northeast 1/4 of Section 24, Township 6 south Range 11 west, in the Rancho Las Bolsas, City of Huntington Beach, County of Orange, State of California, designated as "J" on Exhibit "1" . (overlay to District Map 29 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code) , is hereby changed from (Q)ROS-FP2 (Recreational Open Space with Qualified Classifications within a Flood Plain) to ROS-Q-CC-CZ-FP2 (Recreational Open Space with Qualified Classifications with a Coastal Conservation overlay within the Coastal Zone within a Flood Plain) . -6- �'Tj�(rf to/rA1T Alf1 Let 303T SECTION 11. The Community Development Director is hereby directed to amend Section 9061, District Maps 14 , 22, and 29 (Section District Maps 13-6-11, 19-6-10, 24-6-11) to reflect Zone Change No . 88-18 described in Sections 1 through 10 hereof . Copies of said district maps, as amended hereby, are available for inspection in the office of the City Clerk. SECTION 12 . This ordinance shall take effect thirty days after its adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 2nd day of April 1990. Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: L F�fi7TL�GJ City Clerk (�C t REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVED: C . w► City Administrator Director of Community Development -/- fVNINIi; F LUNINU DM. 1.4 _ CTIONAI DISTRICT MAP 13--6- 11 - •: rJOTE' ti r•.•�.••...•111 CITY OF •OO.TIO MARC- T. 1060 :. \ {1y•..• •IY.•Iy •�y Y••1• 1 CJT• COV■t16 OaOla)r Gt 04L T1. (6K2MM )11t.tHO(.LY Q7S y © ....-rr..1 rra.•y r•.•cl [ UNTINGTON BEACH l0_I 4.44 0`0X ,,. . •1, a,a.•Ol)10 © -.--•� --�•N.. r l-f•Y 1)1 f11 . -1f•a7 WM1lf0 ® w•� ar•.ar 1_1•ft t7T foo =.1•N Y•171.Js p 1-•r "�•••� r•••".• a.•a•f J.») .O• f• ).0 AS J6•4.0 L -1••.•n .•.•,•.1•-..• r1•r• a•1-aU l.O F/t 1-.-H66-31444 • . •,�• M IOI -il rl.l)•If MY•110f )0 •001 a•MRANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIAW1jr 1011 I1.- 1TI• .+.,+..•rra:-.�."••cam�'�'r-•1•.�.•.wa•<- - �^ , •.•.�•.•r•r<1 7•t•af •cy l0•1 v-n ri rr�J»f GD •��• ^• •-mac•+. /.•..• •.f •Oft N.•a.1a ra Jl J7N tr37 Ia.r•.•. ...,,.•..are lwuu a.•4t. ••7 10ff r.q ql i•fs ICr1 ... .. w.•+r.• a•1•f•Y7)•i 7. ••I•ai aJ! J!!= ►..I..r !•.r1• •: tl• »al u.1•� r•r v••. 14 77 /� / .._ M•..o .r_ �ATlANTA��������������/�����������������������/A C/��/���/����������/i/�����/��PVE���/,''3_'.:•,',':'. """, 1 ..7_ . Al .3 R3 R3 — .. �R RI T RI RI RI /. R3 1 R3 �`- R 1 RI RI C4 s J13 R3 y1r R2 RI RI , R2 IL a3R A3 1.•-- I RI RI I RI tu•-. - rt ( _ .R2- 0 C4 R3 ��•_R�3� I�� - �.r . RI CF-E A'"` 1 i ..:>•.- RI F. R2 I •- ..Y RI RI RI , 'RI R3 R3 1 I I RI I :R2- 0 1•.. '��� RI 17LS LE. I,RI 2 =R I __j R3 A3 R3 D"FFP* )2 R. R4-28 R3 R3 RI �)I RI �!:��• -� I j l;. 1: i 1-' R I I y/ •,i R3-- ::'• A] •Ik � I I 1 ...•.•�RI_ i RI I I RI I I = ___ _ , C F-Rom/, 1 I -.r-.•e , - - RA RI I71 RI AI I it ✓ i - - RI L MI-A-O m O a1Y - RI RA Imo/ v _ 1,4 rrF/�m I I ` >Z U V MI-A-O C Ml-A-o-cz o 4 1 O c ♦ C O — ---- LUD-O-CZ •1.,Ie N ram/ oU PR � M2-O U M2- J 'O M -0 PACIFIC OCEAN / S a ,CA- O i� 1 :IN.inv'•.� ZONING DM 29 ECTIONAL DISTRICT MAP 24-6-11 _. p10T Cr CITY OF �LO�TZD W.W j IMO ��Ir.• r�11Mr r�i�i CITY CCV11cll D.o.ft•■cj rp /H l[GIMO�•1—• .w.o-...n.........., mil' 9�254. �¢dUIM Dro .w•�r...a «r.-t/ U[1GLD 1t1NTINGTON BEACH '"y "�' '1' �� .rf• / K// 11* ItANGI; CUUNTY . CAI.IFUItNIA /•1.« 1rD. .).q.�(1...,..�..�....«...�. 1•II.11 /�DDD f0•f 1.W �J;MIi•A.r 4rf • —yr�!•f ra.rw • �/�—\� ♦IM Off• •/ � r• 'cam RI-CZ-FP2 M 2-0- P2 4Q� s�1c, :;�,4_;, L U D-FP2 f � ' r LUD-FP2 C' ,. Ile C,f1A, J • ZiDN►NG DM 2 2- CTIONAI DISTRICT MAP 1 ;-6-10 MOT[ CITY OF •OOr r• I.e•.0 -�... �i ry�a..•I• crT• cou.ca o.a..rcc ►a Tw l[G[Mp �r .r.c.• iw e.eN w.uu .•."r .•a+.. Q] ►-c.....a,.u... •r•.s• ,•.y .r.a1 •V(�761 1••• y1•ra/\Y ryvC•,.•.• ,..•r.a• UNTINGTON BEACH .•I.y ��• �r•••.�•rl vet•cY•ans\ A \ GE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA ••n w.a i,•• • to-..lc .a ••w•.•rL —!-air--) c _ I`S— 1 I I R I R I E R I ' cTL �'• RI j • 3T RI Ia'� U a1 c• c■ I u I � r� RI 1 1 w (RI � � RI IRtt� ^�/' i ll ` / • !r fR ILcr J. RI fil- �Qti• 0; 7c. I lz 0.1 Ile JWD CZ �. "'N r 000, ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH ORDINANCE CODE BY AMENDING ARTICLES 902, 942 AND 969.9 THEREOF The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby o/dain follows: SECTION 1. Article 942 of the Huntington Beach OrdinaZCode is hereby amended �If) g Yby amending Section 9422 thereof to read as follows: /I . Wetland shall mean�lands within the coastal zone which may be covered (fl Y periodically or permanently with shallow water and include salt water marshes, freshwater marshes, open or closed brackish water marshes, swamps, mud flats and fens. SECTION 2. Article 942 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code is hereby amended by adding new Section 9422.2.1 thereof to�d as follows: 9422.2.1 Coastal conservZtion suffix- Re'uirements. Development for an 9 p Y parcel or portion thereof designated with the Coastal conservation suffix (-CC) shall be permitted only�pursuant to an overall development plan for all such parcels, if at said time of application the parcels ar\e\geographically contiguous, under common ownership, and carry the Coastal conservation suffix (-CC). As part of any such application the applicant shall include topographic, vegetative, hydrologic and soils information prepared by a qualified professional and reviewed and concurred in by the\Department of Fish and Game, which identifies the extent of any existing wetlands on the property. Conservation easements, dedications or other identified similar mechanisms shall be required over all wetland areas as a condition\f development, to assure permanent protection against development inconsistent with.Sections 9422.5 - 9422.7. Specific drainage and erosion control requirements shall be incorporated into the project design to ensure that wetland areas are not adversely affected. No further subdivision of any such parcel shall be permitted which would have the effect of dividing off environmentally sensitive habitat from other portions of such parcels for which urban uses are permitted in the City's Coastal Element until such time as the permanent protection on any wetland is assured. Alternatively, if the owner of an above parcel(s) wishes to develop only the parcel(s) which has coastal element land use designations other than conservation, the required overall development plan and coastal development 1 \ 4\Mbitehole Amd.902,942,969.9\01/20/94 \ permit application is not required to include the wetlands determination as stated above. However, a conservation easement, dedication or other identified similar mechanism shall be required over the parcel(s) area which have a conservation land use designation and are within the parcel(s)proposed for development. The conservation easement may be removed from those parcels or portions thereof which are found not to contain wetlands through a subsequent overall development plan and coastal development permit application which shall include a wetlands determination as specified above. The above drainage and erosion control and no further subdivision provisions also apply under this alternative. Public vehicular traffic (the extension of Hamilton Avenue) shall be permitted in wetland areas governed by a conservation easement provided the road is constructed in a manner consistent with Section 9.4.5; Area 1 (Beach Blvd. to Newland Street) and Section 6, Environmentally Sensitive Habitat of the certified Land Use Plan. SECTION 3. Article 942 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code is hereby amended by amending Section 9422.3 thereof to read as follows: 9422.3 Coastal conservation suffix-- Removal of. Prior to removal of the Coastal conservation suffix (-CC), the following findings shall be made: (a) No wetlands exist on the subject parcel as determined by a site- specific topographic, vegetative, hydrologic and soils analysis of the subject parcel, prepared by a qualified wetland biologist or other qualified professional and reviewed and concurred in by the Department of Fish and Game; and (b) That the proposed removal of the suffix is in accordance with the policies, standards and provisions of the California Coastal Act; and (c) That there is no feasible, less environmentally damaging alternative site for any proposed land use or development which may be allowed under California Public Resources Code sections 30233(a) (1) and 30264. Any such removal of the Coastal Conservation suffic(-CC) shallconstitute an amendment to the Implementation Plan and, if applicable, the Land Use Plan portion of the Local Coastal Program. Pursuant to Section 30514 of the Coastal Act, an I.C.P. amendment shall not take effect unless and until it has been effectively certified by the California Coastal Commission. 2 4\s\Whitehole Amd.902,942,969.9\01/27/94 I .. r SECTION 4. Article 942 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code is hereby amended by amending Section 9422.4 thereof to read as follows: 9422.4 Uses generally, The uses set out in this Article shall only be allowed where there is no feasible, less environmentally damaging alternative and where feasible mitigation measures have been provided. SECTION 5. Article 942 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code is hereby amended by amending Section 9422.6(a)thereof to read as follows: (a) New or expanded port, energy and coastal dependent industrial facilities, including commercial fishing facilities. SECTION 6. Article 942 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code is hereby amended by amending Section 9422.6(d)thereof to read as follows: (d) Only in conjunction with restoration plans, new flood control facilities where necessary for public safety and to protect existing development in the flood plain. SECTION 7. Article 942 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code is hereby amended by adding new Section 9422.60)thereof to read as follows: 0) Habitat Restoration projects. SECTION S. Article 942 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code is hereby amended by amending Section 9422.9 thereof to read as follows: 9422.9 Development standards--Mitigation measures. Before any application is accepted for processing, the applicant shall meet the following standards of this article, and shall incorporate into the project design any feasible mitigation measures which will minimize adverse environmental effects. SECTION 9. Article 969.9 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code is hereby amended by amending Section 969.9.21 thereof to read as follows: 3 4\s\Whitehole Amd.902,942,969.9\01/27/94 r 969.9.21 General Commercial District. Permitted Uses, Uses permitted in a general commercial district are: convenience, neighborhood and community oriented retail and business uses. (a) Development for any parcel or portion thereof designated with the Coastal conservation suffix (-CC)shall be permitted only pursuant to an overall development plan for all such parcels, if at said time of application the parcels are geographically contiguous,under common ownership, and carry the Coastal conservation suffix (-CC). All provisions of Section 9422.2.1 shall be applicable. SECTION 10. Article 902 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code is hereby amended by amending Section 9020 thereof to read as follows: 9020 Purpose. The Zoning Ordinance for the City of Huntington Beach is established to implement the objectives of the General Plan. It is further adopted for the purpose of promoting and protecting the public health, safety, and general welfare of Huntington Beach residents and to provide the physical, economic and social advantages which result from a comprehensive and orderly planned use of land resources. This zoning ordinance is not intended to authorize, and shall not be construed as authorizing the City of Huntington Beach to exercise its power in a manner which will take or damage private property for public use. This zoning ordinance is not intended to increase or decrease the rights of any owner of property under the constitution of the State of California or the United States. SECTION 11. The Community Development Director is hereby directed to amend Articles 902, 942 and 969.9 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code to reflect Code Amendment No. 93-8 described in Sections 1 through 10 hereof. Copies of said Articles as amended hereby, are available for inspection in the Office of the City Clerk. 4 4\s\Whitehole Amd.902,942,969.9\01/27/94 S. SECTION 12. This ordinance shall take effect following California Coastal Commission certification. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting held on the day of 91994. Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk CWttorney f _a -,14 REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INITI D AND APPROVED: City Administrator Dir r of Comm ty De el p 5 4\s\Whitehole Amd.902,942,969.9\01/20/94 ATTACHMENT 1 " r , ORDINANCE NO. ? 5/I —A AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH ORDINANCE CODE BY AMENDING ARTICLES 902, 942 AND 969.9 THEREOF The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby ordain as f flows: SECTION 1. Article 942 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code is hereby amended by amending Section 9422.1(f) thereof to read as follows: (f) Wetland shall mean lands within the coastal zon hich may be covered periodically or permanently with shallow water d include salt water marshes, freshwater marshes, open or closed b ckish water marshes, swamps, mud flats and fens. SECTION 2. Article 942 of the Hu;a/das on Beach Ordinance Code is hereby amended by adding new Section 9422.2.1 thereof to follows: 422.2.1 Coastal consery tion suffix-Requirements. Development for any parcel or portion thereo esignated with the Coastal conservation suffix(-CC) shall be permitted on pursuant to an overall development plan for all such parcels, if at said!�fie of application the parcels are geographically contiguous, and r common ownership, and carry the Coastal conservation suffix (-CC). s part of any such application the applicant shall include topographi , vegetative, hydrologic and soils information, prepared by a qualified rofessional and reviewed and concurred in by the Department of Fish Game, which identifies the extent of any existing wetlands on the prop KV1. Conservation easements, dedications or other identified similar meeanisms shall be required over all wetland areas as a condition of Zvelopment,to assure permanent protection against development inconsistent h Sections 9422.5 - 9422.7. Specific drainage and erosion control requirements shall be incorporated into the project design to ensure that wetland areas are not adversely affected. No further subdivision of any such parcel shall be permitted which would have the effect of dividing off environmentally sensitive habitat from other portions of such parcels for which urban uses are permitted in the City's Coastal Element until such time as the permanent protection on any wetland is assured. Alternatively, if the owner of an above parcel(s) wishes to develop only the parcel(s) which has coastal element land use designations other than conservation, the required overall development plan and coastal development 1 4\s\Whitehole Amd.902,942,969.9\01/20/94 permit application is not required to include the wetlands determination as " stated above. However, a conservation easement, dedication or other identified similar mechanism shall be required over the parcel(s) area which have a conservation land use designation and are within the parcels yproposed for development. The conservation easement may be removed from those parcels or portions thereof which are found not to contain wetlands through a subsequent overall development plan and coastal development permit application which shall include a wetlands determination as specified above. The above drainage and erosion control and no further subdivision provisions also apply under this alternative. Public vehicular traffic (the extension of Hamilton Avenue) shall be permitted in wetland areas governed by a conserva ion easement provided the road is constructed in a manner consistent with�Section 9.4.5; Area 1 (Beach Blvd. to Newland Street) and Section 6, Envirdmnentally Sensitive Habitat of the certified Land Use Plan. SECTION 3. Article 942 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code is hereby amended by amending Section 9422.3 thereo to read as follows: eo 9422.3 Coastal.c"onservation suffix--Removal of. Prior to removal of the Coastal co servation suffix (-CC), the following findings shall be made: (a) No etlands exist on the subject parcel as determined by a site- specific topographic, vegetative, hydrologic and soils analysis of the subject parcel, prepared by a qualified wetland biologist or other qualified professional and reviewed and concurred in by the Department of Fish and ame; and (b) That the proposed removal of the suffix is in accordance with the policies, standards and provisions of the California Coastal Act; and (c) That there is no feasible, less environmentally damaging alternative site for any proposed land use or development which may be allowed under California Public Resources Code sections 30233(a) (1) and 30264. Any such removal of the Coastal Conservation suffic (-CC) shallconstitute an amendment to the Implementation Plan and, if applicable, the Land Use Plan portion of the Local Coastal Program. Pursuant to Section 30514 of the Coastal Act, an I.C.P. amendment shall not take effect unless and until it has been effectively certified by the California Coastal Commission. 2 4\s\Whiteho1c Amd.902,942,969.9\01/27/94 SECTION 4. Article 942 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code is hereby amended by amending Section 9422.4 thereof to read as follows: 7 9422.4 Uses generally. The uses set out in this Article shall only be allowed where there is no feasible, less environmentally damaging alternative and where feasible mitigation measures have been provided. SECTION 5. Article 942 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code'is hereby amended by amending Section 9422.6(a)thereof to read as follows: (a) New or expanded port, energy and coastal dependent industrial facilities, including commercial fishing facilities. SECTION 6. Article 942 of the Huntington Be Ordinance Code is hereby amended by amending Section 9422.6(d) thereof to read as follows: d Only in conjunction with restorati/hplans, new flood control facilities O Y J where necessary for public safety and to protect existing development in the flood plain. SECTION 7. Article 942 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code is hereby amended b adding new Section 9422.6 ' therefto read as follows: Y g �) Habitat Restoration ro' �) p Jects. SECTION 8. Articles 942 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code is hereby amended g Y by amending Section 942 .9 thereof to read as follows: 422.9 Development standards—Mitigation measures. Before any applicati n is accepted for processing, the applicant shall meet the following standards of this article, and shall incorporate into the project design any feasible mitigation measures which will minimize adverse environmental effects. SECTION 9. Article 969.9 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code is hereby amended by amending Section 969.9.21 thereof to read as follows: 3 4\s\Whitehole Amd.902,942,969.9\01/27/94 969.9.21 General Commercial District. Permitted Uses. Uses permitted in a general commercial district are: convenience, neighborhood and community oriented retail and business uses. (a) Development for any parcel or portion thereof designated with the Coastal conservation suffix(-CC) shall be permitted only pursuant to an overall development plan for all such parcels, if at said time of application the parcels are geographically contiguous, under common ownership, and carry the Coastal conservation suffix (-CC). All provisions of Section 9422.2.1 shall be applicable. SECTION 10. Article 902 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code is hereby amended by amending Section 9020 thereof to read as follows: 9020 Purpose. The Zoning Ordinance for the City of Huntington Beach is established to implement the objectives of the General Plan. It is further adopted for the purpose of promoting and protecting the public health, safety, and general welfare of Huntington Beach residents and to provide the physical, economic and social advantages which result from a comprehensive and orderly planned use of land resources. This zoning ordinance is not intended to authorize, and shall not be construed as authorizing the City of Huntington Beach to exercise its power in a manner which will take or damage private property for public use. This zoning ordinance is not intended to increase or decrease the rights of any owner of property under the constitution of the State of California or the United States. SECTION 11. The Community Development Director is hereby directed to amend Articles 902, 942 and 969.9 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code to reflect Code Amendment No. 93-8 described in Sections 1 through 10 hereof. Copies of said Articles as amended hereby, are available for inspection in the Office of the City Clerk. 4 4\s\Whitehole Amd.902,942,969.9\01/27/94 SECTION 12. This ordinance shall take effect following California Coastal Commission certification. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting held on the day of , 1994. Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk C; y .Attorney? REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INITIAT D AND APPROVED: City Administrator f. Dir r of Comm ity De 1,el pm r 5 4\s\Whitehole Amd.902,942,969.9\01/20/94 ATTACHMENT 2 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT Article 902 GENERAL INFORMATION AND APPLICATION Sections• 9020 Purpose 9021 Application 9022 Enforcement Penalties 9020 Purpose. The Zoning Ordinance for the City of Huntington Beach is established to implement the objectives of the General Plan. It is further adopted for the purpose of promoting and protecting the public health, safety, and general welfare of Huntington Beach residents and to provide the physical , economic and social advantages which result from a comprehensive and orderly planned use of land resources. This zoning ordinance is not intended to authorize, and shall not be construed as authorizing the City of Huntington Beach to exercise its power in a manner which will take or damage private property for public use. This zoning ordinance is not intended to increase or decrease the rights of any owner of property under the constitution of the State of California or the United States. 9021 Application. (a) Scppe. The provisions of these zoning regulations shall apply to all properties located within the city boundaries and to those areas the city chooses to designate outside of the incorporated city limits, but within the city' s adopted sphere of influence. (b) District maps. The location and boundaries of the various zoning districts is as delineated on the zoning maps which include an index map and sectional district maps of the city. They are adopted in their entirety as Article 906 of this ordinance. (c) District boundaries. Boundaries of the zoning districts shall be made by ordinance adopting or amending the district maps. It is the intent to place zoning boundaries on or following property lines and/or streets. Where uncertainty exists as to the specific district boundary the following rules shall apply: (1 ) Where such boundaries are indicated as approximately following street or lot lines, such lines shall be construed to be the boundaries. (2) Where a district boundary divides a lot, the location of such boundary, unless indicated by dimensions, shall be determined by the scale appearing on the map. (3) Where a public street or alley is officially vacated or abandoned, the area shall acquire the classification of the property to which it reverts. (4) Where uncertainty remains as to a district boundary line, the City Council shall interpret and determine the boundary upon written request. Leg.Draft 221 /l/19/94 _1_ _ATTACHMENT NO. �_ (d) Special standards depicted on district maps. The requirements for lot size, lot width, setbacks, and density may be established as different from those set forth in the district regulations if designated on the sectional district maps as outlined below: (1 ) Minimum parcel size. A numerical suffix to the district symbol which is greater than one hundred (100) square feet. A numerical prefix to the district symbol which is less than one hundred (100) shall designate the minimum parcel size in acres. (2) Minimum parcel frontage. A numerical prefix to the district symbol which is connected by a hyphen shall designate the minimum lot width in feet. (3) Setbacks. Special setback requirements may be indicated on the district maps which may show the dimensions of such required setbacks. (4) Maximum density/intensity. A numerical suffix to the district symbol which is in parenthesis shall designate the maximum number of units per gross acre for the site. (e) Annexations/pre-Zoning. Unincorporated territory adjacent to the city may be prezoned for the purpose of determining the zone district which will apply in the event of annexation to the city. The procedure for prezoning property shall be the same as that for zone changes within the city. Such zoning shall become effective at the time the annexation becomes effective. Any property which, after annexation or for any other reason, does not have a designation on the zoning map shall be deemed to be zoned R1 , single-family residential . 9022 Enforcement Penalties. (a) It shall be the duty of the director to enforce the provisions of the Ordinance Code. Official and public employees of the City of Huntington Beach shall not issue permits or licenses for structures or uses which are in conflict with the provisions of this Code. Any such permits or licenses issues in conflict with this Code shall be deemed null and void. (2995-5/89) (b) Not withstanding any other provision of the Ordinance Code, each violation of this Code may be alternatively enforced as follows: Each method set forth herein is intended to be mutually exclusive and does not prevent concurrent or consecutive methods being used to achieve compliance against continuing violations. Each and every day any such violations exist constitutes a separate offense. (2995-5/89, 3206-10/93) (1 ) Misdemeanor/Infraction. Any person violating any of the provisions or failing to comply with any of the mandatory requirements of this Code may be prosecuted for a misdemeanor or an infraction. Written citations for misdemeanors or infractions may be issued by Police Officers or Environmental Officers and Land Use Officers who have successfully completed a course in the Power of Arrest as specified in California Penal Section 832. This citation power is pursuant to California Penal Code 836.5. (2995-5/89, 3206-10/93) Leg.Draft 221/1/19/94 -2- !�i�AV1-iMENT NO, All citations issued under this Code shall be delivered to the City Attorney who shall have the prosecutory discretion as to the filing of a misdemeanor or an infraction complaint with the court as required by California Penal Code Section 853.6. (2995-5/89, 3206-10/93) Any person convicted of a misdemeanor under the provisions of this Code shall be punished by a fine not to exceed five hundred dollars ($500.00) or imprisonment for a term not to exceed six (6) months, or both fine and imprisonment. A person convicted of an infraction shall be punished by a fine not to exceed five hundred dollars ($500.00) . (2995-5/89, 3206-10/93) (2) Civil Action. The City Attorney at the request of the City Council may institute an action in any court of competent jurisdiction to restrain, enjoin or abate the condition(s) found to be in violation of the provisions of this Code, as provided by law. (2995-5/89) Leg.Draft 221/1/19/94 -3- ATTACHMENT NO. 20 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT Article 942 SHORELINE DISTRICT (S1 ) . WATER RECREATION (WR) , AND COASTAL CONSERVATION (-CC) DISTRICTS Sections: 9420 General provisions--Shoreline district 9420.1 Permitted uses 9420.2 Maximum height 9420.3 Parking 9420.4 Location requirements 9420.5 Signs 9421 General provisions--Water recreation district 9421 .1 Permitted uses 9421 .2 Development standards 9422 General provisions--Coastal conservation district 9422.1 Definitions 9422.2 Coastal conservation suffix (-CC) 9422.3 Coastal conservation suffix--Removal of 9422.4 Uses generally 9422.5 Use permit required 9422.6 Conditional use permit required 9422.7 Prohibited uses 9422.8 Required permits and agreements 9422.9 Development standards--Mitigation measures 9422. 10 Mitigation measures--Dredging 9422.11 Mitigation measures--Diking or filling 9422.12 Mitigation measures--Vegetation 9422.13 Mitigation measures--Reduction of disturbances 9422.14 Mitigation measures--Litter control 9422. 15 Mitigation measures--Flood control 9422. 16 Mitigation measures--Construction and improvements 9422.17 Mitigation measures--Duty of applicant 9422.18 Degraded wetland restoration 9422.19 Findings--Environmentally sensitive habitats 9420 General provisions--Shoreline district. The purpose of the S1 district is to implement the general plan land use designation of open space recreation; preserve, protect and enhance the existing and future recreation potential of the sandy beach area within the coastal zone; preserve as much of the dry sandy beach as possible; provide for a limited amount of facilities for beach users; encourage reasonable public access from Pacific Coast Highway to the beach area; and preserve existing views from Pacific Coast Highway to the ocean. (495-6/46, 1564-4/70, 2658-12/83, 2700-7/84, 2862-10/86) 9420. 1 Permitted uses. The following uses shall be permitted in the S1 district subject to architectural and landscape plan approval by the Design Review Board: 222:Leg. Draft 942 1/19/94 -1- ATTACHMENT NO. �(� A. Access facilities B. Basketball courts Beach concession stands for sale of refreshments and beach-related sundries (not to exceed 2,500 square feet. ) Boat loading/unloading areas for nonmotorized boats less than 20 feet in length F. Fencing Fire rings L. Lifeguard towers, and other structures necessary for health and safety P. Paddle ball courts Parking lots provided they would not result in the loss of recreational sand area. Tiered parking is permitted on existing lots seaward of Pacific Coast Highway provided the parking is designed so that the tops of the structures, including walls, are located a minimum of one foot below the maximum height of the adjacent bluff Park offices Picnic tables Picnic shelters Playground facilities Public restrooms Public dressing rooms Public showers R. Recreational vehicle overnight parking (not to exceed ten (10%) percent of the available public parking spaces) S. Shoreline construction that may alter natural shoreline processes, such as groins, cliff retaining walls, pipelines, outfalls, when required to serve coastal dependent uses or to protect existing structures or public beaches in danger from erosion and that are designed to eliminate or mitigate adverse impacts on local shoreline sand supply T. Trails (bicycle or jogging) and support facilities V. Volleyball net supports 9420.2 Maximum height. Maximum height shall be twenty (20) feet except for lifeguard towers or other facilities necessary for public safety. 9420.3 Parking. Parking shall not be required for new structures unless such construction displaces existing parking. Displaced parking shall be replaced on a one-for-one basis in an area that would not result in the loss of recreational sand. Parking shall comply with the standards outlined in Article 960. 222:Leg. Draft 942 1/19/94 -2- ATTACHMENT NO. Z� 9420.4 Location requirements. (a) Concession buildings shall be located a minimum of one thousand (1 ,000) feet apart. (b) Beach concession stands, boat loading/unloading areas, park offices, public restrooms, dressing rooms and showers shall be located within or immediately adjacent to paved parking or access areas. 9420.5 Signs. Nonilluminated generic information or identification signs shall be permitted subject to approval by the Design Review Board. 9421 General provisions--Water recreation district. The purpose of the WR district is to implement the general plan land use designation of open space water; and to provide for the preservation and enhancement of the existing and future recreation potential of tide and submerged lands in keeping with the Huntington Beach coastal element and the public trust provisions for commerce, navigation and fisheries. All other applicable city, county, state and federal regulations shall be met prior to engaging in any activity within this district. 9421 .1 Permitted uses. (a) The following uses shall be permitted: B. Beaches P. Private cantilevered decks abutting residential uses Private boat ramps, slips, docks, windscreens and boat hoists in conjunction with adjacent single family dwellings Public boat ramps and piers (b) Conditional use permit. The following public and semipublic uses shall be permitted subject to the approval of a conditional use permit by the Planning Commission: B. Boat related activity Boat slips D. Docks M. Marine fueling docks S. Sight-seeing vessels Sport fishing W. Water taxi service 9421 .2 Development standards. (a) No use shall be sited or designed so as to obstruct public access to any sandy beach or public use area. 222:Leg. Draft 942 1/19/94 -3- ATTACHMENT NO. (b) No deck or structure shall extend more than five (5) feet over or in front of any bulkhead in any channel except for a landing or brow for access to a gangway for a dock. No structure shall extend beyond the bulkhead in an area identified as environmentally sensitive such as, but not limited to, eelgrass beds and mudflats. (c) No structure shall extend beyond the bulkhead in an area identified as environmentally sensitive as determined by the Department of Fish and Game. These areas include, but are not limited to, eelgrass beds and mudflats. The Department of Fish and Game shall be contacted for the most recent information prior to issuance of any building permit for a structure extending beyond the bulkhead line. (d) Covers for projecting decks and windscreens may be permitted if constructed of light weight materials such as plastic, canvas, fiberglass, tempered glass or metal , except for necessary bracing and framing. The maximum height for windscreens shall be nine (9) feet above the finished surface of the deck at the bulkhead line, but not exceeding the height of the second story finished floor. A minimum eighty (80%) percent of one side of such windscreen shall be open. The top portion of any windscreen shall be composed of materials and design which allow a minimum of eighty-five (85%) percent transmission of light and visibility through the windscreen in each direction when viewed from any angle. 9422 General provisions--Coastal conservation district. The purpose of the coastal conservation district is to implement the general plan land use designation of open space conservation, and provide for protection, maintenance, restoration and enhancement of wetlands and environmentally sensitive habitat areas located within the coastal zone while permitting appropriate land uses. 9422.1 Definitions. The following words and phrases shall be construed as defined herein unless the context clearly indicates otherwise: (a) Energy facility shall mean any public or private processing, producing, generating, storing, transmitting, or recovering facility for electricity, natural gas, petroleum, coal , or other source of energy. (b) Environmentally sensitive (habitat) area shall mean a wetland or any area in which plant or animal life or their habitats are either rare or especially valuable because of their special nature or role in an ecosystem and which could be easily disturbed or degraded by human activities and developments. (c) Feasible shall mean capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, social , and technological factors. (d) Functional capacity shall mean the ability of an environmentally sensitive area to be self-sustaining and to maintain natural species diversity. 222:Leg. Draft 942 1/19/94 -4- ATTACHMENT NO. _Z� (e) Significant disruption shall mean having a substantial adverse effect upon the functional capacity. (f) Wetland shall mean lands within the coastal zone which may be covered periodically or permanently with shallow water and include salt water marshes, freshwater marshes, open or closed brackish water marshes, swamps, mudflats and fens. 9422.2 Coastal conservation suffix (-CC) . There is hereby established the suffix (-CC) to be appended to any base district to denote and protect environmentally sensitive areas. Such suffix shall take precedence over any other district designation. 9422.2.1 Coastal conservation suffix - Requirements. Development for any parcel or portion thereof designated with the Coastal conservation suffix (-CC) shall be permitted only pursuant to an overall development plan for all such parcels, if at said time of application the parcels are geographically contiguous, under common ownership, and carry the Coastal conservation suffix (-CC). As part of any such application the applicant shall include topographic, vegetative, hydrologic and soils information, prepared by a qualified professional and reviewed and concurred in by the Department of Fish and Game, which identifies the extent of any existing wetlands on the property. Conservation easements, dedications or other identified similar mechanisms shall be required over all wetland areas as a condition of development, to assure permanent protection against development inconsistent with Sections 9422.5 - 9422.7. Specific drainage and erosion control requirements shall be incorporated into the project design to ensure that wetland areas are not adversely affected. No further subdivision of any such parcel shall be permitted which would have the effect of dividing off environmentally sensitive habitat from other portions of such parcels for which urban uses are permitted in the City's Coastal Element until such time as the permanent protection on any wetland is assured. Alternatively, if the owner of an above parcel(s) wishes to develop only the parcel(s) which has coastal element land use designations other than conservation, the required overall development plan and coastal development permit application is not required to include the wetlands determination as stated above. However, a conservation easement, dedication or other identified similar mechanism shall be required over the parcel(s) area which have a conservation land use designation and are within the parcel(s) proposed for development. The conservation easement may be removed from those parcels or portions thereof which are found not to contain wetlands through a subsequent overall development plan and coastal development permit application which shall include a wetlands determination as specified above. The above drainage and erosion control and no further subdivision provisions also apply under this alternative. Public vehicular traffic (the extension of Hamilton Avenue) shall be permitted in wetland areas governed by a conservation easement provided the road is constructed in a manner consistent with Section 9.4.5; Area 1 (Beach Blvd. to Newland Street) and Section 6, Environmentally Sensitive Habitat of the certified Land Use Plan. 222:Leg. Draft 942 1/19/94 -5- ATTACHMENT NO. 9422.3 Coastal conservation suffix--Removal of. Prior to removal of the coastal conservation suffix (-CO , the following findings shall be made: (a) wetlands exist on the subject parcel as determined by a site-specific topographic, vegetative, hydrologic and soils analysis of the subject parcel , prepared by a qualified wetland biologist or other qualified professional and reviewed and concurred in by the Department of Fish and Game; and (b) That the proposed removal of the suffix is in accordance with the policies, standards and provisions of the California Coastal Act; and (c) That there is no feasible, less environmentally damaging alternative site for any proposed land use or development which may be allowed under California Public Resources Code sections 30233(a)(1 ) and 30264. Any such removal of the Coastal Conservation suffix (-CC) shall constitute an amendment to the Implementation Plan and, if applicable, the Land Use Plan portion of the Local Coastal Program. Pursuant to Section 30514 of the Coastal Act, an I.C.P. amendment shall not take effect unless and until it has been effectively certified by the California Coastal Commission. 9422.4 Uses generally. The uses set out in this article shall only be allowed where there is no feasible, less environmentally damaging alternative and where Otittl'til feasible mitigation measures have been provided. 9422.5 Use permit required. The following uses shall be permitted in the coastal conservation district upon approval of a use permit by the Zoning Administrator: (a) Incidental public service projects such as, but not limited to, burying cables and pipes. (b) Maintenance of existing streets and utility structures. 9422.6 Conditional use permit required. The following uses may be permitted upon approval of a conditional use permit by the Planning Commission: (a) New or expanded port, energy and coastal dependent industrial facilities, including commercial fishing facilities. (b) Diking, dredging and filling necessary for the protection, maintenance, restoration or enhancement of the area' s functional capacity as a habitat. (c) Provision for existing flood control facilities where the primary purpose is to maintain existing capacity, necessary for public safety or to protect existing development in the flood plain. No maintenance activities shall be permitted which have the effect of draining wetlands. Such maintenance activities may include maintenance dredging of less than 100,000 cubic yards in a twelve-month period; lining of in-place artificial channels; increasing the height of existing levees; changes in the cross section of the interior channel to accommodate the design capacity of channels when no widening of the top dimensions or widening of the outer levee is required. 222:Leg. Draft 942 1/19/94 -6- - ATTACHMENT NO.` (d) Only in conjunction with restoration plans, new flood control facilities where necessary for public safety and to protect existing development in the flood plain. (e) Mineral extraction, including sand for beach restoration except in environmentally sensitive areas. (f) Pedestrian trails and observation platforms for passive nature study, including bird watching and the study of flora and fauna. Such uses may be located within an environmentally sensitive habitat area provided that they are immediately adjacent to the area' s peripheral edge. (g) Maintenance of existing or restoration of previously dredged depths of navigational channels, turning basins, vessel berthing and mooring areas, and boat launching ramps. (h) Entrance channels for new or expanded boating facilities in a wetland area may be permitted. In a degraded wetland, identified by the state department of fish and game pursuant to California Public Resources Code section 30411(b) , such facilities may be permitted if a substantial portion of the degraded wetland is restored and maintained as a biologically productive wetland. The maximum area of the wetland used for boating facilities, including berthing space, turning basins, necessary navigation channels, and any necessary support service facilities, shall be twenty-five (25%) percent of the total degraded wetland area. (i ) Nature study, aquaculture, or similar resource dependent activities. (j) Habitat Restoration projects. 9422.7 Prohibited uses. Any use or structure not expressly permitted shall be prohibited. 9422.8 Required permits and agreements. Before any application is accepted for processing, proof shall be provided that the necessary state and federal regulatory permits or agreements have been obtained, or a statement from the regulatory body that such permits are not required shall be submitted: (a) United States Army Corps of Engineers: Section 404 and Section 10 permits; (b) California Department of Fish and Game: 1601-1603 agreement; (c) State Water Resource Control Board (permit depends on the operation) ; (d) Regional water quality control board (permit depends on operation) ; (e) California State Lands Commission permit. (2862-10/86, 2888-12/86) 9422.9 Development standards--Mitigation measures. Before any application is accepted for processing, the applicant shall meet the following standards of this article, and shall incorporate into the project design any feasible mitigation measures which will MdOM6 minimize adverse environmental effects. 222:Leg. Draft 942 1/19/94 -7- ATTACHMENT NO. ` -� 9422. 10 Mitigation measures--Dredging. If the project involves any dredging, mitigation measures shall include the following: (a) Dredging and spoils disposal shall be planned and carried out to avoid significant disruption to wetland habitats and to water circulation. (b) Limitations may be imposed on the timing of the operation, the type of operation, the quantity of dredged material removed, and the location of the spoil site. (c) Dredge spoils suitable for beach replenishment shall , where feasible, be transported to appropriate beaches or into suitable longshore current systems. (d) Other mitigation measures may include opening up areas to tidal action, removing dikes, improving tidal flushing, or other restoration measures. 9422.11 Mitigation measures--Diking or filling. If the project involves diking or filling of a wetland, the following minimum mitigation measures shall apply. These mitigation measures shall not be required for temporary or short-term fill or diking if a bond or other evidence of financial responsibility is provided to assure that restoration will be accomplished in the shorte4t feasible time. (a) If an appropriate restoration site is available, the applicant shall submit a detailed restoration plan to the director which includes provisions for purchase and restoration of an equivalent area of equal or greater biological productivity and dedication of the land to a public agency or otherwise permanently restricting its use for open space purposes. The site shall be purchased before the dike or fill development proceeds. (b) The applicant may in some cases be permitted to open equivalent areas to tidal action or provide other sources of surface water. This method of mitigation is appropriate if the applicant already owns filled, diked areas which themselves are not environmentally sensitive habitat areas, but may become so if opened to tidal action or provided with other sources of surface water. (c) If no appropriate restoration sites under options contained in this article are available, the applicant shall pay an in-lieu fee, determined by the City Council , which shall be of sufficient value to an appropriate public agency for the purchase and restoration of an area of equivalent productive value, or equivalent surface area. This option shall be allowed only if the applicant is unable to find a willing seller of a potential restoration site. Since the public agency may also face difficulties in acquiring appropriate sites, the in-lieu fee shall reflect the additional costs of acquisition, including litigation and 222:Leg. Draft 942 1/19/94 -8- ATTACHMENT NO. attorney' s fees, as well as the cost of restoration, relocation and other costs. If the public agency' s restoration project is not already approved by the Coastal Commission, the public agency may need to be a coapplicant for a coastal development permit to provide adequate assurance that conditions can be imposed to assure that the purchase of the mitigation site shall occur prior to the issuance of the permit. In addition, such restoration shall occur in the same general region, e.g. , within the same stream, lake, or estuary where the fill occurred. 9422.12 Mitigation measures--Vegetation. Any areas where vegetation is temporarily removed shall be replanted with a native or an adaptable species in a quantity and quality equal to the vegetation removed. 9422.13 Mitigation measures--Reduction of disturbances. Pedestrian trails, observation platforms and other incidental structures shall be designed to reduce disturbance of wildlife and vegetation. Examples of improvements to effect such reduction are elevated walkways and viewing platforms, and vegetative and structural barriers to lessen disturbances from permitted uses and inhibit internal access. 9422.14 Mitigation measures--Litter control . Passive nature study uses shall include a program to control litter such as placement of an adequate number of containers and posted signs. 9422.15 Mitigation measures--Flood control . Environmentally sensitive habitat areas shall be restored and augmented to lessen the risk of flood damage to adjacent properties. 9422.16 Mitigation measures--Construction and improvements. Any construction, alteration or other improvement shall generally be carried out between September 15 and April 15 to avoid disturbing rare, threatened, or endangered species which utilize the area for nesting. This requirement shall not apply if it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the director that no such disturbance would occur, in which case construction shall be timed to cause the least disturbance to wetland dependent species, such as migratory waterfowl and shorebirds. Construction or maintenance activities shall be carried out in areas of minimal size. The site shall be restored to its original state prior to completion of the project unless such site is to be altered to conform with an approved restoration project. 9422.17 Mitigation measures--Duty of applicant. The applicant shall demonstrate that the functional capacity is maintained or augmented unless relieved of any one or more of these requirements by the California Department of Fish and Game, and it is also shown that the project will not significantly: (a) Alter existing plant and animal populations in a manner that would impair the long-term stability of the ecosystem, i .e. , natural species diversity, abundance and composition are essentially unchanged as a result of the project. ATTACHMENT NO. 222:Leg. Draft 942 1/19/94 -9- (b) Harm or destroy a species or habitat that is rare or endangered. (c) Harm a species or habitat that is essential to the natural biological function of a wetland or estuary. (d) Reduce consumptive (fishing, aquaculture and hunting) or nonconsumptive (water quality and research opportunity) values of a wetland or estuarian ecosystem. 9422.18 Degraded wetland restoration. If the proposed project involves restoration of a degraded wetland, the applicant shall comply with California Public Resources Code Sections 30411 and 30233 to the satisfaction of the director. 9422. 19 Findings--Environmentally sensitive habitats. The purpose of this section is to ensure an environment which is suitable for the self-perpetuation of environmentally sensitive habitat areas. Prior to approval of energy production facilities, the decision-making authority shall make a finding with a statement of fact that: (a) Provision has been made for the enhancement of a significant portion of the project area to ensure preservation of plant and wildlife species. (b) For all other projects, a finding shall be made that the functional capacity of the environmentally sensitive habitat area is maintained. ATTACHMENT NO. 222:Leg. Draft 942 1/19/94 -10- LEGISLATIVE DRAFT Article 969.9 "CZ" COASTAL ZONE SUFFIX Sections• 969.9.0 Purpose 969.9.1 Definitions 969.9.2 Area of Applicability 969.9.3 Application 969.9.4 Coastal Development Permit 969.9.5 Dedication of Vertical Access 969.9.5.1 Dedication of Vertical Access 969.9.5.2 Dedication of Lateral Access 969.9.5.3 Access Dedication Policies 969.9.5.4 Easement for Public Access Required 969.9.5.5 Public Use Areas. Signs Required 969.9.6 Visual Resources 969.9.7 Community Facilities 969.9.8 Diking, Dredging and Filling 969.9.9 Hazards 969.9.10 Buffer Requirements 969.9.11 Energy 969.9.12 Residential Density Limitations 969.9.13 Height Restrictions 969.9.14 Parking Requirements 969.9.15 Signs 969.9.16 Permitted Uses for Land Use Designations 969.9.17 Recreation Designation 969.9.18 Development Standards. Recreation District 969.9.19 General Industrial District. Permitted Uses 969.9.20 Resource Production District. Permitted Uses 969.9.21 General Commercial District. Permitted Uses 969.9.22 Public, Quasi Public and Institutional District. Permitted Uses 969.9.23 Residential Low, Medium and High—Density Districts. Permitted Uses 969.9.24 Planned Residential Developments. Conditional Uses 969.9.25 Mobilehome Districts. Permitted Uses 969.9.26 Districts With Oil Suffixes. Permitted Uses 969.9.28 Flood Plain Districts (—FP1 , FP2) 969.9.29 Conditional Use Permit Required--Any District 969.9.0 Purpose. The purpose of the coastal zone suffix (CZ) is to provide supplementary regulations and specified permitted uses for those areas in the city of Huntington Beach which lie within the coastal zone as it now exists or may hereinafter be amended, and as such require special consideration to assure that they are developed in a manner that will implement the California Coastal Act of 1976 (Division 20 of the Public Resources Code) and be in accord with the policies set forth in the Coastal Element of the Huntington Beach General Plan. ATTACHMENT NO. 223: Leg. Draft 969.9 1/19/94 —1— 969.9.1 Definitions. The following definitions shall only apply to districts bearing the CZ suffix. Lateral Access: Means public access along the coast. Vertical Access: Means public access from the nearest public roadway to the shoreline. 969.9.2 Areas of Applicability. The provisions of this section are applicable to all land and water within the CZ District and are in addition to the provisions of "Purpose and Effect of Districting" within the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. Where uncertainty exists as to the exact location of the CZ District boundary, the following rules shall apply: (A) When a portion of a building site lies, or appears to lie partially within the CZ District and any existing or proposed development of such building site is within the CZ District, the building site shall be considered to be within the CZ District. (B) When a portion of a building site lies, or appears to lie partially within the CZ District and no development of such building site is within the CZ District, the building site shall be considered to be not within the CZ District. (C) When a public or private street or a highway lies partially within the CZ District, the entire width of that portion of such street or highway lying partially within the CZ District shall be considered to be within the CZ District. 969.9.3 Application. The CZ District is a suffix district that may be combined with any base district; however, the CZ District is intended to be applied only within the area of the Coastal Zone described by the Public Resources Code. In any district where the district symbol is followed by, as a part of such symbol , hyphenated letters, "CZ," thus: -CZ, the additional provisions of Article 989.5 shall apply. The district symbol shall constitute the "base district" and the CZ suffix shall constitute the "combining district." Whenever any provisions of the CZ District and any other law or ordinance impose overlapping or contradictory regulations, and when the CZ District requires procedures and discretionary actions not required by any other law or ordinance, the requirements of the CZ District shall supersede and shall be satisfied or complied with either in combination with or in addition to those procedures required to comply with other laws and ordinances. 969.9.4 Coastal Development Permit. Any district bearing the CZ suffix shall be subject to the provisions contained in the "Coastal Development Permit" of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. (2751-4/85) 969.9.5 Public Access to Coastal Resources. Dedications of public access to coastal resources shall be required within the CZ District as a condition of development prior to issuance of a permit, as set out in this article. (2751-4/85) 223: Leg. Draft 969.9 1 /19/94 -2- ATTACHMENT NQ. _ o 969.9.5.1 Dedication of Vertical Access. An offer of dedication of an easement shall be required in all new development to allow vertical access to the shoreline, public recreation areas, public trails, or to bikeways. Offers of dedication for vertical access shall be provided as a condition of new development on parcels adjacent to sandy beaches or recreation areas, on vacant parcels, on parcels designated for commercial use, and in conjunction with replacement of existing structures on waterfront parcels. Offers for vertical access dedication shall not be required when: (a) Adequate access exists nearby or is proposed by the land use plan within one thousand (1000) feet; or (b) Access at the site would significantly degrade environmentally-sensitive habitat areas; or (c) Findings are made consistent with Section 30212 of the Coastal Act that access is inconsistent with public safety, military security needs, or that agriculture would be adversely affected; or (d) The parcel is too narrow for an adequate privacy buffer separating the accessway from the existing residence, and would, therefore, adversely affect the privacy of the property owner. The following guideline shall be used in determining adequacy of privacy buffers: there should be at least fifteen (15) feet between the existing residence and the side yard property line for an adequate buffer. These exceptions, (a)-(d) , shall not apply to the Pacific Electric right-of-way. 969.9.5.2 Dedication of Lateral Access. An offer of dedication of an easement shall be required in conjunction with all new development between the first public road and the sea to allow lateral public access and passive recreational use along the shoreline, public recreation areas, or public trails and bikeways except when: (a) Findings are made under California Public Resources Code Section 30212 that access is inconsistent with public safety, military security needs, or that agriculture would be adversely affected; or (b) Access at the site would significantly degrade environmentally-sensitive habitat areas; or (c) The parcel is too narrow for an adequate privacy buffer separating the lateral accessway from an existing residence. The following guideline shall be used in determining adequate privacy buffers: there must be at least fifteen (15) feet between an existing residence, patio cover or pool and the shoreline in order to accommodate both an accessway and a privacy buffer. Exceptions set out in subsections (b) and (c) shall not apply to the Pacific Electric right-of-way. 223: Leg. Draft 969.9 1/19/94 -3- ATTACHMENT N®. 2' r 969.9.5.3 Access Dedication Policies. The following policies shall be applicable to access dedications: (a) Access will not be required on existing developed residential parcels which do not front a sandy beach, which have bulkheads and are not adjacent to recreation or public use areas and other existing or proposed lateral or vertical easements, or when development is proposed on an existing subdivided single-family residential lot between developed residential parcels. (b) In no case shall development in any way diminish or interfere with the public' s right of access to the sea where acquired through prescriptive use or legislative authorization. (c) The city may accept offers of dedication for access consistent with its ability to assume maintenance and liability. If not accepted by the city, offers of dedication of access may be accepted by any other public agency or private association, provided that such other agency or association shall be able to assume maintenance and operation of the accessway prior to opening it to the public. 969.9.5.4 Easement for Public Access Required. Prior to transmittal of a coastal permit, the applicant shall cause to be executed and recorded a document, in a form and content approved by the Director and the City Attorney for an easement for public access and passive recreation to and along the shoreline as required by this article. In the case of lateral access on sandy beaches, the easement shall be for the length of the property and shall be from the mean high tideline to a point twenty-five (25) feet inland from the daily high water line. On all other parcels which require lateral access, the easement shall be for the length of the property and shall be from the mean high tideline to a point ten (10) feet inland from the daily high water line. In addition to the ten (10) foot easement, new development on vacant parcels shall provide a fifteen (15) foot structural setback of all buildings (including attached stairways, balconies, etc. ) . Such fifteen (15) foot setback shall remain free of all structures except for accessory structures such as patios, pools, landscaping and open fences. These structures may be located on fill no more than thirty (30) inches above the grade of the adjacent public access. On an R1 lot, between existing developed lots adjacent to existing public accessways, the easement shall be consistent with the width of the adjacent public accessways, and structural setbacks shall be consistent with the setback of the adjacent structures. In the case of vertical easements they shall be described as extending from the property line to the mean high tide line. The easements shall be recorded free of prior liens except for tax liens, which shall remain the liability of the owner of the fee, and free of prior encumbrances which the Director determines may affect the interest being conveyed. The offers shall run with the land, binding successors and assigns of the applicant or landowner. The offer of dedication shall be irrevocable for a period of twenty-one (21 ) years, such period running from the date of recordation. ATTACHMENT N0. 223: Leg. Draft 969.9 1 /19/94 -4- 74_ 969.9.5.5. Public Use Areas. Signs Required. As a condition of new development on parcels on or adjacent to recreation areas, public accessways, public use areas, trails, bikeways or the shoreline, or in conjunction with dedications of lateral or vertical access, the applicant shall provide signs identifying the public access and public use areas subject to all other provisions of this district. 969.9.6 Visual Resources. (a) An applicant proposing new development shall provide the Director with an evaluation of the project' s visual impact, and incorporate in its design, to the satisfaction of the Director, the following elements: (1 ) Preservation of public views to and from the bluffs, to the shoreline and ocean, and to the wetlands. (2) Conservation of energy and facilitation of public transit through design and location. (3) Adequate landscaping and vegetation. (4) To the maximum extent feasible, the preservation of existing mature trees. (b) The following shall be prohibited: (1) Any alteration of the natural land form of the bluffs seaward of Pacific Coast Highway. Alterations necessary for development of public trails and stabilization of bluffs may be permitted subject to city approval . (2) Development along the bluffs rising to the Bolsa Chica mesa which will alter the natural land form or threaten the stability of the bluffs. 969.9.7 Community Facilities. Prior to the issuance of a development entitlement, the city shall make the finding that adequate services (e.g. , water, sewer, roads, etc.) can be provided to serve the proposed development consistent with policies contained in the certified land use plan at the time of occupancy. 969.9.8 Diking. Dredging and Filling. Diking, dredging or filling shall be permitted only where there is no feasible less environmentally-damaging alternative and where feasible mitigation measures have been provided, and shall be subject to the provisions contained in Sections 969.7.1 , 969.7.5, 969.7.6, 969.7.7 of Article 969.7, "Coastal Conservation District." 969.9.9 Hazards. As a condition of new development, the applicant shall be required to submit a report evaluating geologic, seismic, flood and fire hazards, and shall be required to: 223: Leg. Draft 969.9 1/19/94 -5- ATTACHMENT NO, Z�r` (a) Comply with all recommendations and provisions contained in the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones Act (California Public Resources Code Chapter 7.5) for identified seismic hazards. (b) Comply with all provisions relating to the "Floodplain District" contained in this code. 969.9.10 Buffer Requirements. As a condition of development adjacent to environmentally-sensitive habitats, buffers shall be required as follows: (a) A minimum one hundred (100) foot buffer from the landward edge of the habitat within the development area. If the existing development or site configuration cannot accommodate a one hundred (100) foot buffer,then the buffer shall be established pursuant to subsection (c) hereof and shall be reviewed by the California Department of Fish and Game. (b) In cases of high-intensity development, a wider buffer may be required as set out in subsection (c) hereof. (c) Buffers shall be established according to the following standards: (1 ) Biological Significance of Adjacent Lands. The buffer should be sufficiently wide to protect the functional relationship between wetland and adjacent upland. (2) Sensitivity of Species to Disturbance. The buffer should be sufficiently wide to ensure that the most sensitive species will not be disturbed significantly by permitted development, based on habitat requirements of both resident and migratory species and the short and long-term adaptability of various species to the presence of human beings. (3) Susceptibility of Parcel to Erosion. The buffer should be sufficiently wide to allow for interception of any additional material eroded as a result of the proposed development, based on soil , vegetation, slope and runoff characteristics, and impervious surface coverage. (4) Use of Existing Cultural Features to Locate Buffer Zones. Where feasible, development should be located on the sides of roads, dikes, irrigation canals, flood control channels, etc. away from environmentally-sensitive habitat areas. 969.9.11 Energy. All new development shall comply with Chapters 15.22, "Screening and Landscaping" and Chapter 15.24, "Cleanup and Maintenance" of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code, and such chapters shall be certified as part of the Local Coastal Program implementation. New, modified or expanded energy facilities shall comply with the following: 223: Leg. Draft 969.9 1/19/94 -6- ATTACHMENT NO. gg (a) Oil operations shall be located where there are no other feasible locations which are less environmentally damaging or less disruptive to significant social , aesthetic or economic concerns, and shall be located in the following priority: (1 ) Existing consolidated islands; (2) New consolidated islands; (3) Existing oil parcels; (4) New parcels outside the coastal zone; and (5) New parcels within the coastal zone. (b) Prior to approval of new or relocated pipelines or transmission lines the applicant shall : (1 ) Submit a survey along the route of the pipeline or transmission line, identifying and assessing coastal resources, including but not limited to, beaches, recreation areas, significant vegetation, wetlands and other environmentally-sensitive habitats, bluffs, streams, and marine resources. (2) Submit a report evaluating potential impacts from construction and operation, and proposing mitigation measures. (c) New pipelines shall : (1 ) Be consolidated in existing corridors and shall avoid recreation areas and environmentally-sensitive habitat areas unless there is no feasible less environmentally-damaging, alternative location. (2) Incorporate automatic shutoff valves to isolate any segments carrying hazardous liquids. (3) Incorporate erosion control measures during construction and mitigation measures to repair grading or vegetation removal including, but not limited to, replacing topsoil on the site and revegetation. (4) Be constructed without the use of any chemical herbicides. (5) Be underground. (d) Development of electrical transmission lines shall be consolidated in existing corridors where feasible. (e) New development of separation and treatment facilities shall be permitted only if: (1 ) It is infeasible to utilize excess capacity of existing facilities. 223: Leg. Draft 969.9 1/19/94 -7- ATTACHMENT NO. (2) Location and design of the site is consistent with other provisions of this "CZ" district and other applicable districts. 969.9.12 Residential Density Limitations. Areas designated in the coastal element for residential development shall conform to the following coastal element density limitations: (a) Low Density: shall not exceed seven (7) dwelling units per gross acre of land. (b) Medium Density: shall not exceed fifteen (15) dwelling units per gross acre of land. (c) Medium-high Density: shall not exceed twenty-five (25) dwelling units per gross acre of land. (d) High Density: may be developed at a density not to exceed thirty-five (35) dwelling units per gross acre of land. 969.9. 13 Height Restrictions. No structure within the CZ district shall exceed the district height restriction, or thirty-five (35) feet in height for a residential structure, or fifty (50) feet for a commercial structure, whichever is more restrictive, except as specified by a floor area ratio (FAR) in the coastal element. The following additional heights shall be permitted: (a) Ten (10) feet in height for roof-line treatment, architectural features such as chimneys, solar energy equipment and mechanical devices. The air space granted for these purposes shall not be used as an additional habitable area. (b) Fourteen (14) feet in height for elevator equipment. All mechanical devices, except for solar panels, shall be set back and screened so that they cannot be seen from public rights-of-way. 969.9.14 Parking Requirements. If any existing oceanside or onstreet parking is removed, it shall be replaced on a one-for-one basis in an area that would not result in the loss of any sandy beach area and within walking distance of the existing site. Replacement parking shall be assured prior to the issuance of the coastal development permit. Development shall comply with the off-street parking requirements of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. 969.9.15 Signs. The general regulations contained in this section shall apply to all signs and all use districts. For the purpose of the CZ district, "sign" does not include governmental signs constructed and maintained pursuant to and in discharge of any governmental function. Signs shall conform with the height and area restrictions contained in the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code unless otherwise provided herein. ATTACHMENT NO. 223: Leg. Draft 969.9 1/19/94 -8- (a) Any illuminated sign or lighting device shall employ only light emitting a constant intensity. (b) No sign shall be illuminated by or contain flashing, blinking, moving, rotating, or intermittent light or lights. (c) No sign or lighting device shall be placed or directed so as to permit the beams and illumination therefrom to be directed or beamed upon a public street, highway, sidewalk, or adjacent premises which causes glare or reflection that may constitute a traffic hazard or nuisance. (d) No sign shall be placed on, attached to, or extend above the roof of any building. (e) No sign or part thereof shall contain or consist of banners, posters, pennants, ribbons, streamers, spinners, or other similar moving devices. Such devices, as well as strings of lights, shall not be used for the purpose of advertising or attracting attention, except as otherwise provided in the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. (f) No sign erected or maintained in the window of a building, visible from any public or private street or highway, shall occupy more than twenty per cent (20%) of the window surface. (g) All signs hung and constructed shall be plainly marked with the name of the person, firm, or corporation hanging or constructing the sign. (h) No building wall shall be used for display of advertising except that which relates to an activity, service or commodity available on the premises. (i ) No sign shall be displayed which has mechanical movement of any kind including but not limited to, rotating, revolving, moving, gyrating, or animated parts. Q) Billboards, off-site advertising signs, and other signs which give direction to or identify a use or product not sold or offered at the location of the sign are prohibited. (k) Subject to the requirements of California Business and Professions Code Section 5412.1 , all existing billboards in residentially planned and zoned areas shall be removed. 969.9.16 Permitted Uses for Land Use Designations. Notwithstanding any provisions of the base district, parcels bearing the CZ suffix shall be limited to the uses contained in this article for each land use designation. 969.9. 17 Recreation Designation. The following uses shall be permitted (excluding the beaches oceanward of Pacific Coast Highway) : 223: Leg. Draft 969.9 1/19/94 -9- ATTACHMENT NO. 2�k (a) Beaches, parking lots, concessions, campgrounds, parks, picnic grounds, golf courses, racquet, boating and swimming clubs, athletic fields, stables, bicycle and other recreational rentals, arboretums, archery ranges, bird sanctuaries, recreation centers, and visual art festival grounds. (b) Marinas and marine-related facilities such as launching ramps and fueling docks are permitted as conditional uses. (c) The permitted uses for recreation areas adjacent to the Huntington Beach mesa shall be limited to low-intensity uses including picnic grounds, arboretums, bird sanctuaries, trails. High-intensity uses such as public or private tennis courts, athletic fields, stables, campgrounds or other commercial recreation shall be conditional only, and shall be located in nodes adjacent to existing developed areas and roads and to avoid sensitive habitats. (d) Uses within the recreation designation on the Bolsa Chica bluffs shall be limited to low-intensity uses. Major recreational facilities are prohibited. Existing mature stands of eucalyptus trees shall be preserved. Adjacent development shall conform to buffer standards. 969.9.18 Development Standards. RECREATION DISTRICT. In addition to other provisions of this district, the following development standards shall apply: (a) Minimum parcel or building site: none. (b) Maximum height of structures: 35 feet. 969.9.19 General Industrial District. Permitted Uses. Uses permitted in a general industrial district are: light manufacturing, assembly, packaging, electronics, wholesale distribution, machine shops, warehousing, storage, dry boat storage, administrative offices and service uses. 969.9.20 Resource Production District. PERMITTED USES. Uses permitted in a resource production district are: oil wells, injection equipment, separation and treatment facilities, storage tanks, transmission lines, equipment storage maintenance yards, and administrative offices associated with oil operations. 969.9.21 General Commercial District. Permitted Uses. Uses permitted in a general commercial district are: convenience, neighborhood and community-oriented retail and business uses. (a) Development for any parcel or portion thereof designated with the Coastal conservation suffix (-CC) shall be permitted only pursuant to an overall development plan for all such parcels, if at said time of application the parcels are geographically contiguous, under common ownership, and carry the Coastal conservation suffix (-CC). All provisions of Section 9422.2.1 shall be applicable. 969.9.22 Public. Ouasi Public and Institutional District. Permitted Uses. Uses permitted in a public, quasi public and institutional district are: (a) Government facilities, schools, colleges, libraries, police and fire stations and training facilities, churches, utilities, and sanitation plants. 223: Leg. Draft 969.9 1/19/94 -10- ATTACHMENT NO. 7vW 969.9.23 Residential Low. Medium and High-Density Districts. Permitted Uses. Uses permitted in residential low, medium and high-density districts are as follows: (a) Low density: detached single-family dwellings. (b) Medium density: single-family and multi-family dwelling units; two or more attached, permanently-located dwelling units. (1 ) A conditional use permit is required for development on the mud dump site, located southwest of Magnolia Street and Hamilton Avenue. Prior to approval of an application for such development, the applicant shall submit a characterization analysis. If the analysis indicates contamination with harmful deposits, the applicant shall provide for cleanup of the site prior to issuance of any permit. (2) If an inventory conducted by the California Department of Fish and Game of plant and associated animal species on the rotary mud dump reveals the presence of wetlands, and the necessary cleanup destroys them, mitigation in the form of restoration on another site or in-lieu fees must be provided by the owner of the site consistent with the requirement of the Coastal Conservation Zone pursuant to Section 969.7.6 of the Implementing Ordinances. (c) High Density: two or more attached permanently-located dwelling units, and single-family residences. (d) Structures customarily incidental to and accessory to a residential unit. (e) Schools, parks, recreation areas, churches, fire stations, utility substations, day care centers, convenience commercial centers by special permit. 969.9.24 Planned Residential Developments. Conditional Uses. Planned residential developments shall require a conditional use permit. 969.9.25 Mobilehome Districts. Permitted Uses. Mobilehome parks, and uses incidental to and normally found in conjunction with mobilehomes and mobilehome parks shall be permitted. 969.9.26 Districts With Oil Suffixes. Permitted Uses. Petroleum extraction equipment, storage tanks, and transportation pipelines shall be permitted uses in districts where oil production is combined with other uses. 969.9.28 Flood Plain Districts (-FPI . -FP2) . In areas identified as wetlands, the uses listed for a coastal conservation district shall take precedence over permitted and conditional uses listed for a floodplain district. 969.9.29 Conditional Use Permit Required--Any District. Pipelines in any district shall require a conditional use permit. ATTACHMENT NO. 223: Leg. Draft 969.9 1/19/94 -11- ATTACHMENT 3 COASTAL COMMISSION ALTERNATIVE ORDINANCE NO. 3 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH ORDINANCE CODE BY AMENDING ARTICLES 902, 942 AND 969.9 THEREOF The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION 1. Article 942 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code is hereby amended by amending Section 9422.1(f)thereof to read as follows: (f) Wetland shall mean lands within the coastal zone which may be covered periodically or permanently with shallow water and include salt water marshes, freshwater marshes, open or closed brackish water marshes, swamps, mud flats and fens. ' -> SECTION 2. Article 942 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code is hereby amended by adding new Section 9422.2.1 thereof to read as follows: 9422.2.1 Coastal conservation suffix- Requirements. As it applies to parcels described as Assessors Parcel Numbers: 148-011-01, 148-011-02, 114- 150-26, 114-150-51, 114-150-53, 114-150-58 and 114-156-55, the Coastal . Conservation"CC" suffix shall be a conservation overlay zone classification. Within areas identified as wetlands on the subject property, the uses of the Coastal Conservation District, as identified in section 9422.5 and 9422.6, shall supersede the uses of the VSC, RA and MI-A districts. Development prohibited by sections 9422.5 - 9422.7 on wetland portions of the subject property may be permitted in non-wetland areas only pursuant to an application for a single overall development plan for the entire overlay area, or such portion thereof as may be at the time of said application geographically contiguous and under common ownership. As part of any such application the applicant shall include topographic, vegetative, hydrologic and soils information, prepared by a qualified professional and reviewed and concurred in by the Department of Fish and Game, which identifies the extent of any existing wetlands on the property. Conservation easements, dedications or other identified similar mechanisms shall be required over all wetland areas as a condition of development, to assure permanent protection against development inconsistent with Sections 9422.5 - 9422.7. Specific drainage and erosion �`- control requirements shall be incorporated into the project design to ensure that wetland areas are not adversely affected. No further subdivision of any 1 4\s\G:0rd:Whiteho1e Amd.902,942,969.9\08/24/94 such parcel shall be permitted which would have the effect of dividing off environmentally sensitive habitat from other portions of such parcels for which urban uses are permitted in the City's Coastal Element until such time as the permanent protection on any wetland is assured. Alternatively, if the owner of an above parcel(s)wishes to develop only the parcel(s) which has coastal element land use designations other than conservation, the required overall development plan and coastal development permit application is not required to include the wetlands determination as stated above. However, a conservation easement, dedication or other identified similar mechanism shall be required over the parcel(s) area which have a conservation land use designation and are within the parcel(s) proposed for development. The conservation easement may be removed from those parcels or portions thereof which are found not to contain wetlands through a subsequent overall development plan and coastal development permit application which shall include a wetlands determination as specified above. The above drainage and erosion control and no further subdivision provisions also apply under this alternative. Public vehicular traffic(the extension of Hamilton Avenue) shall be permitted _ in wetland areas governed by a conservation easement provided the road is constructed in a manner consistent with Section 9.4.5; Area 1 (Beach Blvd. to Newland Street) and Section 6, Environmentally Sensitive Habitat of the certified Land Use Plan. SECTION 3. Article 942 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code is hereby amended by amending Section 9422.3 thereof to read as follows: 9422.3 Coastal conservation suffix-- Removal of. Prior to removal of the Coastal conservation suffix(-CC), the following findings shall be made: (a) No wetlands exist on the subject parcel as determined by a site-specific topographic, vegetative, hydrologic and soils analysis of the subject parcel, prepared by a qualified wetland biologist or other qualified professional and reviewed and concurred in by the Department of Fish and Game; and (b) That the proposed removal of the suffix is in accordance with the policies, standards and provisions of the California Coastal Act; and (c) That there is no feasible, less environmentally damaging alternative site for any proposed land use or development which may be allowed under California Public Resources Code sections 30233(a) (1) and 30264. 2 4\s\G:0rdAVhiteho1e Amd.902,942,969.9\08/24/94 Any such removal of the Coastal Conservation suffix(-CC) shall constitute an amendment to the Implementation Plan and, if applicable, the Land Use Plan portion of the Local Coastal Program. Pursuant to Section 30514 of the Coastal Act, an I.C.P. amendment shall not take effect unless and until it has been effectively certified by the California Coastal Commission. SECTION 4. Article 942 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code is hereby amended by amending Section 9422.4 thereof to read as follows: 9422.4 Uses generally. The uses set out in this Article shall only be allowed where there is no feasible, less environmentally damaging alternative and where feasible mitigation measures have been*provided. SECTION 5. Article 942 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code is hereby amended by amending Section 9422.6(a)thereof to read as follows: (a) New or expanded port, energy and coastal dependent industrial facilities, including commercial fishing facilities. < SECTION 6. Article 942 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code is hereby amended by amending Section 9422.6(d)thereof to read as follows: (d) Only in conjunction with restoration plans, new flood control facilities where necessary for public safety and to protect existing development in the flood plain. SECTION 7. Article 942 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code is hereby amended by adding new Section 9422.60) thereof to read as follows: 0) Habitat Restoration projects. SECTION 8. Article 942 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code is hereby amended by amending Section 9422.9 thereof to read as follows: 9422.9 Development standards--Mitigation measures. Before any application is accepted for processing, the applicant shall meet the following standards of this article, and shall incorporate into the project design any k... feasible mitigation measures which will minimize adverse environmental ' effects. 3 4\s\G:0rdAVhiteho1e Amd.902,942,969.9\08/24/94 SECTION 9. Article 969.9 of.the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code is hereby amended by amending Section 969.9.21'thereofto read as follows: 969.9.21 General Commercial District. Permitted Uses. Uses permitted in a general commercial district are: convenience, neighborhood and community oriented retail and business uses. (a) Development for any parcel or portion thereof designated with the Coastal . conservation suffix (-CC) shall be permitted only pursuant to an overall development plan for all such parcels, if at said time of application the parcels are geographically contiguous, under common ownership, and carry the Coastal conservation suffix (-CC). All provisions of Section 9422.2.1 shall be applicable. SECTION 10. Article 902 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code is hereby amended by amending Section 9020 thereof to read as follows: 9020 Purpose. The Zoning Ordinance for the City of Huntington Beach is established to implement the objectives of the General Plan. It is further .., adopted for the purpose of promoting and protecting the public health, safety, and general welfare of Huntington Beach residents and to provide the physical, economic and social advantages which result from a comprehensive and orderly planned use of land resources. This zoning ordinance is not intended to authorize, and shall not be construed as authorizing the City of Huntington Beach to exercise its power in a manner which will take or damage private property for public use. This zoning ordinance is not intended to increase or decrease the rights of any owner of property under.the constitution of the State of California or the United States. SECTION II. The Community Development Director is hereby directed to amend Articles 902, 942 and 969.9 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code to reflect Code Amendment No. 93-8 described in Sections 1 through 10 hereof. Copies of said Articles as amended hereby, are available for inspection in the Office of the City Clerk. 4 4\s\G:0rd:Whitehole Amd.902,942,969.9\08/24/94 SECTION 12. This ordinance shall take effect following California Coastal Commission certification. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a. regular meeting held on the gothday of ynt ber , 1994. Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk City Attorney „A REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVED: Administrator Director of Co unity Development 5 4\s\G:0rd:Whit6o1e Amd.902,942,969.9\08/24/94 r~ Ord. No. 3251-B STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I, CONNIE BROCKWAY, 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 ordinance was read to said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 6th day of September, 1994, and was again read to said City Council at an adjourned regular meeting thereof held on the 20th of September, 1994, and was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of all the members of said City Council. AYES: Councilmembers: Bauer, Winchell, Leipzig, Sullivan NOES: Councilmembers: Silva, Robitaille. ABSENT: Councilmembers:. Moulton-Patterson City Clerk and ex-offici6,@Vrk of the City Council of the.City of Huntington Beach, California ATTACHMENT 4 ORDINANCE NO. 3033 ZONE CHANGE NO. 88-18, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH ORDINANCE CODE BY AMENDING THE SECTION 9061 THEREOF TO PROVIDE FOR A CHANGE OF ZONING WITHIN VARIOUS DISTRICTS WITHIN THE "WHITEHOLE" AREA OF THE COASTAL ZONE WHEREAS, Pursuant to the State Planning and Zoning Law, the Huntington Beach Planning Commission and Huntington Beach City Council have had separate public hearings relative to Zone Change No. 88-18 wherein both bodies have carefully considered all information presented at said hearings, and after due consideration of the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission and all evidence presented to the City Council, the City Council finds that such zone change is proper, and consistent with the Huntington Beach General Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does ordain to amend §9061 of the Ordinance Code as follows : SECTION 1. The following described real property consis,�ing of approximately 7 acres, generally located on the inland side of Pacific Coast Highway at the northeast corner of the intersection of Beach Boulevard and Pacific Coast Highway and extending east along Pacific Coast Highway to Newland Street, in the City of Huntington Beach, County of Orange, State of California, being that portion of fractional Section 13 and that portion of fractional Section 24 all in Township 6 South, Range 11 .West, S.B.B. & M. in the Rancho Las Bolsas , per map recorded in 3ook 51, Page 14 of Miscellaneous Maps in the office of the Recorder of said county, and designated as "A" on Exhibit "1" (overlay to District Map 14 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code) , is hereby changed from RA-0-FP2 (Residential -1- .,ATTACHMENTS NO. Agricultural within an Oil District within a Flood Plain) to VSA-CZ-FP2 (Visitor Serving Commercial within the Coastal Zone within the Flood Plain) . SECTION 2 . The following described real property consisting of approximately 17. 5 acres, generally located on the east side of Beach Boulevard beginning approximately 200 feet north of the northeast corner of the intersection of Pacific Coast Highway and Beach Boulevard and extending north approximately 500 feet, in the City of Huntington Beach, County of Orange, State of California, being that portion of fractional Section 13 and that portion of fractional Section 24 all in Township 6 South, Range 11 West, S.B.B. & M. in the Rancho Las Bolsas, per map recorded in Book 51, Page 14 of Miscellaneous Maps in the office of the Recorder of said county, and designated "B" on Exhibit "1" (overlay to District Map 14 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code) , is hereby changed from RA-O-FP2 (Residential Agricultural within an Oil District within a Flood Plain) to RA-O-CC-CZ-FP2 (Residential Agricultural within an Oil District with a Coastal Conservation overlay within the Coastal Zone within a Flood Plain) . SECTION 3 . The following described real property consisting of approximately 23 . 5 acres, generally located to the north and to the west of the Orange County Flood Control channel D1-2, that portion of the southwest 1/4 of Section 13, Township 6 south, Range 11 west, in the Rancho Las Bolsas, City of Huntington Beach, County of Orange, State of California, as shown on a map recorded in book 51, page 14 of Miscellaneous Maps, in the Office of the County Recorder of said County, designated as "C" on Exhibit "1" (overlay to District Map 14 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code) , is -2- AT iA'CjHAENT N0. 3033 hereby changed from M1-A-O-FP2 (Restricted Manufacturing within an Oil District within the Flood Plain) to M1-A-O-CC-CZ-FP2 (Restricted Manufacturing within an Oil District with a Coastal Conservation overlay within the Coastal Zone within a Flood Plain) . SECTION 4 . The following described real property consisting of approximately 17 acres, generally located on the inland side of Pacific Coast Highway to the east of the Edison Company Power Plant and extending east along Pacific Coast Highway approximately 1, 000 feet and north to the Orange County Flood Control Channel Dl-1, in the City of Huntington Beach, County of Orange, State of California, being that portion of fractional Section 13 and that portion of fractional Section 24 all in Township 6 South, Range 11 West, S.B.B. & M. in the Rancho Las Bolsas, per map recorded in Book 51, Page 14 of Miscellaneous Maps in the office of the Recorder of said county, designated "D" on Exhibit "l" (overlay to District Maps 14 and 29 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code) , is hereby changed from M2-O-FP2 (Industrial District within an Oil District within a Flood Plain) and RA-FP2 (Residential Agricultural within a Flood Plain) to M2-O-CC-CZ-FP2 (Industrial District within an Oil District with a Coastal Conservation overlay within the Coastal Zone within a Flood Plain) and RA-CC-CZ-FP2 (Residential Agricultural with a Coastal Conservation overlay within the Coastal Zone within a Flood Plain) . SECTION 5. The following described real property consisting of approximately 10 acres, generally located on the inland side of Pacific Coast Highway at the northwest corner of Pacific Coast Highway and Magnolia Street and extending approximately 700 feet west along Pacific Coast Highway and north to the Orange County Flood Control District Channel Dl-1, that portion of the northeast -3- ATTACHMENT NO. 3033 • 1/4 of Section 24, Township 6 south, Range 11 west, in the Rancho Las Bolsas, City of Huntington Beach, County of Orange, State of California, designated as "E" , on Exhibit "1" (overlay to District Maps 14 and 29 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code) , is hereby changed from LUD-FP2 (Limited Use District within a Flood Plain) to LUD-CC-CZ-FP2 (Limited Use District with a Coastal Conservation overlay within the Coastal Zone within a Flood Plain) . SECTION 6 . The following described real property consisting of approximately 56 acres, generally located on the inland side of Pacific Coast Highway between Magnolia Street and Brookhurst Street and north to the Orange County Flood Control District Channels D1-1 and D2-2, that portion of the west 1/2 of Section 19, Township 6 south, Range 10 west, in the Rancho Las Bolsas, City of Huntington Beach, County of Orange, State of California designated as "F" on Exhibit "1" (overlay to District Maps 22 and 29 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code) , is hereby changed from LUD-FP2 (Limited Use District within a Flood Plain) to LUD-CC-CZ-FP2 (Limited Use District with a Coastal Conservation overlay within the Coastal Zone within a Flood Plain) . SECTION 7. The following described real property consisting of approximately 16 acres, generally located on the inland side of Pacific Coast Highway between Brookhurst Street and the Santa Ana River extending north to the Orange County Flood Control District Channel D2-1, that portion of -Section 19, Township 6 South, Range 10 West, in the Rancho Las Bolsas, in the City of Huntington Beach, County of Orange, as shown on map recorded in Book 51, page 14 of Miscellaneous Maps, in the office of the County Recorder of said County, acquired by the State of California by Parcel 3 of Final -4- AlF TACHIMENT NO. Q 3033 T . 0 0 Order of Condemnation (State Parcel A1788) , filed in Superior Court Case No. 123366, a certified copy of said final order being recorded April 29 , 1965 in Book 7502, page 533 of Official Records, in said office, designated as "G" on Exhibit "1" (overlay to District Map 22 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code) , is hereby changed from LUD-FP2 (Limited Use District within a Flood Plain) and LUD-FP1 (Limited Use District within a Flood Plain) to LUD-CC-CZ-FP2 (Limited Use District with a Coastal Conservation overlay within the Coastal Zone within a Flood Plain) and LUD-CC-CZ-FP1 (Limited Use District with a Coastal Conservation overlay within the Coastal Zone within a Flood Plain) . SECTION 8 . The following described real property consisting of approximately 55 acres and commonly known as the Edison Company, generally located on the inland side of Pacific Coast Highway at the northeast corner of the intersection of Newland Street and Pacific Coast Highway and extending north to the Orange County Flood Control District D1-1 channel, in the City of Huntington Beach, County of Orange, State of California, being that portion of fractional Section 13 and that portion of fractional Section 24 all in Township 6 South, Range 11 West, S.B.B. & M. in the Rancho Las Bolsas, per map recorded in Book 51, Page 14 of Miscellaneous Maps in the Office of the Recorder of said County, designated as "H" on Exhibit "1" (overlay to District Maps 14 and 29 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code) , is hereby changed from M2-0-FP2 (Industrial District within an Oil District within a Flood Plain) to M2-0-CZ-FP2 (Industrial District within an Oil District within the Coastal Zone within a Flood Plain) . A d TACHMENT NOS e -5- 3033 • •. SECTION 9 . The following described real property consisting of approximately 28 acres, generally located northwest of the intersection of Magnolia Street and the Orange County Flood Control District D1-1 and commonly known as the Edison Oil Tank Farm, that portion of the southeast 1/4 of Section 13, Township 6 south, Range 11 west, in the Rancho Las Bolsas, City of Huntington Beach, County of Orange, State of California, as shown on a map recorded in Book 51, Page 14 of Miscellaneous Maps, in the Office of the County Recorder of said County, designated as "I" on Exhibit "l" (overlay to District Maps 14 and 29 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code) , is hereby changed from M2-0-FP2 (Industrial District within an Oil District within a Flood Plain) to M2-O-CZ-FP2 (Industrial District within an Oil District within the Coastal Zone within a Flood Plain) and from Ml-A-FP2 (Restricted Manufacturing within a Flood Plain) to M1-A-CZ-FP2 (Restricted Manufacturing within the Coastal Zone within a Flood Plain) . SECTION 10 . The following described real property consisting of approximately 2 acres, generally located at the northeast intersection of Magnolia Street and the Orange County Flood Control District Dl-1 Channel, that portion of northeast 1/4 of Section 24, Township 6 south Range 11 west, in the Rancho Las Bolsas, City of Huntington Beach, County of Orange, State of California, designated as "J" on Exhibit "l" (overlay to District Map 29 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code) , is hereby changed from (Q)ROS-FP2 (Recreational Open Space with Qualified Classifications within a Flood Plain) to ROS-Q-CC-CZ-FP2 (Recreational Open Space with Qualified Classifications with a Coastal Conservation overlay within the Coastal Zone within a Flood Plain) . -6- ATTACCHMENT N0. 3033' SECTION 11. The Community Development Director is hereby directed to amend Section 9061, District Maps 14, 22, and 29 (Section District Maps 13-6-11, 19-6-10, 24-6-11) to reflect Zone Change No. 88-18 described in Sections 1 through 10 hereof . Copies of said district maps, as amended hereby, are available for inspection in the office of the City Clerk. SECTION 12 . This ordinance shall take effect thirty days after its adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 2nd day of April , 1990 . Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: dj�� City Clerk 41 C},ty REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVED: vin I:Ci�tyAiLmin�istr�ator� Director of Community Development TTACHMENTNO. -7- 3033 Lj�N^l N,U LUNINU Adak DM. 1.4 SECTIONAL DISTRICT MAP 13--6- 11 • ►,rOT E' CITY OF "001m0 aaacY If•O '�••� �' �• 1 c:1„ court lL CAN Arcc 00. ,f• E, 'jcp• - _ I�= � ♦r•I Kn I.S•ly Y••C• / AY r fi&SI YML A1/tw 0. .• rtf . M O 24 P mu •1, 6 , ©.7,] .w1-•r�r•••r•-1�1rr•-a�/.•1,•frr1.�rn rn�K wA.r/ ••..M^- )-•••1 131 0:1 •••i7M 131310, 7.).-M GO-?1426 .7.6 2 237 900HUNTINGTON BEACH 1{{.1{.•J.!) f0f f Go 14•0 •�f•••-•r•i••rK .r•• -f." !•O •1t 1-{./f W31•{• 4-�•.faVp//•y •••K• 10.1.•, '60 1007 0-.6 r1.13 164A ,�•.�,,,,�., •yr,„y ,�,.r, +� ItANGE COUNTY , CALIFORNIA � °-.. ,.° b> 3•t0•r1i-„-)1i,. �'' -... �-..o.. .••K• i�n•o f•.• •�ieor 3.11.N •N• 10N • !•7J If••• 17u • •••+�+•••K1 3•t•{• •a 10.1 a•1• rr rr YC'its GID fart• .••. w aR•.r 11-6 . .•• 1of{ 1r..•..• f1 J)tfY i7�7 .o•..,.•..f•1•.••,•ro wl••1 111"41• ••7 10•f • r.W •0•r J•t• ICre :,w....r •rr r••,....o_^.,. •.1►.. •M 1J 7! 7-{.f7 •O-• it Yl •� .rrf•w M•uaf 9-1•6•Y331J3• •7•{i •7! r!!s r•.f.r anew• •! r •• {.s 2706 ._ fA41•► IOH q/4- T. ��///////���1/������//////1/////////.I /%/����//�//mil/,//������P. / ATLANTA i / / VE' 'f "Om^•"'r"'f` ,�� R3 .3 R3 Rw. _ ••• •R RI RI RI RI p R3 ., R3 'i R . M RI RI RI J, .��,- ` R I A I a RI / � �^ s R3 n•i�•" 31r .. AAt % 'Y �� o.. R3� T.. R2 r RI R1 I / •R2 R3 R R3 ,..�• R2- O ° FRIi RI RI I R1 / Im•R3 �'1 -7 RZ - I RI •K Yo►„. ,A. RI - v RI RI , 'RI _ RI R3 R3 . ' I { R1 I! '�Li I .R2-;0 RI I b I,I R I 71n. RJ R3 1 O / RT R4-26 R3 R3 lif RI i�� .. ., F�a , RI ✓ / R3-- •�'�'.' R3 '3w (' t /•I - -•RI--_' I I L j CF-R '3/ 1 rpe-_ ! •�' lo"•' RA .•�. RI I RI I! RI i RI RI �I RI !j o MI-A-O RI " - 'C RI , � O ..R1w . it RA Uu ....•a rj MIA 0c MI-A•0-CZ I 4; i -- — -- LUD-0-CZ t% cm r� M2- Q_ M —0 � PACIFIC OCEAN L l//l .:•^is U f=-t ATTACHMENT NO. lN.r-, �r ZONING - DM 29 SECTIONAL DISTRICT MAP 24.6-11 _. NOTE CITY OF � ��• ���� r. a.. I ..• e r w• •00►Tt0 66A OI L IMO •• 1•M• ra {.Rr .{ r ✓ a{.•.rl ✓ w• CITT comocel M:.%Aoc( {IQ TM l(GCNC• 1 utlot? 9�b4 dr[rece 0*0IW aw".fi iw:r HUNTINGTON BEACH 4.1-1 "' .•..w of a" .�{ ......_.. ....K, atiT.af K.. 1�17 i1Ypr• ✓•Y.� /ap{�4..� Y♦ Tf.rl ffY u•r"q^'e^T.w•*r"'{"•wt' f•T•N •f••1 f.N r{•YM w••t• • 1•li.j{ IaD00T10•[f170 vvaia..am. i•WT 011ANGE, COUNTY. CALIFORNIAI� N �-- -••��4 �� RI-CZ-FP2 �y `'t M 2-0- P2 Q� LU D-FP2 LUD-FP2 0 ATTACHMENT NO. A -mom CANNING ZONING DM 2 2•• SECTIONAL DISTRICT MAP 19-6-10 NOT err.ew � •. r11� •r.r ••.e.••..• • r .r CITY OF ..o...o r.RlN .1•p. .. 1... .. .� f1.•1. cir• cwrcr o.ar•rcc ■o Tw LEGEND, N•Ni ••M lr of••Y•il N••K• b. Olrri••r/[•O•. efrK• •wt.pf• 4•M O•,N •.t•OLD :Ii 1/O•o qY • 'r••1 •.Of.JPl••O• •{••wtTY ert•(T1Ae• �•.el• HUNTINGTON BEACH y•.Y M a ji••i ww rOY r<1f1.•1•l Yr,p.IW MrOK• y-.•. •I• '•Y f)llm�� •rRi1 YM•+�f IY1a.•/FM•Q Ar.t' o -•. Y••r ,1•s ,e••If Y•t OI••t• +•re ro•e +a 1.1•r• r. ••1 � •.O.O\r OfTKr ORANGE COUNTY , CALIFORNIA ;ro•: ��: :: �`°"``"` tp.rti•e.f a,b... y.••.rl it..1. :J•• Y ,•r •.•r.r, r••1 11•• 0 [P••-K�C . .0. `-i�ii i:1 {• a cor,.r: �• ri. .••�•.oe•for.••..1••/ / :11- /�/; ,,, ��• 1 4 o C [ s RI � RI: ;�! *� 7RIJ L • A4-al fi'104 Jai:_ RI /. Rl RI r v 1 Rl • c• I •■, a �'j RI r RI �•/// 1 I .yR R I RI I R I g� I _ i RI tr %. RI �. RI f / i/ 0 Yn W Q I RIB; /FRI u RI :; ' RIir cJ Q J sx c oc c 5 -1� , J � i O 4 ` O ATTACHMENT NO. r •�' ATTACHMENT 5 • ji Bill, or 0. CA IR is ``0i••Q'i l io�• ,� •���•'•�'• •'i�,�\\+j am •fad � ` ••••• •it ', f►�+`+ i7 ,. ,,,,Z• • ''•,Nwo-W 4 F-W :o-!50 0, •4��`` ••4�i��,''•i i i• • • • 4 4 .. , • • • ATTACHMENT 6 10 % SANrrATION T1LEATWL4TPL%T TrTTffTjnjgpt NOT A uc? PART L V WAY 8 \lks VISITOR SERVING COMERCIAL Approved Land Use Plan � , �L,�a, CONSERVATIO11 ZONE CHANGE NO. 88- 18 , R COASTAL AREAS on INDUSRTIAL EIIERGY PRODUCTION HMTINGION BE4CH CAS<X?t" IND. BERGY PROD./ CONSERVATION Area Map ATTACHMENT NO. ZONING HISTORY BY AREA (ZONE CHANGE NO. 88-18) AREA 1 ACREAGE: 7 acres OWNERSHIP- CalTrans GENERAL PLAN HISTORY: 1975 -Destination Resort 1977 -Planning Reserve 1982 - "Whitehole" 1986 -Visitor-Serving Commercial ZONING HISTORY: Pre-1964 -RI (Single Family Residential) 1964 -RA-0 (Residential Agricultural w/Oil Production) 1983 -RA-0-FP2 (Residential Agricultural w/Oil Production within a Floodplain) 1990 -VSC -CZ-FP2 (Visitor Serving Commercial within the Coastal Zone and a Floodplain) EXISTING USE: Action Boat Brokers This is an approximately 7 acre site which was designated by the Coastal Land Use Plan for Visitor Serving Commercial. It is occupied by Action Boat Brokers on the corner of Beach Boulevard and Pacific Coast Highway. The remainder of the site is a narrow strip of land which runs along Pacific Coast Highway in front of Cabrillo Mobilehome Park. The Department of Fish and Game identified this site as non-restorable wetlands. The Coastal Conservancy staff further recommended this site for Visitor-Serving Commercial uses such as a hotel. The existing zoning is VSC-CZ-FP2 (Visitor Serving Commercial within the Coastal Zone and a Floodplain). r r l 1 t 3 ACREAGE 28 acres OWNERSHIP Mills Land and Water- 7 15 acres CalTrans -21 acres GENERAL PLAN HISTORY 1975 - Destination Resort 1977 -Planning Reserve 1982 - "Whrtehole" 1986 - Conservation ZONING HISTORY Pre-1964 -R1 (Single Family Residential) 1964 -RA-0 (Residential Agricultural w/Oil Production) 1983 -RA-O-FP2 (Residential Agricultural w/Oil Production within a Floodplam) 1990 - RA-O-CC-CZ-FP2 (Residential Agricultural District combined w/Oil Production, Coastal Conservation, Coastal Zone and Floodplam Overlay Zones) EXISTING USE Vacant This is an approximately 28 acre area designated Conservation on the Land Use Plan It has been identified by the Department of Fish and Game as Degraded Wetlands with high usage by wetlands associated birds The site is owned in part by Caltrans and in part by Mills Land and Water Company It is presently vacant The existing zoning is RA-O-CC-CZ-FP2 (Residential Agricultural District combined with Oil Production, Coastal Conservation, Coastal Zone and Floodplam Overlay Zones) Under the Coastal Conservation designation, allowable uses are limited to those such as mineral extraction,pedestrian trails and observation platforms,wetland restoration projects and limited public works projects -2- . �,�UAa ENT NO. AREA 3 ACREAGE: 13 acres OWNERSHIP: Mills Land and Water GENERAL PLAN HISTORY: 1975 - Light Industrial 1977 - Light Industrial 1982 - "Whitehole" 1986 - Conservation ZONING HISTORY: Pre-1961-R1 (Single Family Residential) 1961 - M1 (Light Industrial) 1964 -M1-A-0 (Restricted Manufacturing w/Oil Production) 1983 - M1-A-O-FP2 (Restricted Manufacturing w/Oil Production within a Floodplain 1990 -MI-A-O-CC -CZ-FP2 (Restricted Manufacturing District within an Oil District with a Coastal Conservation Overlay within the Coastal Zone and a Floodplain) EXISTING USE: Vacant This is an approximately 13 acre area designated Conservation on the Land Use Plan. It was identified by Fish and Game as Degraded Wetlands on a portion of the site, and former but restorable wetlands on the remainder. It is owned by Mills Land and Water Company and is presently vacant. The existing zoning is M1-A-O-CC-CZ-FP2 (Restricted Manufacturing District within an Oil District with a Coastal Conservation Overlay within the Coastal Zone and a Floodplain). r -� r. AREN64w ACREAGE 17 acres OWNERSHIP Southern California Edison Company GENERAL PLAN HISTORY 1975 - Industrial Public Utility 1977 - Industrial Public Utility 1983 - "Whitehole" 1986 -Industrial Energy Production/Conservation ZONING HISTORY Pre-1961 -RI (Single Family Residential) 1961 -M1 -A(Restricted Manufacturing) 1962 -M2-0 (General Industrial w/Oil Production)/M 1-A(Restricted Manufacturing) 1967 -M2-0 (General Industrial w/Oil Production)/RA(Residential Agricultural) 1983 - M2-0-FP2(General Industrial w/Oil Production in a Floodplain/RA-FP2 (Residential Agricultural in a Floodplain) 1990 - M2-O-CC -CZ-FP2 (Industrial District combined with Oil Production, Coastal Conservation, Coastal Zone and Floodplain Districts)/RA-CC-CZ-FP2 (Residential Agricultural with a Coastal Conservation Overlay within the Coastal Zone and a Floodplain) EXISTING USE Vacant This is an approximately 17 acre area designated Industrial Energy Production/Conservation on the Land Use Plan It has been identified by Fish and Game as Degraded Wetland Although the Coastal Act would not normally allow development of so-identified property,the Act would permit development for energy production purposes if it could be demonstrated that no other alternative site is available Since the property is owned by the Edison Company and is adjacent to their generating plant,the special combined designation of Industrial Energy Production/ Conservation was placed on it This Land Use Designation recognizes the property's identification as wetlands, but would permit expansion of the power plant if necessary The existing zoning on the property is M2-O-CC-CZ-FP2 (Industrial District combined with Oil Production, Coastal Conservation, Coastal Zone and Floodplain Districts)and RA-CC-CZ-FP2 (Residential Agricultural with a Coastal Conservation Overlay within the Coastal Zone and a Floodplain) This zoning designation allows expansion of the power plant if proven necessary in the future -4- ATTACHMENT NO. &Q AREA 5 " ACREAGE: 10 acres OWNERSHIP: Coastal Magnolia Croup (Previously owned by Daisy Piccirelli) GENERAL PLAN HISTORY: 1975 - Planing Reserve 1977 - Planning Reserve 1983 - "Whitehole" 1986 - Conservation ZONING HISTORY: Pre-1961 - R1 1961 - R5 (Office Professional)/M I-A (Restricted Manufacturing) 1967 - R5 (Office Professional) 1977 - LUD (Limited Use District) 1983 - LUD-FP2 (Limited Use District within a Floodplain) 1990 - LUD-CC -CZ-FP2 (Limited Use District with a Coastal Conservation Overlay within the Coastal Zone and a Floodplain) EXISTING USE: Vacant This is an approximately 10 acre area designated Conservation on the Land Use Plan and is presently vacant. It is owned in part by Coastal Magnolia Group and the Orange County Flood Control District. The Department of Fish and Game has identified this area as Degraded Wetland with high usage by wetland associated birds. The existing zoning is LUD-CC-CZ-FP2 (Limited Use District with a Coastal Conservation Overlay within the Coastal Zone and a Floodplain). -5- ATTACNNIENT NO. 6 , AREA 6— ACREAGE: 56 acres OWNERSHIP: Coastal Magnolia Group - 56 acres (Formerly owned by Daisy Piccirelli GENERAL PLAN HISTORY: 1975 - Planning Reserve 1977 - Planning Reserve 1983 - "Whitehole" 1986 - Conservation ZONING HISTORY: Pre-1960 - R1 (Single Family Residential) 1960 - R5 (Office Professional) 1977 - LUD (Limited Use District) 1983 - LUD-FP2 (Limited Use District within a Floodplain) 1990 - LUD-CC -CZ-FP2 (Limited Use District with a Coastal Conservation Overlay within the Coastal Zone and a Floodplain) EXISTING USE: Vacant This is an approximately 56 acre area designated Conservation on the Land Use Plan and is presently vacant. It is owned in part by Coastal Magnolia Group and the Orange County Flood Control District. The Department of Fish and Game has identified this property as Degraded Wetlands with high usage by wetland associated birds. The existing zoning is LUD-CC-CZ-FP2 (Limited Use District with a Coastal Conservation Overlay within the Coastal Zone and a Floodplain). _6_ ATTACHMENT NO. AREA? �-� ACREAGE: 16 acres OWNERSHIP: H.B. Wetlands Conservancy GENERAL PLAN HISTORY: 1975 - Planning Reserve 1977 - Planning Reserve 1983 - "Whitehole" 1986 - Conservation ZONING HISTORY: Pre-1960 - R1 (Single Family Residential) 1960 - R5 (Office Professional) 1977 - LUD (Limited Use District) 1983 - LUD-FP2 (Limited Use District within a Floodplain) 1990 - LUD-CC-CZ-FP2 (Limited Use District with a Coastal Conservation Overlay within the Coastal Zone and a Floodplain) EXISTING USE: Restored Wetlands This is an approximately 16 acre area designated Conservation on the Land Use Plan. It was recently acquired by the Coastal Conservancy and is being restored to functioning wetlands in a model restoration project. The Huntington Beach Wetlands Conservancy will manage the project. The existing zoning is LUD-CC-CZ-FP2 (Limited Use District with a Coastal Conservation Overlay within the Coastal Zone and a Floodplain). ATTACHMENT NO. . 114 -7- . AREA 8 ACREAGE: 55 acres OWNERSHIP: Southern California Edison Company GENERAL PLAN HISTORY: 1975 -Industrial Public Utility 1977 -Public/Quasi-Public 1983 - Public/Quasi-Public 1986 - Industrial Energy Production ZONING HISTORY: Pre-1961 - R1 (Single Family Residential) 1961 - MI-A(Restricted Manufacturing) 1962 - M2-0 (Industrial w/Oil Production 1983 - M2-O-FP2 (Industrial w/Oil Production within a Floodplain) 1990 - M2-O-CZ-FP2 (Industrial District combined with Oil Production within the Coastal zone and a Floodplain) EXISTING USE: Power Plant This is an approximately 55 acre area designated Industrial Energy Production on the Land Use Plan and is developed with the Edison Company power generation plant. The existing zoning is M2-O-CZ-FP2 (Industrial District combined with Oil Production within the Coastal zone and a Floodplain). ATTACHMENT NO. -8- — t- ACREAGE: 28 acres OWNERSHIP: Southern California Edison Company GENERAL PLAN HISTORY: 1975 - Industrial Public Utility 1977 - Public/Quasi-Public 1983 - Public/Quasi-Public 1986 - Industrial Energy Production ZONING HISTORY: Pre-1961 - R1 (Single Family Residential) 1961 - M 1 (Light Industrial)/M 1-A (Restricted Manufacturing) 1962 - M2-0 (Industrial w/Oil Production)/M I-A(Restricted Manufacturing) 1983 - M2-0-FP2/M1-A-FP2 1990 - M2-O-CZ-FP2/M 1-A-CZ-FP2 EXISTING USE: Oil Storage Tanks This is an approximately 28 acre area designated Industrial Energy Production on the Land Use Plan and is developed with oil storage tanks for the Edison Company power generation plant. The existing zoning is M2-O-FP2 (Industrial District combined with Oil Production, within the Coastal Zone and a Floodplain) and M1-A-FP2 (Restricted Manufacturing District within the Coastal zone and a Floodplain). TTACHMI ENT N®. -9- ` R AREA 10. ACREAGE: 2 acres OWNERSHIP: City of Huntington Beach GENERALPLAN HISTORY: 1975 - Industrial Public Utility 1977 - Public/Quasi-Public 1984 - Public/Quasi-Public 1986 - Conservation ZONING HISTORY: Pre-1961 - R1 (Single Family Residential) 1961 - M 1-A(Restricted Manufacturing) 1983 - M 1-A-FP2 (Restricted Manufacturing within a Floodplain) 1984 - Q(ROS)-FP2 (Qualified Recreation Open Space within a Floodplain) 1990 - Q(ROS) CC-CZ-FP2 (Qualified Recreational Open Space District with a Coastal Conservation Overlay Zone within the Coastal Zone and a Floodplain) EXISTING USE: Vacant This is an approximately 2 acre area designated Conservation on the Land Use Plan. It is owned by the City and is presently vacant. The existing zoning is (Q)ROS-FP2 (Qualified Recreational Open Space District within the Coastal Zone and a Floodplain). This property was not identified by Fish and Game as wetlands. cAshlp 109 ATTACHMENTNO. -10- ATTACHMENT 7 0 Fo) v uo ID .................... �fDWV- (E�mfz �Owmzw non i certified coastal areas ANALYSIS OF LAND USE. ALTERNATIVES FOR THE 'WHITE HOLE'AREAS ATTACHMENT N0. 7 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH DEFT. OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ATTACHMENT 8 i ddo b o �q y ti -r ` a� o 1p JBI sac 1(OR C� ATTACHMENT NO. Sa a DEFINITIONS AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM: An area where organisms grow or live in the water and interact with each other. BIOLOGICAL QUALITY: The ability of an area to support living organisms. BUFFER: Any of various devices (land, fencing, vegetation) which serve to separate adjacent land uses in order to lessen any adverse impacts of one land use on another. CONSERVATION: Planned management of a natural resource to prevent exploitation, destruction or neglect. CONTINGENCY PLANNING: Planning for events that are of possible but uncertain occurrence. ECOLOGICAL RESERVE: Officially determined area being preserved for its environmental value. ECOSYSTEM: The complex of a community and its environment functioning as a unit in nature. ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE HABITAT: Any area in which plant or animal life or their habitats are rare or especially valuable and which could be easily disturbed or degraded by human activities and developments. FILL: Any earth or any other substance or material placed in submerged area. HABITAT: The place or type of site where a plant or animal naturally lives and grows. INDICATOR SPECIES: Species which are representative of a specific area or habitat. PREEMPT: To take jurisdiction away from an existing agency or entity. TIDAL FLUSHING: A process in which normal tidal action results in continual exchange of ocean water within a wetland. ATTACHMENT NO. I,> • COASTAL ACT POLICY 30240. (a) Environmentally sensitive habitat areas shall be protected against any significant disruption of habitat values, and only uses dependent on such resources shall be allowed within such areas. (b) Development in areas adjacent to environmentally sensitive habitat areas and parks and recreation areas shall be sited and designed to prevent impacts which would significantly degrade such areas, and shall be compatible with the continuance of such habitat areas. 30411. (b) The Department of Fish and Game, in consultation with the Commission and the Department of Navigation and Ocean Development, may study degraded wetlands and identify those which can most feasibly be restored in conjunction with development of a boating facility...Any such .study shall include consideration of all the following. (1) Whether the wetland is so severely degraded and its natural processes so substantially impared that it is not capable of recovering and maintaining a high level of biological productivity without major restoration activities. (2) Whether a substantial portion of the degraded wetland, but in no event less than 75 percent, can be restored and maintained as a highly productive wetland in conjunction with a boating facilities project. (3) Whether restoration of the wetland's natural values, including its biological productivity and wildlife habitat features, can most feasibly be achieved and maintained in conjunction with a boating facility or whether there are other feasible ways to achieve such values. 30607.1 Where any dike and fill development is permitted in wetlands in conformity with this division, mitigation measures shall include, at a minimum, either acquisition of equivalent areas of equal or greater biological productivity or opening up equivalent areas to tidal action; provided, however, that if no appropriate restoration site is available, an in-lieu fee sufficient to provide an area of equivalent productive value or surface areas shall be dedicated to an appropriate public agency, or such : replacement site shall be purchased before the dike or fill development may proceed. Such mitigation measures shall not be required for temporary or short-term fill or diking; provided that a bond or other evidence of financial responsibility is provided to assure that restoration will be accomplished in the shortest feasible time. Other provisions related to wetlands are relevant to sensitive habitat areas in the Huntington Beach coastal zone. Other policies involving diking, dredging and filling which could affect habitat areas in the City's coastal zone are listed in Section 5.0, Water and Marine Resoiu-ces. AT rACHMENT NO. $c. r � • 1 1 6. Environmentally Sensitive Habitats ` 6.1 BACKGROUND 1 An "environmentally sensitive habitat" is any area in which plant or animal life I is either rare or especially valuable and could be easily disturbed or degraded by human activities and developments. The Coastal Act requires that local coastal plans delineate these environmentally sensitive habitats and establish policies Ifor their protection and enhancement. 6.1.1 Environmentally Sensitive Habitats in the Huntington Beach Coastal Zone Two areas in the coastal zone of Huntington Beach have been preliminarily identified as environmentally sensitive habitats: 1) a nesting sanctuary for the California least tern (a bird species considered endangered by both the State and federal governments) located on the Huntington State Beach; 2) a possible wetland area located between the southern end of the Southern California Edison plant and Brookhurst Street. (See Figures 6.1 and 6.2.) Least Tern Nesting Sanctuary The California least tern is a bird species which is native to Southern California coastal salt marshes. These birds nest on sandy beaches close to wetlands and estuaries where they feed on small fish. Encroaching development has resulted in loss of feeding grounds, and heavy recreational use of sandy beaches has disrupted natural nesting areas. These factors have threatened the existence of the least tern. ATTACHMENT NO. --- 59. 1 f A W d 1 HUNTINGTON BEACH 04LIFORNIN Environmentally Sensitive Habitat: PLANNING DIVISION ATTACHMENT NO. 16C 60. Figure 6.1 To help protect the least tern from extinction, a five-acre fenced nesting - a was created in 1969 on the Huntington Beach State Beach. This n ing sanctuary is a permanent facility and is maintained by the State Department Parks and Recreation. The tern colony nesting there was one of the three largest in the State in 1978, and it is ranked first in terms of nesting success.l Wetlands iThe City believes that the definition of "wetlands" in the Coastal Act could be improved to better identify environmentally important areas the Act intends to protect. Nonetheless, the State legislature did adopt the following definition of "wetlands" in the Coastal Act: "Land within the coastal zone which may be covered periodically or permanently with shallow water and include salt water marshes, freshwater marshes, open or closed brackishwater marshes, swamps, mudflats and fens." The Coastal Act prohibits diking, dredging and filling of wetlands except for very limited purposes related to energy production, boating and other regionally important activities. Wetland areas within the City have been preliminarily identified by representatives from the State Coastal Commission, State Department of Fish and Game (DFG), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE), and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). These agencies conducted an explicit delineation of the boundaries and biological value of the wetlands. The results of this effort are included in an appendix to the background report on Environmentally Sensitive Habitats prepared by the City's Development Services Department. Figure 6.2 shows the potential wetland areas between Beach Boulevard and the Santa Ana River. The primary resource value of those coastal wetland areas is their function as habitat for water-associated and marsh-dependent bird .species. The Belding's savannah sparrow, and California least tern, both endangered species, feed in the area and the Belding's savannah sparrow nests there. The physical characteristics, natural resource values and. unique features of the area are discussed in greater detail in the document prepared by the DFG for the Regional Coastal Commission staff which is an appendix to this plan. 1 Comprehensive lists of wetland indicator plant species and the bird species observed on the site are included in the report. The City has indicated visitor-serving and energy expansion uses for these areas with the expectation that in exchange for development rights, certain of these areas will be restored and enhanced. ' Though the area known as the Bolsa Chica is not located in the jurisdiction of the City of Huntington Beach, at this time, the City considers it imperative to contribute meaningful influence on the resolve of the area's future uses. 1 Background Report: "Environmentally Sensitive Habitats," City of Huntington Beach Department of Development Services, 1980. ATTACHMENT NO. t4 61 . • 1. The City urges all appropriate State and Federal agencies to accelerate efforts to positively define only specific acreage in the Bolse Chica which, in fact, can be scientifically justified as environmentally sensitive habitat. In addition, the City requests and urges these agencies to provide precise recommendations as to the economic feasibility of rehabilitation of such designated ecologically sensitive areas. When these State and Federal responsibilities are properly presented and 4 accepted, the City will totally support the preservation of such designated environmentally sensitive habitat areas. 2. Residual acreage in the Bolsa Chica which is not included in State and Federal designation of environmentally sensitive habitat areas will be supported by the City for full development of compatible land uses. Further, it is the City's intentions that such uses will not be burdened with unrealistic or excessive set backs and other restrictive ordinances and codes intended to arbitrarily force-sanctions against compatible land use development. 3. It is further intended by the City to in and direct staff to organize and structure a format by which the City can open, as soon as possible, negotiations and discussions with the property owner of record of the subject Bolsa Chica land and the County of Orange for the purpose of achieving _annexation of the Bolsa Chica into the Cityi of Huntington Beach. 6.1.2 Regional and Local Interests in Wetland Areas Wetlands are recognized as especially valuable areas which provide numerous public benef its inc luding 1) breeding and "nursery" areas for marine species with commercial and. recreation value, 2) habitat for numerous. wildlife species including rare and endangered varieties, 3) natural flood control, and 4) aesthetic. amenities. The loss of coastal wetlands in Southern California has been dramatic and drastic. Most of those that remain have been altered, damaged or. otherwise threatened. The protection of these increasingly scarce ecosystems is recognized in the Coastal Act as an important greater-than-local goal. ; . 6.1.3 State and Federal Agencies Responsible for Wetlands Protection Local .control over development in wetlands has been largely pre-empted by State and federal agencies because of the greater-than-local value of these areas. The principal agencies charged with protection of wetlands are discussed below. Federal Agencies The Army Corps of Engineers (COE) has permit authority over any development that would discharge dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, including wetlands. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) reviews permits before they are issued by the Corps of Engineers. A permit cannot be issued over the objection of the USFWS, however, it can be appealed at the State or federal levels. 62 . ATTACHMENT NO.- S JJ �',� • �� � III IIr:I� �..1�� � � 0 I 1�.+ �� � '��,� �•�• Z• I=1',�i �NM III N�~N i AI- ice' ��•� �i�_ �� anygoal I� N�� • ��. • i� .�� •.:��Nan u� iu,7u%��!� : .ram,•.$ ON 7 RR MIR \�'^�;^ �� ��j.• 72 � r , Permits must also be consistert with guidelines issued by the USFWS, the Environmental Protection Agency and the California Coastal Zone Management Program. State Agencies 1 The Coastal Commission has authority to regulate activities in wetlands and to protect against any significant disruption of habitat values. The Department of Fish and Game (DFG) must issue a written statement that important ecological resources have been protected prior to approval of any project in a wetland. The DFG also has the responsiblity of proposing plans to protect, preserve, restore, acquire and manage wetlands. 6.2 ANALYSIS 6.2.1 Restrictive Land Uses The City's principal strategy for protecting environmentally sensitive habitats is to designate them as "visitor-serving commercial", "conservation," and 1 "i ndustrial/energy production" with the intent that development proposals will be accompanied by strategies to enhance significant wetland areas adjacent to the proposed project. 6.2.2 Buffers In addition to evaluating development in the wetland areas to ensure significant habitat values are not destroyed, the City also requires buffers to the most sensitive areas. In some cases, such as the area adjacent to the Bolsa Chica, the buffer will be a setback along the Hurtington Beach Mesa bluff. Other J acceptable buffers in areas where large setbacks are infeasible would be I elevation changes or barriers which inhibit access. The City will study buffer strategies and catalogue those which protect the habitat value of wetlands in aesthetically pleasing ways. 6.2.3 Aesthetic and Biological Improvements The City specifically promotes the enhancement and/or restoration of environmentally sensitive habitats. The City will investigate funding opportunities from sources such as the California Coastal Conservancy for such enhancement projects. The City will also require that any habitat restoration strategies include measures to ensure against flooding in surrounding properties. Another measure will be to encourage plantings and other improvements to the flood control channel embankments and to the edges of the wetland areas to increase species diversity, provide better screening and to promote their visual attractiveness. Additional protection is afforded by measures which require review of- oil spill plans to ensure sensitive areas are protected.(See Section 9.) 6.2.4 Public Access In coordination with the aesthetic and biological enhancement of the wetlands, the City encourages low-impact public access to allow nature study and .ATTACHMENT NO. �1 63 . enjoyment of amenities. The City will investigate strategies to provide boardwalks, peripheral trails, interpretive exhibits and other educational facilities in or adjacent to coastal wetlands so long as such activities do not significantly disrupt any habitat values or impair the viability of the ecosystem. 6.3 CONCLUSION f The City's coastal plan complements efforts by State and federal agencies to L protect and enchance sensitive habitat areas. Principal objectives of the plan include: - Protection of significant habitat areas by requiring wetland enhancement and buffers in exhange for development rights. Improved contingency plans related to oil and toxic material spills to protect these high priority areas. - Improvement of the aesthetic and biological quality of wetland areas. . 1 r E I I .ATTACHMENT NO. 64 . ATTACHMENT 9 STATE OF CALIFORNIA—THE RESOURCES AGENCY GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Governor CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION (Findings approved by the COAST AREA California Coastal Co1.=ission 2.. .BEST BROADWAY, SUITE 380 on April 23, 1937) LONG BEACH, CA 90802 11. . (213) 5905071 , , I ( l( I RECOMMENDED FINDINGS . TO: Commissioners and Interested Persons (FROM: Tom Crandall , District Director l Wayne Woodroof, Assistant District Director Christopher Kroll , Lead Analyst SUBJECT: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM RESUBMITTAI, OF THE LAND USE PLAN FOR THE AREA OF DEFERRED CERTIFICATION BETWEEN BEACH BOULEVARD AND THE SANTA ANA RIVER ( For Public Hearing and Commission action at the meeting of April 21-24 1987 ) DATE: April 13, 1987 STAFF NOTE The resolution recommended for action is the resolution to certify the Land Use Plan (Page 6 ) as resubmitted. The action taken on the resolution on October 8, 1986 was as follows: LAND USE PLAN Commissioners Voting : Contreras Yes McInnis Yes Franco Yes McMurray Yes Glickfeld Yes Warren Yes King Yes Wright Yes MacElvaine Yes Wornum Yes Malcolm No AF AC;HMENT NO.- _ SYNOPSIS Wk � v Issues The certified Coastal Element ( LUP) policies ( Exhibit 5) of the City ' s certified in geographic part Local Coastal Program have been resubmitted as part of the Land Use Plan for this geographic area . The Land Use Plan ( Exhibit 3 ) includes new land use designations which address the issues which formed the basis of the Commission' s findings for denial of the Land Use Plan for this area in 1982. Background The Commission at its meeting of November 17, 1982 certified the Huntington Beach Land Use Plan in geographic part and denied certification in part for the following geographic areas: 1 . The area of the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) parcel NW of the Bolsa Chica 2 . The area from Beach Boulevard to the Santa Ana River Mouth By a resolution dated February 6, 1984 the City accepted the Commission ' s certification in geographic part and the Executive Director reported the adequacy of the City ' s action to the Commission to effectively certify the Land Use Plan in geographic part on March 15, 1984 . The City ' s Implementation was submitted to the Commission on December 14, 1983 and deemed filed on March 2, 1984 . On April 12, 1984 the Commission denied the Implementation as submitted and certified it in geographic part with suggested modifications. The Executive Director determined and the Commission concurred in the adequacy of the City' s acceptance of the suggested modifications and effectively certified the Implementation on March 13, 1985. Since 1985, the City has held several public hearings and discussions with Commission staff and other affected agencies regarding the two areas of deferred certification. On June 2, 1986, the City adopted a Land Use Plan for the area of deferred certification between Beach Boulevard and the Santa Ana River mouth . The land Use,, Plan resubmittal was received by the Commission on July 11 , 1986 and deemed filed on August 12, 1986. On October 8, 1986, the Commission certified the Land Use Plan as resubmitted . •rT 1� • • TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4 LAND USE PLAN I . STAFF RECOMMENDATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 II . FINDINGS FOR CERTIFICATION OF LUP. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 III . FINDINGS FOR SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 V. ENERGY FINDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 VI . PUBLIC ACCESS FINDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 VII . OTHER COASTAL ELEMENT POLICIES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 VIII . CEQA FINDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Page 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Area Description The City of Huntington Beach is located in northern Orange County between the City of Seal Beach and the Santa Ana River with a coastal zone of about five square miles including nine miles of public beach . At the northern end of the City is the Huntington Harbour waterfront marina community and commercial centers . The shoreline contains major state and city beaches with support facilities and a Municipal Pier which provides public recreation opportunities . The Downtown and Townlot area are a mix of recreation and commercial uses and residential development . There is extensive oil and energy-related operations and environmentally sensitive coastal wetlands and other habitat in the City' s coastal zone . Land Use Plan Summary The Land Use Plan as resubmitted is comprised of the following land use designations : 1 . Visitor-Serving Commercial : The City has designated a seven-acre strip along Pacific Coast Highway between Beach Boulevard and Newland Street as "visitor-serving commercial" . This area has been determined by the Department of Fish and Game in its 1983 Determination of the Status of the Huntington Beach Wetlands to be former wetlands which is not restorable . The visitor-serving designation is also appropriate as the site is located at the terminus of the major access route ( Beach Boulevard) from inland areas to the beach . This designation is part of the Coastal Element ( the certified in geographic part LUP) which has been included as part of this resubmittel . The principal permitted uses. are hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters , museums, specialty and beach-related retail , and service uses. Office and residential uses are conditional uses in this district and would be allowed only by special permit . The general height limit for all categories of development is three stories. 2 . Conservation: The City has designated 124 . 5 acres between Beach Boulevard and the Santa Ana River as "Conservation" . This use is part of the adopted Coastal Element . The intent of the designation is to protect valuable resource areas . The designation allows certain low • • • Page 5 intensity resource protective activities including picnic and observation areas, nature trails and peripheral bike paths , informational signs or displays, and peripheral parking areas . Public access is encouraged and should be provided where possible . 3 . Industrial Energy Production The City has redesignated 84 . 5 acres between Newland Street and Magnolia Street as " Industrial Energy Production" . This designation includes the existing developed Edison Company power plant site and the adjacent storage tank area . The designation is intended to accommodate non-oil extraction related coastal dependent energy production facilities. Principal permitted uses include power plants , storage tanks , transmission lines, storage and maintenance yards, and ancillary buildings . 4 . Industrial Energy Production/Conservation The 17-acre vacant parcel adjacent to the Edison power plant has been redesignated as " Industrial Energy Production/Conservation" . In this case , a "Conservation" overlay has been applied to the underlying land use designation of " Industrial Energy Production" . This designation is intended to allow the existing wetland area to he protected and restored while not precluding the option of Dower plant expansion onto this site if no feasible less environmentally damaging alternative, such as an inland location, exists and if appropriate mitigation, including restoration of degraded wetlands in the area , is provided . Page 6 LAND USE PLAN RECOMMENDATION AND FINDINGS FOR CERTIFICATION I . RECOMMENDATION Following a public hearing, the Commission shall adopt the following resolution and related findings and declarations for the City of Huntington Beach Land Use Plan for the area of deferred certification between Beach Boulevard and the Santa Ana River mouth as resubmitted . MOTION I I move that the Commission certify in geographic part the Land Use Plan for the area of def—er—r—ec7certification between Beach Boulevard and the Santa Ana River mouth as resubmitted by the City of Huntington Beach. Resolution to Certify The Commission hereby certifies the resubmitted Land Use Plan for the area of deferred certification between Beach Boulevard and the Santa Ana River mouth of the City of Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program and finds for the reasons discussed below that the resubmitted Land Use Plan meets the requirements of and is in conformity with the policies of Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 30200 ) of the Coastal Act to the extent necessary to achieve the basic stated goals specified in Section 30001 . 5 of the Coastal Act; that the resubmitted Land Use Plan contains a specific access component as required by Section 30500 ( a ) of the Coastal Act ; is consistent with applicable decisions of the Commission which shall guide the local government in their future actions under Section 30625 ( c) of the Coastal Act ; and certification of the resubmitted Land Use Plan meets the requirements of Section 21080 . 5 (d ) ( 2 ) ( i ) of the California Environmental Quality Act , as there are no further feasible alternatives or mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen any significant adverse impact which the Land Use Plan may have on the environment. II . FINDINGS FOR CERTIFICATION OF THE LAND USE PLAN A. Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas Page 7 Section 30240 ( a ) of the Coastal Act states that : Section 30240 (a) Environmentally sensitive habitat areas shall be protected against any significant disruption of habitat values , and only uses dependent on such resources shall be allowed within such areas . ( b) Development in areas adjacent to environmentally sensitive habitat areas and parks and recreation areas shall be sited and designed to prevent impacts which would significantly degrade such areas, and shall be compatible with the continuance of such habitat areas. Section 30233 provides in part: Section 30233 (a ) The diking, filling, or dredging of open coastal waters, wetlands, estuaries, 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 he limited to the following : ( 1 ) New or expanded port , energy, and coastal=dependent industrial facilities, including commercial fishing facilities . ( 2 ) Maintaining existing, or restoring previously dredged, depths in existing navigational channels, turning basins , vessel berthing and mooring areas , and boat launching ramps . ( 3 ) In wetland areas only, entrance channels for new or expanded boating facilities; and in a degraded wetland, identified by the Department of Fish and Game pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 30411 , for boating facilities if , in conjunction with such boating facilities, a substantial portion of the degraded wetland is restored and maintained as a biologically productive wetland . The size of the wetland area used for boating facilities , including berthing space, turning basins, necessary navigation channels, and any necessary support service facilities, shall not exceed 25 percent of the degraded wetland. ( 4 ) In open coastal waters, other than wetlands , ^^1 11r3; ,, I streams , estuaries, and lakes , new or expanded boating facilities and the placement of structural pilings for public recreational piers that _provide public access and recreational opportunities. Page 8 ( 5 ) 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 . ( 6) Mineral extraction, including sand for restoring beaches, except in environmentally sensitive areas . ( 7 ) Restoration purposes . ( 8 ) Nature study, aquaculture , or similar resource dependent activities . . . ( c ) In addition to the other provisions of this section , diking , filling_, or dredging in existing estuaries and wetlands shall maintain or enhance the functional capacity of the wetland or estuary. Any alteration of coastal wetlands identified by the Department of Fish and Game, including, but not limited to, the 19 coastal wetlands identified in its report entitled , "Acquisition Priorities for the Coastal Wetlands of California" , shall be limited to very minor incidental public facilities , restorative measures, nature studv. . . if otherwise in accordance with this division. . . Section 30230 states that : Section 30230 Marine resources shall be maintained , enhanced, and where feasible , restored . Special protection shall be given to areas and species of special biological or economic significance. Uses of the marine environment shall be carried out in a manner that will sustain the biological productivity of coastal waters and that will maintain healthy populations of all species of marine organisms adequate for long-term commercial , recreational , scientific, and educational purposes . Section 30231 states as follows : Section 30231 The biological productivity and the quality of coastal waters, streams, wetlands, estuaries, and lakes appropriate to maintain optimum populations of marine organisms and for the protection of human health shall be maintained and, where feasible, restored through, among other means, minimizing adverse effects of waste water discharges and entrainment , controlling runoff , preventing depletion of ground water supplies and substantial interference with surface water flow , Page 9 encouraging waste water reclamation, maintaining natural vegetation buffer areas that protect riparian habitats, and minimizing alteration of natural streams. Section 30411 ( b ) of the Coastal Act provides that : Section 30411 (b ) The Department of Fish and Game, in consultation with the commission and the Department of Boating and Waterways , may study degraded wetlands and identify those which can most feasibly be restored in conjunction with development of a boating facility as provided in subdivision ( a) Section 30233. Any such study shall include consideration of all the following: ( 1 ) Whether the wetland is so severely degraded and its natural processes so substantially impaired that it is not capable of recovering and maintaining a high level of biological productivity without major restoration activities . ( 2 ) Whether a substantial portion of the degraded wetland, but in no event less that 75 percent, can be restored and maintained as a highly productive wetland in .conjunction with a boating facilities project . ( 3 ) Whether restoration of the wetland ' s natural values, . including its biological productivity and wildlife habitat features , can most feasibly be achieved and maintained in conjunction with a boating facility or whether there are other feasible ways to achieve such values. 1 . Wetlands The Commission generally considers wetlands , estuaries, streams , riparian habitats, lakes and portions of open coastal waters to be environmentally sensitive habitat areas because of the especially valuable role of these habitat areas in maintaining the natural ecological functioning of many coastal habitat areas and because these areas are easily degraded by human developments. Wetlands are highly diverse and productive . The combination of shallow and deep water, and the variety of vegetation and substrates produce far greater possibilities for wildlife feeding, nesting and resting than is found in less diverse areas . Individual wetlands may be inhabited by hundreds of species of birds, mammals, fish and smaller organisms . r Migratory animals feed and rest in California' s coastal wetlands in large enough numbers to make the wetlands invaluable habitat areas. Most waterfowl and shorebirds found in North America, such as ducks, geese, sandpipers, and dunlines, are migratory . During Page 10 the fall and spring migrations, millions of these birds move along well-defined routes called flyways . The California coast , part of the Pacific Flyway , was assigned third highest priority (out of a total of 33 areas nationally) for wintering habitat preservation by the U .S . Fish and Wildlife Service. Since wetlands are so valuable from both an economic and biologic standpoint , the Coastal Act , and many other Federal and state statutes and regulations, mandate governmental regulation of these areas. The Coastal Act requires that the biological productivity and the quality of coastal waters, streams, wetlands, estuaries, and lakes be maintained and, where feasible, restored. Section 30233 of the Coastal Act requires in part that the diking, dredging or filling of open coastal waters , wetlands, estuaries shall be permitted where there is no feasible less environmentally damaging alternative and where feasible mitigation measures have been provided and shall be limited to the uses enumerated in subsections ( a ) ( 1-8) . Significant wetland resources have been identified within the City' s coastal zone as determined by the Commission in its previous actions on the City' s certified in geographic part LCP. In 1982 , the Commission certified the City ' s LUP excluding those areas identified as wetlands . The two non-certified wetlands areas are the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) parcel adjacent to the Bolsa Chica and the area from Beach Boulevard to the Santa Ana River . ( Exhibit 2) . The Land Use Plan was denied for these areas based on land use designations which were inconsistent with Section 30233 and the energy policies of the Coastal Act . Historically, coastal estuaries and wetlands have been destroyed or disturbed by activities such as dredging for ports and marinas, diking from .tidal action, filling to provide new land for development, and used as sumps for domestic sewage and industrial waste and deprived of rejuvenating freshwater inflow by water diversions. Of the original 197, 000 acres of marshes, mudflats , bays , lagoons , sloughs and estuaries in California ( excluding San Francisco Bay) , the natural productivity and open space values of 52% have been totally destroyed by dredging and filling. Of California ' s remaining estuaries and coastal wetlands , 62 percent have been subjected to severe damage and 19 percent have . received moderate damage (California Coastal Plan) . Thus, less than 10% of California ' s original coastal estuaries and wetlands remain relatively undisturbed. It is for reasons such as these that the Coastal Act contains mandatory provisions for wetland protection and restoration including those wetlands which have been severely altered by human activities and therefore degraded . In fact, wetlands are the coastal resources that have been granted the greatest amount of protection in the Coastal Act . For example, there are several specific Coastal Act policies which require the maintenance of biological productivity and the quality of wetlands (Section 30231 ) ; restrict diking , filling and dredging of wetlands (Section Page 11 30233 ) ; and provide for the restoration of wetlands ( Section 30231 , 30411 and 30607 . 1 ) . Thus, wetlands protection and restoration is one of the Coastal Act ' s major priorities. Of California ' s remaining coastal wetlands, southern California wetlands have been the most severely depleted. However , southern California ' s coastal wetlands still support hundreds of thousands of birds including dozens of species which migrate along the Pacific Flyway . Hence, according to Zedler ( 1982a ) , these areas take on international importance as feeding and resting grounds for species found from Alaska to Antarctica . Herons, egrets, gulls, terns , shorebirds, ducks , geese, coots, wading birds and rails can be seen in southern California coastal wetlands throughout most of the year . However , several of these bird species which use southern coastal wetlands are now endangered due, in large part , to the massive losses of wetland habitat . Approximately 75 percent of the estuaries and coastal wetlands in southern California have been destroyed or severely altered by man since 1900 . Two-thirds of the twenty eight sizable estuaries existing in southern California at the turn of the century have been dredged or filled (California Coastal Plan) . These losses have driven several specieo f wildlife nearly to extinction . Endangered species which use the wetlands include five endangered birds . ' The California least tern (Sterna albifrons browni ) , the brown pelican (Pelecanus occiaentalis call ornicus) , t e peregrine falcon ( Falco eregrinus anatum , and the ight- noted clapper rail (Rallus longirostris levips are federally listed. The Belding' s savannah sparrow ( Passercu us sandwichenis beldingi ) is state listed . The latter two species are residents of the salt marsh and absolutely depend on it for survival ( Zedler , 1982a) . In addition , the aesthetic and open space value of southern California coastal wetlands is significant . Onuf et al . ( 1978 ) note that coastal wetlands probably support higher densities of big , active animals, especially birds, than any other major habitat type in the United States. The small size of most of the remaining southern and central California coastal wetlands , the low stature of the marsh plants , and the close proximity of many of these wetlands to densely populated areas allow easy viewing of a wide variety of birds in their natural setting. a . Resource Values of the Huntington Beach Wetlands In 1983 , the Department of Fish and Game ( DFG) prepared, at the Commission ' s request , a report concerning the status of the Y Huntington Beach wetlands . The report was prepared pursuant to Section 30411 of the Coastal Act which provides for the study of degraded wetlands by the Department of Fish and Game in cunsulLaliuo with the Commission and the Department of Boating and Waterways . Page 12 The Department of Fish and Game summarized its findings as follows : Based upon Examination of historical mapping , existing hiological data, and upon the definitions and criteria outlined herein, the Department finds that of the 162 . 6 acres within the study area, 149 . 9 acres are historic wetland and 12. 7 are historic upland ( Table 1 ) . We find that of the 149. 9 acres of historic wetland within our study area, 114 . 7 acres ( 76 . 5% ) continue to function viably as wetlands. The Department finds that all 114 . 7 acres of wetland identified are degraded pursuant to the definition established herein. However , we also find that 113 . 9 of these 114 . 7 wetland acres ( 99% ) provide either high or moderate habitat values to wetland-associated birds . Further , the Department finds that major restoration efforts would not be required to restore and enhance wetland values on 114 . 7 acres identified in this report . The DFG report discussed the historical importance of the Huntington Beach wetlands : The Study area is a remnant of a once extensive wetland area which existed at the mouth of the Santa Ana River ( Figure 1 ) . This wetland was historically connected to Newport Bay by the meandering Santa Ana River . The present wetland ( 114 . 7 ac. ) is all that remains of approximately 2, 000 acres of historic wetlands which existed upcoast ( northwest ) from what is now . the Santa Ana River Flood Control Channel. This reduction in area of nearly 95% has occurred primarily due to the channelization of the Santa Ana River: and other drainage courses and subsequently from encroachment of residential , commercial and industrial developments in the City of Huntington Beach . The study area has been formally classified as wetland by the State of California since at least 1971 (Radovich 1980; Appendix 3 ) The report also included a description of the present status of the wetlands : There presently exist 114 . 7 acres of viably functioning wetlands in the study area . These wetlands are non-tidal in nature . They are primarily a combination of vegetated and non-vegetated wetland flats , and manifest various salinity regimes . Dominant plant species include pickleweed ( Salicornia virginia ) , alkali heath ( Frankenia grandifolia ) and slat grass Distichlis spicata ) in salt marsh areas; spiny rush (Juncus acutus ) and hulrush ( Scirpus spp. ) in brackish water marsh areas ; and cattail ( Typha spp. ) in freshwater marsh areas. Salicornia virginia an oblogate hvdrophyte, is clearly the predominant plant species in the study area . . . The invertebrate population provides a forage base for an . Page 13 abundant and diverse complement of wetland-oriented bird species . At least 83 bird species have been observed in the Huntington Beach Wetlands (Appendix 2 ) . Of the 83 species, 53 species are wetland-associated birds. Included among the species known to occur in the study area are the federally and state-listed endangered California least tern and the state-listed endangered Belding ' s savannah sparrow. Bird censuses. . . indicate that of the 114 . 7 acres of existing wetland in the study area 113 . 9 of these acres ( 99% ) provide either high or moderate habitat values for wetland-associated birds . Of the 12 . 7 acres of historic upland , 8. 7 acres adjacent to PCH and downcoast ( generally southeast ) from the power plant are composed of coastal dune habitat , willow thickets and transition vegetation, and are environmentally sensitive pursuant to Coastal Act Sections 30107 . 5 and 30240. These 8 . 7 acres provide desirable habitat diversity to the overall study area, and constitute approximately 35% of all remaining coastal dune habitat in northern Orange County ( the remaining roughly 65% being located primarily in the Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve) (See DFG 1982) . . . b. Land Use Plan Policies As note] above , the wetlands area in the City of Huntington Beach from Beach Boulevard to the Santa Ana River is part of the last remaining remnant of the once extensive salt marsh and estuary complex of the Santa Ana River which encompassed over 3000 acres . The area ' s primary resource value is as habitat for marsh dependent bird species . The area presently serves as a waterfowl wintering area , providing valuable nesting and feeding areas on the winter migration route . The wetlands provide a critical food source and breeding habitat for the endangered California least tern and the endangered Belding ' s savannah sparrow. In 1982, in its previous action on the Huntington Beach LCP, the Commission certified the City ' s LCP in geographic part and denied certification in part for the two wetland areas within the City: the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) parcel adjacent to the Bolsa Chica and the area from Beach Boulevard to the Santa Ana River . The Commission found in its action on the LUP, the findings for which .are hereby incorporated by reference, that : The LUP as resubmitted fails to conform to the Resource protection policies of the Act in the following significant areas : 1 ) The LUP fails to provide land use designations and standards to ensure protection and restoration where feasible of wetland resources identified consistent with the Coastal Act definition . Page 14 2 ) The LUP as resubmitted while referring to wetland as "potential " (page 61 ) or "possible" (page 59 ) wetlands and acknowledging their identification by the Department of Fish and Game in a preliminary determination, designates wetland areas for uses not allowed by Section 30233 of the Coastal Act . The Commission further found that the land uses proposed for the wetland areas would conflict with the energy policies of the Coastal Act which address the siting and expansion of power plants and energy facilities . The Commission concluded that : The Plan as resubmitted would result in the filling of over 130 acres of wetland with an irreversible loss of habitat value and productivity and loss of habitat for endangered species. Further , the plan precludes higher priority coastal dependent uses on the MWD site and. precludes potential restoration of wetland resources on that site. The Commission made similar findings in its original denial of the LUP in 1981 , the findings for which are hereby incorporated by reference . The City ' s LUP resubmittal for the area of deferred certification from Beach Boulevard to the Santa Ana River contains new land use designations for major portions of that area ( Exhibit 2 ) . The proposed land use designations include "Visitor-Serving Commercial" , "Conservation" , " Industrial Energy Production" , and " Industrial Energy Production/Conservation" . In addition, the LUP resubmittal includes the resubmittal of the Coastal Element policies including the environmentally sensitive habitat , visual resources, energy policies, etc. The "Conservation" and " Industrial Energy Production/Conservation" designations for 141 . 5 acres of wetland/coastal dune/upland habitat ( in conjunction with the environmentally sensitive habitat policies of the Coastal Element ) would provide protection for these environmentally sensitive habitat areas consistent with the environmentally sensitive habitat and wetlands oolicies of the Coastal Act . The designations are consistent with these policies because: 1 ) they allow for the following kinds, location and intensity of land uses consistent with Section 30233 and 2 ) the land use designations and/or other policies provide for development meeting the other tests of Section 30233 - that there are no feasible, less environmentally damaging alternative and feasible mitigation is provided/required as well as the energy policies of the Coastal Act . The "Conservation" designation allows certain low intensity resource protective activities including picnic and observation areas, nature trails and peripheral bike paths, informational signs or displays, and peripheral parking areas. The "Industrial Energy Production/Conservation" designation is intended to allow the existing wetland area to be protected and restored while not precluding the option of power plant expansion onto this site if no feasible less environmentally damaging alternative and if appropriate mitigation is provided . The 141 . 5 acre figure reflects Page 15 the Department of Fish and Game 1983 Wetland Determination of 149. 9 acres of historic wetland minus former ( not restorable ) wetland and upland habitat west of Beach Boulevard and a strip area along Pacific Coast Highway east of Beach Boulevard. C. Hamilton Avenue Extension The land use designations limit allowable uses in wetlands, however , the resubmitted LUP includes a provision for the extension of Hamilton Avenue from Newland Street to Beach Boulevard. The areas that would be bisected by this allignment of the extension have been identified in the Department of Fish and Game wetlands determination as restorable former wetlands and degraded saltmarsh/salt flat wetlands. The DFG has also determined that the affected areas support "Moderate" and "High" use by wetland-associated birds. The City states that an extension of Hamilton Avenue is needed to provide an alternative circulation route to Pacific Coast Highway. The extension would also, the City maintains , provide increased access to the coast for beach users and would improve public safety as it would serve as an alternative route to the beaches and downtown area for fire and emergency vehicles . The city's proposal states that : The Hamilton extension will be constructed in such a way as to minimize impacts on the wetland . This includes raising the entire structure on pilings if necessary. Appropriate mitigation shall be provided . It is the City' s intent that no net loss of wetland occur . Any wetland which is filled or reduced in productivity by the project will be replaced by restoring otherwise degraded or non-functioning wetland as close as feasible to the project site. In its previous actions on the LUP in 1981 and 1982, the Commission noted that the proposed extension of Hamilton Avenue would result in the filling of identified wetland areas . The Commission also found that roads are not a permitted use for which filling of wetlands is permitted under Section 30233 of the Coastal Act, except as part of energy expansion allowed by Section 30233 and the energy policies of the Coastal Act . In its 1981 action, the Commission adopted a suggested modification (and the City adopted the policy below as part of its Coastal Element ) which provided that no fill for road construction would be allowed in wetlands except as provided by Section 30260 for coastal dependent industrial uses and Sections 30262-30264 for allowable energy facilities and shall be limited only to access roads appurtenant to the facility to serve uses permitted by Sections 30260-30264 . Any proposed road also had to meet the other policy tests of having no feasible less environmentally damaging alternative and providing feasible mitiqation . Page 16 The LUP resubmitted in 1982 incorporated policy modifications similar to the Commission' s adopted suggested modifications. The new LUP policy ( 9e) provides as follows: 9e . Prohibit all uses within the Least Tern nesting site on Huntington State Beach except those related to habitat restoration. Prohibit fill in any wetland areas for the purpose of road construction, except for roads required to serve uses allowed in wetlands pursuant to and consistent with Sections 30260-30264 for coastal dependent and energy uses. Also, if a project were approved pursuant to and consistent with Section 30233( a) ( 3) , and a road was part of the approved project, such road would be permitted in portions of the severely degraded wetland where development is permitted. Any roads governed by this policy shall be limited to necessary access roads appurtenant to the facility, and shall be permitted only where there is no feasible less environmentally damaging alternative and where feasibility mitigation measures have been provided. It is significant to note that this policy was adopted prior to the final Department of Fish and Game Section 30411 wetlands determination report , which found that the wetlands in this area were not .so severely degraded as to require major restoration. Projects approved pursuant to Section 30233 (a) ( 3) pertain only to wetlands identified as so severely degraded as to require major restoration. The Commission previously found that the policies and standards contained in the resubmitted LUP were consistent with the Coastal Act but denied the land use designations for the identified wetlands areas because they allowed filling of wetlands for uses not consistent with the Coastal Act and would have resulted in significant loss of wetland and other environmentally sensitive habitat areas. The Commission certified environmentally sensitive habitat area policies for the geographic area excluding the wetlands areas, finding that the policies themselves were consistent with the Coastal Act . However , as the LUP was denied in geographic part , neither policies nor land use designations were certified for this area . Now, the City has resubmitted its certified environmentally sensitive habitat area policies along with new land use designations to comprise a resubmittal LUP for the geographic area denied certification by the Commission in 1982. Policy 9e, as t-he Commission previously found, is consistent with the Coastal Act in that it would protect wetlands, allowing road extensions only as part of allowable coastal dependent or energy uses permitted by Section 30233 ( a) ( 1 ) and only where there is no feasible alternative and where mitigation is provided . The LUP as resubmitted includes the extension of Hamilton Avenue which is not Page 17 consistent with Policy 9e or Section 30233 of the Coastal Act as the Hamilton extension is not part of any coastal dependent or energy related project and is not one of the permitted uses of Section 30233 of the Coastal Act. . Of all the environmentally sensitive habitat areas mentioned specifically in the Coastal Act, wetlands and estuaries are afforded the most stringent protection. In order to approve a project involving .the diking, filling, or dredging of a wetland or estuary, the Commission must first find that the project is one of the specific, enumerated uses set forth in Section 30233 . In addition, permitted development in these areas must meet the requirements of other applicable provisions of the Coastal Act . The activities and types of development permitted in wetlands, pursuant to Section 30233, are as follows: 1 . Port facilities 2 . Energy facilities 3 .. Coastal-dependent industrial facilities, such as commercial fishing facilities 4 . . Maintenance of existing or restoration of previously dredged depths in navigation channels, turning basins, vessel berthing and mooring areas, and boat launching ramps 5 . Incidental public service purposes which include, but are not limited to, burying cables and pipes, inspection of piers, and maintenance of existing intake and outfall lines 6 . Restoration projects 7 . Nature study, aquaculture , or similar resource-dependent activities 8 . In wetland areas only, entrance channels for new or expanded boating facilities may be constructed, except that in a degraded wetland, other boating facilities may be permitted according to the requirements of Section 30411 9 . New or expanded boating facilities in estuaries The Commission has consistently found that protection of wetland resources is a high priority of the Coastal Act , and has denied development which would have resulted in the filling of wetlands, or conditioned projects to avoid filling of wetlands . In many previous actions, including the 1981 denial of the City ' s LUP, the 1982 certification of the LUP excluding the wetland areas, certification of the County of San Diego, San Dieguito segment LUP, and previous permit actions including. A-328-78 (Hawthorne) the Commission made findings regarding the importance of protecting wetlands and related habitat . The Commission found in its review of the San Dieguito LUP . that a specific policy which limited the type of use and development permitted in wetlands was protective of wetland resources consistent with Section 30233 and addressed concerns regarding road extension and widening projects adjacent to San Elijo and Batiquitos Lagoons . In A-156-79 (Carmel Valley Road) , the Commission initially denied a proposed road widening and realignment that would have resulted in wetland fill . The Page 18 Commission later , however , approved the project which was intended to eliminate a dangerous curve situation after the project had been redesigned and modified to mitigate wetland fill to the maximum extent feasible . In previous actions on proposed road extensions through wetland areas, the Commission has also found that limited expansion of roadbeds and bridges necessary to maintain existing traffic capacity may be permitted only when no other alternative exists and when consistent with the other provisions of Section 30233. Similarly, in this case, the Commission notes that the intent of the proposed Hamilton Avenue extension is to serve a public service that is as an alternate route to Pacific Coast Highway for emergency vehicles . Presently, emergency vehicles are hindered by the lack of alternate routes when Pacific Coast Highway is impassable due to congested traffic. The City intends to extend Walnut Avenue from the downtown to Beach Boulevard where it would meet the extende Hamilton Avenue . This would create a new cross-town axis along Walnut and Hamilton Avenues from the downtown to the Santa Ana River . The extended Hamilton Avenue in conjunction with the Walnut Avenue extension would serve to enhance emergency vehicle traffic between the downtown and the southeastern area of the city. In its action in 1984 on the Marina Del Rey/Ballona LUP of the County of Los Angeles LCP, the Commission approved the extension of Falmouth Avenue through an area of severely degraded wetlands proposed for restoration in the LUP. The Commission found that the extension was consistent with the requirements of Section 30233( a) ( 7 ) of the Coastal Act as it was part of a restoration project and was the least environmentally damaging alternative for restoring the wetland as modified to be elevated on pilings . The suggested modifications to the LUP required that the road extension be elevated on pilings "to insure: maximum flow of water , movement of mammals and avian species and clearance to permit periodic maintenance. " The Commission based its decision partly on evidence supplied by the Department of Fish and Game (DFG) in a letter to the Commission . The DFG stated that the extension of the road in combination with an expanded wetland restoration program was "more protective of coastal wetland resources than the preclusion of the proposed extension and no wetland restoration. " The DFG also expressed concern that without approval of the LUP including the Falmouth extension and the restoration plan proposed by the landowner , the use of the area for agricultural purposes would be expanded and thereby further diminish wetland habitat values. The Commission concluded that : The proposed extension of Falmouth Avenue through a portion o'f the degraded wetlands designated for restoration, is permissible as part of a restoration plan even though roads are no.t idpnt- i fi ark as a permitted use in Section 30233 of the Act . Page 19 The Commission' s Interpretive Guidelines for wetlands and Other Wet Environmentally Sensitive Areas (p. 14 ) declare that "additional flexibility will be allowed for restoration projects located in wetlands which are degraded (as that term is used in Section 30411 of the Coastal Act . " The Guidelines go on to state (p. 24 ) that "restoration projects under this approach may include uses that are not permitted in Section 30233 if the project meets all of the other requirements of Section 30233 and 30411 . " The Commission notes that the there are significant differences between the Ballona wetlands and the Huntington Beach wetlands. One major difference between the two areas is the Department of Fish and Game wetland determinations prepared for each area . The DFG determined that the overall Ballona wetland system is severely degraded and requires a major restoration plan. The Huntington Beach wetlands , however , though determined to be degraded wetlands, were found by the DFG to be "not so severely degraded that major restoration efforts are require . " (emphasis added) (DFG Determination of the Status of the Huntington Beach Wetlands , February 4 , 1983 ) . The DFG found that 4 . 7 acres 76. 5% of the 149. 9 acres of historic wetland "continue to functionally viably as wetlands" and major restoration was not necessary to restore and enhance wetland values . The Commission finds that the precise alignment of Hamilton Ave. can not be approved without the necessary environments documentation showing the least environmentally damaging feasible alternative is the chosen alternative . However , the Commission finds that there is a need to provide an alternative route paralleling Hwy 1 for public safety needs. The Commission further finds that such minimization of impacts shall include, at a minimum; (placing of the roadwav in an alignment which is most protective of wetland habitats , which may require the entire road to be constructed on pilings or other road designs such as bridging over the wetlands, 2 ) limiting the width of roadway by narrowing lanes and eliminating shoulders, and ( 3 ) requiring full mitigation for any impacted wetland . The Commission also finds that the EIR, which will need to be done before this project could occur , will need to adequately address the alternative alignments for Hamilton Ave. and will need to address the mitigation needs generated from each alternative. The City argues that the Commission has approved a number of roads , such as Falmouth Avenue, as part of wetland modification proposals, and that the extension of Hamilton would be consistent with these previous decisions . The Commission disagrees. In most of the ,- specific examples where the Commission has approved construction within a wetland , the wetland was a "severely degraded wetland" ( e. g . Ballona and Bolsa Chica) . Inherent in the determination that a wetland system is a "severely degraded wetland" is the associated Page 20 determination that is "is not capable of recovering and maintaining a high level of biological productivity without major restoration activities . " In the case of the Huntington Beach wetlands , the Department of Fish and Game has identified the wetlands as having extraordinarily high values for bird habitat. Indeed, the nesting intensity of the endangered Belding ' s savannah sparrow is so high in these areas that even enhancement activities are likely to be counterproductive. Thus, unlike the situation in the Ballona, Bolsa Chica , Batiquitos, Los Cerritos, and other wetlands, intervention is not essential to assure the maintenance of habitat values, and restoration efforts are likely to be slight . Although the City has indicated its intent to mitigate any wetland fill resulting from this project , the Commission is concerned about the practical problems of implementing wetland restoration efforts. In reviewing the proposal to fill approximately 110 acres in outer Long Beach Harbor , the Commission heard testimony about the practical problems involved in putting together wetland restoration projects and having them successfully completed. These problems are even more serious in an area like Orange County where the market has set the acquisition cost of potentially restorable land at extremely high levels. The practical problems of restoration are immense, as the Coastal Conservancy has found in its restoration planning efforts for these wetlands. There are not enough clearly defined uplands available to be able to assure direct mitigation . The City maintains that the Hamilton extension is needed as "an alternative circulation route to Pacific Coast Highway" and in this capacity would provide "visitor serving access to the beaches, as well as . . .an alternative route for non-visitor traffic. " The extension would also, the City states, provide a route for fire and emergency vehicles to the beaches and the downtown area. The Commission finds , however , that the Coastal Act does not permit fill in wetlands in order to enhance access to the coast . The Commission notes that Hamilton Avenue runs parallel to the coast and its extension would not perceivably enhance access from inland areas. The Commission is also concerned about the City' s reference to "raising the entire structure on pilings if necessary. " and the provision of "appropriate mitigation" (emphasis added) . It is not clear who or what determines if pilings are "necessary" nor what exactly is "appropriate" mitigation. The City, although stating that the extension would serve emergency vehicles, has not demonstrated any need for the extension based on public safety concerns . There is also no discussion of feasible alternatives that would avoid wetland fill . Such alternatives could include rerouting the extension to avoid the wetlands, "bridging" the wetlands area to prevent any fill for pilings, or a combination thereof. The City uiu ILJIUJJ aiu2Lnative routings of the Hamilton extension in its Page 21 Anal sis Of Land Use Alternatives For The 'White Hole ' Areas ( Revised May The three alternatives nc u e construction on pilings for the length of the extension (this alternative would involve the most fill) , 2) construction on pilings from Beach Boulevard to the tank farm ( thereby reducing wetland fill ) , and 3) no project . The alternatives discussed in the report did not include an extension which would not involve wetland fill such as an extension across the tank farm connecting to a bridge across the wetlands between the tank farm and Beach Boulevard . The Commission further notes that the resubmitted LUP does not clearly indicate which alternative was chosen or why. The discussion of the extension in the LUP is vague and general in nature. As discussed above, Section 30411 of the Coastal Act allows uses in severely degraded wetlands formally identified by the DFG that would not be permitted pursuant to Section 30233 of the Coastal Act if the project meets all of the other requirements of Section 30233 and Section 30411 . Section 30411 states, in part , that any DFG study of a degraded wetland shall include consideration of: ( 1 ) Whether the wetland is so severely degraded and its natural processes so substantially impaired that it is not capable of recovering and maintaining a high level of biological productivity without major restoration activities. The Commission notes that the DFG has, pursuant to Section 30411 , formally determined that the Ballona wetlands are severely degraded and incapable of recovering and maintaining a high level of biological productivity without major restoration efforts. In contrast, the DFG made findings related to Section 30411 for the Huntington Beach wetlands which stated that major restoration efforts are not required for the existing wetlands. The DFG found that : These wetlands could easily be enhanced by reestablishing controlled tidal flushing due to their existing low elevation . . . , their immediate adjacency to the tidal waters of the flood control channel, and the demonstrated ease and efficiency with which this water may be used for restorative purposes. The Commission further finds that feasible mitigation measures must be provided for permitted wetland fill projects in order to minimize adverse environmental effects of the project. T e Land Use Plan resubmittal provides, as noted above, that the Hamilton Avenue extension will minimize impacts on the wetlands. The LUP also states that the minimization of impacts on the wetlands r inc u es raising the entire structure on pilings, if necessary, and that appropriate mitigation shall be provided. The LUP concludes- that : - Page 22 It is the City' s intent that no net loss of wetland occur . Any wetland _w__FI"C_ F_Ts7iI1ed or reduced in productivity by the project will be replaced by restoring otherwise degraded or non-functioning wetland as close as easi le to the project site. The Commission finds that it is onl with this guarantee bX the City that no net loss o wet an s will occur as a result of t is project , that the project will maintain or enhance the unct onal capacity of the wet an s and that mitigation measures will be provided to minimize the adverse impacts of the project that the Commission can find the proposed Hamilton Avenue extension consistent witH the provisions of S_e_cEFo_n_T0233 ot the Coastal Act . The Commission finds , therefore, that though the Falmouth Avenue extension was found by the Commission, in consultation with the Department of Fish and Game, to be consistent with Section 30233 and Section 30411 of the Coastal Act, no such grounds exist in the case of the proposed Hamilton Avenue extension. The Huntington Beach wetlands, in contrast to the Ballona wetlands, are not so severely degraded that major restoration efforts are required. The Falmouth extension was found consistent with Sections 30233 and 30411 as it was part of a major restoration plan for a severely degraded wetland. These findings can not be made for the Hamilton extension. The Commission further finds , therefore, that for the reasons discussed above, the Land Use Plan is inconsistent with the environmentally sensitive habitat, marine resources, and wetland policies of the Coastal Act . The Commission notes that the resubmitted LUP designates a seven acre strip along Pacific Coast Highway between Beach Boulevard and Newland Street as "Visitor-Serving Commercial" . This area has been determined by the Department of Fish and Game in its 1983 Determination of the Status of the Huntington Beach Wetlands to be upland and former wetlands which is not restorable. The proposed visitor-serving uses would not therefore involve any fill of wetland. The visitor-serving designation is appropriate as the site is located at the terminus of the major access route (Beach Boulevard) from inland areas to the beach. The Commission finds, therefore, that the land use designation of "Visitor-Serving Commercial" , proposed for a seven acre strip along Pacific Coast Highway, is consistent with the environmentally sensitive habitat, wetland, and public access policies of the Coastal Act . J Page 23 III . FINDINGS FOR SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS A. Environmentally Sensitive Aabitat Areas 1 . Wetlands Of all the environmentally sensitive habitat areas mentioned specifically in the Coastal Act, wetlands are afforded the most stringent protection. In order to approve a project involving the diking, filling, or dredging of a wetland, the Commission must first find that the project it one of the specific, enumerated uses set forth in Section 30233 of the Coastal Act . In addition, permitted development in these areas must meet the requirements of other applicable provisions of the Coastal Act . The Commission has consistently found that protection of wetland resources is a high priority of the Coastal Act, and has denied development which would have resulted in the filling of wetlands (except for permitted uses or where the development was part of a major restoration plan ) or conditioned projects to avoid filling of wetlands. The Commission finds that, for the reasons discussed above in the findings for denial of the LUP, the proposed Hamilton Avenue extension is not a permitted use allowing fill of wetlands pursuant to Section 30233 of the Coastal Act . The Commission finds that only as modified to delete the proposed Hamilton Avenue extension as proposed would the resubmittal LUP be consistent with the wetlands and environmentally sensitive habitat policies of the Coastal Act . The Commission further finds, therefore, that the Land Use Plan, as modified, conforms with Section 30233 and is consistent with the environmentally sensitive habitat, marine resources, and wetland policies of the Coastal Act. V. ENERGY FINDINGS Section 30260 of the Coastal Act provides: Section 30260 Coastal-dependent industrial facilities shall be encouraged to locate or expand within existing sites and shall ' be permitted reasonable long-term growth where consistent with this division. However, where new or expanded coastal-dependent industrial facilities cannot feasibly be accomodated consistent with other policies of this division, they may nonetheless be permitted in accordance with this section and Section 30261 and 30262 if ( 1 ) alternative locations are infeasible or more environmentally damaging; ( 2) to do otherwise would adversely affect the public welfare; and ( 3 ) adverse environmental effects are mitigated to the maximum extent feasible. Page 24 Section 30264 of the Coastal Act states as follows: Section 30264 Notwithstanding any other provision of this division, except subdivisions (b ) and (c) of Section 30413, new or expanded thermal electric generating plants may be constructed in the coastal zone if the proposed coastal site has been determined by the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission to have greater relative merit pursuant to the provisions of Section 25516. 6 than available alternative sites and related facilities for an applicant' s service area which have been determined to be acceptable pursuant to the provisions of Section 25516. A. Power Plant Siting and Expansion 1 . Background The Coastal Act and the Warren Alquist Act ( Energy Commission Legislation) provide a combined approach to power plant siting within the coastal zone with the California Energy Commission given the overall permit authority for power plant siting within the state. Other state and local agencies participate in the Energy Commission siting proceedings as interveners. However , the Coastal Commission has a special role with regard to siting power plants in the coastal zone . The following discussion describes the Commission role relative to the Energy Commission and the need for adequate policies in the LUP to assure that coastal protection policies are implemented during power plant siting procedures. 2 . Areas Unsuitable for Power Plant Siting The Coastal Act ( Section 30413(b) ) requires the Commission to "designate." areas where the construction of an electric power plant would prevent achievement of the objectives of the Coastal Act . The Energy Commission cannot approve the construction or operation of any thermal power plant in an area that has been designated by the Commission in this process. Section 30413 (b) requires that the Commission not designate specific locations which are presently used for power plants or surrounding areas that could be used for " reasonable expansion" of the facilities. 3. Power Plant Siting Proceedings Whenever the Energy Commission exercises its siting authority and undertakes proceedings for the possible location of a power plant• within the coastal zone, the Coastal Commission prepares a specific report on the proposal . The Commission prepares this report for thA first stage of the siting process where several sites are Page 25 evaluated and one or two are ranked and granted conceptual approval (Notice of Intention, NOI ) , and during the actual permit or certification process for one site (Application for Certification AFC) . The Commission report includes an analysis of the potential impacts of the proposed project and possible methods to mitigate the impacts. The Energy Commission must implement the recommendation included in the report unless to do so would result in greater environmental damage or would not be feasible. 4 . Issues Relating to the Huntington Beach Power Plant Areas Designated as Not Suitable As part of the Commission' s adopted Power Plant Siting Study, "Designation of Coastal Zone Areas Where Construction of an Electric Power Plant Would Prevent Achievement of the Objectives of the California Coastal Act of 1976" , Nov. 1979 ) the Commission has designated some of the property south of the Huntington Beach Power Plant as unsuitable for siting because of valuable wetland habitat . The designated wetland system extends south of the existing Huntington Beach Power Plant as discussed in this report . However , the northwest portion of the wetland was not designated as unsuitable so that reasonable expansion of the facility would not be precluded by the designations. (This non-designation of the wetland area in Huntington Beach was not Eased on resource value or suitability for siting, but rather on tFe requirements of the Act that reasonable expansion not be precluded. ) The power plant presently has room to expand into the mud dump area north of the Talbert Channel rather than into the wetland. As stated previously, the Commission must assure that reasonable expansion of the power plant is not precluded by the power plant resource protection designations. 5. Edison Notice of Intention The Commission in October 1978 unanimously adopted a report on the Edison Combined Cycle Power Plant Notice of Intention concerning the proposed expansion of the existing Huntington Beach Power Plant facility. The Commission found that the most serious impacts of the proposed power plant expansion would be the filling of the adjacent wetland and the associated environmentally sensitive habitat. The resource value of this area has been discussed above. The Commission found that the area inland of the existing facilities could provide a feasible less environmentally damaging alternative location for expansion of the Huntington Beach facility. Section 30233 of the Coastal Act mandates that energy facilities can only be sited in wetlands if there is no feasible less environmentally damaging alternative, if the functional capacity of the wetland is maintained or enhanced, and if r mitigation measures have been provided to minimize the adverse environmental effects . The Commission report directed the Energy Commission to analyze and reach conclusions regarding the feasibility of power plant construction and the potential Page 26 environmental damages associated with the use of the inland area in place of the wetland . The report stated that if such conclusions of feasibility could be reached, then the expansion should occur on the inland area thus avoiding or minimizing the use of wetland areas for proposed power plant facilities . If expansion could only occur on the wetland adjacent to the existing power plant and northwest of Magnolia Street the Commission report than recommended that Edison be required to acquire and restore the wetlands to the south of the affected area . Additionally a permit (A-342-78 Sand Dollar ) for a 9 lot industrial subdivision was denied during this period because of the possibility of using the inland property for expansion of Edison instead of wetland should the Energy Commission choose Huntington Beach from the four sites . However , when the proposed expansion was not approved for Huntington Beach, the coastal permit was issued, releasing the inland- property for development . The existing mud dump however, still remains a potential area available for energy facility expansion. B. Previous Commission Findings The Commission found in its 1981 action on the City' s LUP that the resubmitted plan failed to conform to the energy and resource protection policies of the Coastal Act in relation to power plant siting and expansion. The Commission found that the proposed " Industrial Energy Production" land use designation did not provide standards which require the expansion of the power. plant facilities in feasible less environmentally damaging alternative sites first, such as the mud dump and the designation also failed to incorporate standards to ensure protection of wetland resources in conjunction with allowable energy expansion if alternative inland sites are infeasible . In its suggested modifications, the Commission recommended that the designation of the area including and south of the power plant to the Santa Ana River be changed from "Visitor Serving Commercial" and "Industrial Energy Production" to "Conservation/Industrial Energy" . The Commission further found that power plant facilities should be prohibited in the area southeast of Magnolia Street as specified in the power plant siting study. The suggested modifications contained three policy modifications which development within the area designated "Conservation/Industrial Energy" would be subject to: 1 . Such uses shall be permitted consistent with other provisions of the LUP only where there is no feasible, less environmentally damaging alternative and where maximum feasible mitigation measures have been provided to minimize adverse environmental effects, and the functional capacity of the wetland is maintained or enhanced. Page 27 2 . As a condition precedent to any energy facility expansion or development into the wetlands south of the power plant and north of Magnolia Street energy facility expansion inland to the Mud Dump must be undertaken or the infeasibility of doing so demonstrated. The determination of infeasibility will be made by the Energy Commission during or before the Notice of Intention Proceedings. 3 . If further expansion or development of power plant facilities and necessary accessory facilities on the inland site is infeasible or causes greater environmental damage as determined in #2 above, then such power plant expansion may be permitted north of Magnolia Street provided that not less than two and one half acres of wetlands south of Magnolia are permanently protected by conservation easements, dedications or other similar mechanisms for each acre of wetlands filled for development, and that a program acceptable to the Dept . of Fish and Game is implemented to assure long term habitat enhancement or restoration of these protected wetlands . Vehicular access shall be prohibited in conservation easement areas. The Commission concluded that the suggested modifications were necessary in order to provide for a reasonable expansion of the existing power plant consistent with the protection of wetland resources. The first priority for siting power plant facilities , the Commission found, would be at any available inland site. The Commission further found that the City ' s LUP should contain conditions for energy expansion into wetlands which would ensure specific mitigation and maintenance of the functional capacity of the wetland . In its 1982 action certifying the LUP in geographic part , the Commission denied the portions of the LUP which applied to the wetlands areas of the City, i . e. the MWD parcel and the Beach Boulevard to Santa Ana River area. The findings for denial in geographic part concentrated on two policy areas: energy and environmentally sensitive habitats . In regard to energy, the Commission found that : The LUP as resubmitted proposes no modifications to the plan as it relates to land use designations on the parcels adjacent to the existing thermal power plant. As the Commission found in its previous action on the LUP the proposed land use designation, " Industrial Energy Production" fails to provide specific standards for expansion of power plants and mitigation for such expansion. s The Commission found that the proposed land use designation of " Industrial Energy" and other LUP policies did not conform with the policies or Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act and were not consistent Page 28 with previous Commission findings for the Edison Notice of Intention (NOI ) or the Commission power plant study designations . In order to find the proposed land use designations consistent with the Coastal Act , the Commission determined that : 1 . 'The land use designations must specify permitted uses and such uses should not preclude reasonable expansion of the existing Huntington Beach Power Plant as indicated in Section 30413(b) of the Coastal Act. 2 . The land use designations must reflect the previous Commission findings that power plant expansion priority should be given to the area inland of the Talbert Channel , and, conditions of and mitigation measures for an energy expansion into wetlands must be provided consistent with the mandatory provisions of Section 30233 and the energy policies of the Coastal Act. 3 . The land use designations must protect wetland areas which are not required for reasonable expansion of the existing Huntington Beach Power Plant, consistent with Section 30233 of the Act and Commission findings of the power plant siting study. C. Findings on the Resubmittal of the LUP for the Wetlands Area from Beach Boulevard to the Santa Ana River Regarding Energy Expansion The City in its resubmittal of the LUP has redesignated a 17-acre parcel adjacent to the Edison power plant as " Industrial Energy Production/Conservation" . A "Conservation" overlay has been applied to the original land use designation of "Industrial Energy Production" . The intent of the overlay as explained in the resubmittal is: . . . to protect certain unique or environmentally sensitive areas without precluding other options which may be allowed under the Coastal Act. Conditions to be imposed by the overlay include mitigation measures to maintain or enhance the functional capacity of the wetland. In the "Area-By-Area Discussion" section of the Land Use Plan, the City further describes the intent of the "Industrial Energy Production/Conservation" designation as follows: The designation is intended to allow the area to serve as a Conservation area for the short term, but be available for possible future expansion of the power plant , if necessary, in the long term, provided that there is no feasible, less environmentally damaging alternative, and appropriate mitigation is provided. Page 29 The Commission ' s concerns as discussed above include provision for the reasonable expansion of the power plant and protection of identified wetland areas. The new land use designations for the area between Beach Boulevard and the Santa Ana River address these concerns. The proposed "Industrial Energy Production/Conservation" designation is protective of wetland resources on the parcel adjacent to the power plant but also does not preclude the expansion of the plant into that area if it is deemed that 'there is no feasible, less environmentally damaging alternative and appropriate mitigation is provided. " The Commission notes that feasible less environmentally damaging alternatives include power plant expansion inland of the Talbert Channel . The overlay requires that conditions on future development , i . e, power plant expansion, include mitigation measures to maintain, or enhance the functional capacity of the wetland. The Commission notes that in previous actions where wetland fill has been approved for permitted uses, such projects were required to restore wetlands, often at ratios of 2/1 or greater , in order to ensure that no net loss of wetland occurred. The City' s "Conservation" overlay recognizes the need for wetland restoration by requiring conditions that include mitigation measures which maintain or enhance the functional capacity of the wetland. The Commission finds , therefore, that the "Conservation" designation for the area south of the Edison plant and the adjacent 17-acre " Industrial Energy Production/Conservation" designated parcel is consistent with the Commission' s 1982 finding that the proposed land use designation for the area not required for reasonable expansion of the power plant must protect wetland areas. The Commission finds , therefore, that for the reasons discussed above the land. use designations proposed in the resubmitted LUP are consistent with the energy and wetland policies of the Coastal Act . VI . PUBLIC ACCESS FINDINGS Sections 30001 . 5, 30210, 30211, and 30214 of the Coastal Act provide that maximum access shall be provided, and that development shall not interfere with the public ' s right of access to the sea where acquired through use or legislative authorization. Section 30212 further requires that public access from the nearest public road to the sea shall be provided in new development, and Section 30214 provides that requirements for public access take into account th.e time, place and manner of the access. A specific public access component for Huntington Beach was certified by the Commission on November 17, 1982 as part of the City ' s certified in geographic part LUP. The City has included the Coastal Element , which contains the certified public access Page 30 policies and standards, as part of the resubmittal . The Commission found in its 1982 action, the findings for which are hereby incorporated by reference, that the LUP maximized public access consistent with Sections 30210, 30211 , and 30214 of the Coastal Act . The area governed by the resubmittal LUP is bounded by Beach Boulevard , the Santa Ana River , and Pacific Coast Highway and does not include any shoreline frontage. The area does, however , contain environmentally sensitive habitat areas, i . e. wetland, coastal dune, and upland habitats . The certified Coastal Element contains a public access policy in the "Environmentally Sensitive Habitats" section which states as follows: 6. 2. 4 Public Access In coordination with the aesthetic and biological enhancement of the wetlands, the City encourages low-impact public access to allow nature study and enjoyment of amenities. The City will investigate strategies to provide boardwalks , peripheral trails, interpretive exhibits and other educational facilities in or adjacent to coastal wetlands so long as such activities do not significantly disrupt any habitat values or impair the viability of the ecosystem. The Commission finds , therefore, that the . resubmitted LUP contains public access policies which maximize public access consistent with Sections 30210, 30211 , and 30214 of the Coastal Act . The Commission further finds that the resubmitted LUP provides for public access in environmentally sensitive habitat areas when consistent with protection of the habitat . VII . OTHER COASTAL ELEMENT POLICIES As noted above, the City has resubmitted the certified Coastal Element as part of the LUP resubmittal for the area of deferred certification between Beach Boulevard and the Santa Ana River . The Coastal Element includes policies regarding public access ( see previous section) , energy ( see section V) , visual resources, environmentally sensitive habitats/diking dredging and filling, recreation and visitor-serving facilities, hazards, new development , water and marine resources, and shoreline structures. The Commission in its action certifying the LUP in geographic part made findings as to the consistency of these policies with the Coastal Act . Those findings are hereby incorporated by reference. The Commission finds, therefore, that as applied to the geographic area from Beach Boulevard to the Santa Ana River , the policies referenced above are consistent with Sections 30210, 30211, 30214, 30222, 30250, 30251 , 30232, 30262, 30260, 30233, 30240, 30253, 30235, 30230, and 30231 of the Coastal Act because as found in the rnmmi cci nn IQ nrAiri nlis action, they: Page 31 1 ) assure access consistent with the Coastal Act provisions to maximize public access (Sections 30210 and 30211 ) 2 ) assure visitor facilities will be provided consistent with Section 30220, 30221 and 30222 3 ) provide policies to protect wetland and other environmentally sensitive habitat area and assure that adjacent development will not significantly degrade . resources ( Sections 30233, 30230, 30231 , and 30240) 4 ) provide for energy development consistent with Sections 30232, 30262, and 30260 5) minimize risks and assure safety and structural stability of new development consistent with Section 30253 6 ) assure access consistent with resource protection including visual access to scenic resources (Section 30251 ) 7 ) protect water and marine resources by controlling runoff . ( Sections 30230 and 30231 ) and protection against spills (Section 30232 ) VIII . CEQA FINDINGS 1 . Consistency with CEQA Pursuant to SB 1873, which amended the California Environmental Quality Act , the Coastal Commission is the lead agency in terms of meeting California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements for local coastal programs . In addition to making a finding that the LUP is in full compliance with CEQA, the Commission must make a finding that the least environmentally damaging feasible alternative is chosen. Section 21080 . 5(d ) ( 2 ) ( i ) of the Public Resources Code requires that the Commission not approve or adopt an LCP: . . . 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 . The three alternatives considered by the City included various ratios of development to open space conservation. Alternative One was the least intensive in terms of development and designated approximately 124 acres of "Conservation" area and five acres for "visitor-Serving Commercial" use. Alternative Two featured 78 acres of "Conservation" , ten acres of "Visitor-Serving Commercial " , three acres of "General Commercial" , and 38 acres of "Medium Di4nsity Residential " . Alternative Three was the most intensive Page 32 proposal with only 27 acres of "Conservation" , ten acres of "Visitor-Servinq Commercial" , five acres of "General Commercial " , 74 acres of " Medium Density Residential" , and 13 acres of "Office" . All three alteratives designated 17 acres adjacent to the Edi :7on pow(,r plant as "Conservation/Industrial Energy Production" . Section 30233 of the Coastal Act outlines permitted uses for which fill of wetlands may be permitted. Development is permitted in wetlands only for certain uses and only when there is no feasible less environmentally damaging alternative and mitigation measures have been provided to minimize adverse environmental effects. Alternatives Two and Three would result in a net loss of wetland and therefore raise questions of inconsistency with Section 30233 of the Coastal Act . Residential , general commercial , office and visitor-serving uses are not uses for which fill is permitted in wetlands . The City has resubmitted a Land Use Plan ( for the area of deferred certification from Beach Boulevard to the Santa Ana River ) which essentially adopts the land use designations proposed in the most environmentally protective alternative reviewed by the City, Alternative One. CEQA requires that the Commission make findings that the least environmentally damaging feasible land use alternative has been incorporated into the LCP, and ,that there are no feasible mitigation measures available that could substantially reduce adverse environmental impacts. The Commission finds , for the reasons discussed in this staff report , that the resubmitted Land Use Plan is the least environmentally damaging feasible land use alternative and that there are no feasible mitigation measures available that could substantially reduce adverse environmental impacts . The Commission further finds, therefore, that the resubmitted Land Use Plan is consistent with Section 21080. 5 ( d ) ( 2) ( i ) of the Public Resources Code. 1731A 1 .. ATTACHMENT 10 r T � • ' 51ATE OF CALIFORNIA—THE RESOURCES AGENCY / ►ETE WIISON Gow CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION _ SOUTH COAST AREA 245 W. POAOWAY, M. 300 P.O. BOX IA50 LONG BEACH, CA 90SM-4416 (310) SMW71 September 28, 1992 TO: Commissioners and Interested Persons FROM: Peter Douglas, Executive Director Charles Damm, South Coast District Director Teresa Henry, Assistant District Director/Project Analyst SUBJECT: REVISED FINDINGS ON THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT 2-90 - Implementation Plan for the Pacific Coast Highway Area of Deferred Certification (for Commission adoption at the meeting of October 13, 1992 in Monterey) SYNOPSIS SUMMARY OF COMMISSION ACTION On May 12, 1992 the Commission denied the LCP amendment as submitted and approved it with suggested modifications which were necessary to bring the Plan amendment into conformance with and adequately carry out the wetlands policies of the previously certified land Use Plan for the Pacific Coast Highway Area of Deferred Certification (ADC). COMMISSION VOTE The' Commission's action included two resolutions on the Implementation Plan amendment. The first resolution was to the deny the amendment as submitted. The Commissions voting on the prevailing side were as follows: Commissioners Cervantes, Boo, Giacomini, Glickfeld, MacElvaine, Malcolm, Moulton-Patterson, Neely, Rick, Yokoyama and Chairman Gwyn The second resolution was to approve the Plan amendment if it is modified as set forth in the staff recommendation. The Commissioners voting on the prevailing side were as follows: Commissioners Cervantes, Boo, Giacomini, Glickfeld, MacElvaine, Malcolm, Moulton-Patterson, Neely, Rick, Wright, Yokoyama and Chairman Gwyn ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Copies of the staff report are available at the South Coast District office of the Coastal Commission. To obtain copies of the staff report by mail , or for additional information, contact Teresa Henry at the above address and phone. br 40000� • Huntington Beach LCP Amendmit 2-90 Revised Findings Page 2 I. LCP RACKGROUND AND SUBMITTAL DESCRIPTION: The City of Huntington Beach is located in northern Orange County between the City of Seal Beach and the Santa Ana River with a coastal zone of about five square miles including nine miles of public beach. At the northern end of the City is the Huntington Harbor marina residential and commercial centers. The shoreline contains major state and city beaches with support facilities and a municipal pier. The downtown and townlot areas are a mix of recreational and commercial uses and residential development. Significant oil and energy-related operations, including the Fdison electrical power plant, also exist in the coastal zone along with environmentally sensitive wetland and dune habitat's. Most of the Huntington Beach coastal zone is fully certified. In 1981 the Commission denied the first Huntington Reach Land Use Plan (LUP) as submitted and certified it with suggested modifications which would bring the Plan into conformance with the policies of the Coastal Act. The City incorporated many of the suggested modifications dealing with the downtown area, shoreline access, recreation and visitor facilities, and new development. However, suggested changes to the land uses for areas identified as containing environmentally sensitive habitats, specifically wetlands, were not made. Accordingly, the Commission on November 17, 1982 approved the Huntington Beach LUP in geographic part and denied the geographic parts of the LUP for the areas containing wetland resources. The two geographic parts, or areas of deferred certification (ADC) that were denied are the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) site adjacent to the Rolsa Chica and .the subject 232 acre Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) area. The LUP for the City. minus the two ADC's, was effectively certified on March 15, 1984. The Implementation Plan portion of the LCP for this geographic area was approved by the Commission on March 13, 1985. The Commission approved ICP Amendment 1-90 in December, 1991 which updated, recodified and reformated the Implementing Plan ordinances to incorporate .numerous changes that had been made since its original certification in 1985. The land Use Plan for the Pacific Coast Highway ADC, the subject of the current Amendment request, was certified by the Commission on October B. 1986. A Land Use Plan for the MWD site has yet to be submitted. The subject Pacific Coast Highway ADC is a 232-acre site adjoining the landward side of Pacific Coast Highway between Beach Boulevard and the Santa Ana River (Exhibit 3). In 1983 a wetlands determination by the Department of Fish and Game was conducted within the ADC. That study found that of the 162.6 study area, 149.9 acres contained degraded/historic restorable wetlands. The remaining 12..7 acres of the study area were found to be uplands with 8.7 acres comprising environmentally sensitive coastal dune habitat (southeast of the power plant). willow thickets and transitional vegetation. As a result, four specific land use designations were certified in the LUP. Of the total 2.32 acre area, 124.5 acres are designated Conservation, 84.5 acres Industrial Energy Production, 17 acres Industrial Energy Production/Conservation, and seven (7) acres are designated Visitor-Serving Commercial . The Conservation designation is to assure that only the uses allowed by Section 30233 and 30264 of the Coastal Act along with low intensity recreational uses (public access trails, observation points, picnicing, etc. .) are permitted in the wetlands (Exhibit 5). The City of Huntington Beach is proposing to complete the LCP certification of to i • Huntington Beach LCP Amendnot 2-90 ' Revised Findings Page 3 the Pacific'Coast Highway ADC with the submittal of the zoning maps and zone district ordinances applicable to this area (See Exhibits 1 and 4) . The proposed -40C zoning was submitted around the same time as the comprehensive "clean-up" LCP Amendment 1-90. However, the clean-up amendment submittal had to be completed and approved prior to Commission action on the subject Amendment 2-90 because the amendment relies on many of the changes made in Amendment 1-90. The Commission at the July, 1991 meeting waived the time limit for action on the subject amendment for up to one year. The zoning is intended to bring the total implementation Plan into conformance with the certified Land Use Plan by adding the more restrictive Coastal Conservation district zoning and ordinance standards to the existing base zone of the parcels. The Plan Amendment includes revisions to the Coastal Conservation district ordinance, principally to indicate that the CC zone ordinance will take precedence over any other zone and adds provisions for the removal of the CC suffix to allow the base zone uses. The Implementation Plan Amendment also includes the addition of the Coastal Zone suffix and ordinance standards and uses to the existing base zones. As detailed below, the proposed Plan Amendment is not in conformance with and adequate to carry out the environmentally sensitive resource protection policies of the certified L3nd Use Plan for the area. The Commission is recommending modifications that will bring the proposed amendment into conformance and adequately carry out the provisions of the certified LUP. II. RESOLUTTON FOR REJECTION OF THE AMFNDMFNT TO IMPI.EMENTING ORDINANCES MOTION I I move that the Commission reject the Implementation Plan Amendment 2-90 of the City of Huntington Beach for the Pacific Coast Highway Area of Deferred Certification. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends YES vote which would result in the adoption of the following resolution and findings. An affirmative vote of a majority of the Commissioners present is needed to pass the motion. RESOLUTION The Commission hereby rejects Implementation Plan Amendment 2-90 for the Pacific Coast Highway Area of Deferred Certification in the City of Huntington Beach on the grounds that it does not conform with or is inadequate to carry out the provisions of the Land Use Plan as certified. There are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen any significant adverse impact which the approval of the Implementation Plan Amendment would have on the environment. III. FINDINGS FOR DENIAL AS SUBMITTED The Commission hereby finds and declares as follows: _ I0� Y • Huntington Beach LCP Amendmot 2-90 Revised Findings Page 4 A. PROTECTTON OF ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE HABITAT AREAS 1 . Coastal Conservation Suffix Of particular relevance to this Local Coastal Program amendment is Section 30514 of the Coastal Act which requires the Commission to reject the submitted Implementation Plan Amendment if it is not in conformity with or adequate to carry out the provisions of the certified land Use Plan. The proposed implementation Plan amendment for the Pacific Coast Highway Area of Deferred Certification (ADC) is intended to carry out the provisions of the certified Land Use Plan. The subject area is 232 acres with more than half or 124.5 acres designated 'Conservation' in the Land Use Plan. Another 17 acres are designated Industrial Energy Production/Conservation. The City of Huntington Beach is proposing a unique approach of conforming the zoning of the Pacific Coast Highway ADC to the land use designation of the certified LUP, namely the retention of the base zone with the addition of a more restrictive Coastal Conservation (CC) suffix zone. In principle, this concept is an acceptable means of bringing the zoning into conformance with and carrying out the provisions of the Land Use Plan However, as submitted.. the Implementation Plan Amendment has several deficiencies which will result in an implementation plan inadequate to protect the environmentally sensitive habitat areas, particularly wetlands, found in the subject area. These deficiencies can be resolved by assuring that only those uses specified in Sections 30233(a) and 30264 of the Coastal Act are allowed in wetlands, if there are no less environmentally damAging alternatives and where feasible mitigation measures are provided; by clarifying the circumstances under which the Coastal Conservation suffix can be removed allowing the base zone uses while protecting adjacent wetlands from significant adverse impacts; and that the removal of the CC suffix constitutes a zone change requiring an LCP amendment from the Coastal Commission. The suggested modifications proposed herein will accomplish these objectives and thereby bring the .Amendment Plan into conformance with the certified LUP. The Conservation land use designation was the result of the 1983 Department of Fish and Game (OFG) wetlands study pursuant to Section 30411 of the Coastal . Act (Department of Fish and Came Determination of the Status of the Huntington Beach Wetlands, February 4, 1983) . Section 30411 of the Coastal Act provides for the study of degraded wetlands by the Department in consultation with the Coastal Commission and the Department of Boating and Waterways. The 1983 study found that within the study area, 149.9 acres are historic wetland and 12.7 acres are historic upland (with B.7 ac of the uplands constituting coastal dune habitat). Further, 114.7 acres (76.5%) continued to function viably as wetlands. DFG found that all 114.7 acres were degraded but it was also determined that the wetlands could be restored without major restoration efforts. The study also found that an additional 21 .9 acres were historic restorable wetlands. The remaining 13.3 acres were once wetlands but considered not restorable at the time of the 1983 study (Exhibit 9). Of all the types of environmentally sensitive habitat areas mentioned in the Coastal Act. wetlands and estuaries are afforded the most stringent protection. Coastal Act Section 30233 governs the uses within wetlands. 0,0 4 (1614 Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 2-90 • Revised Findings Page 5 Section 30233 of the Coastal Act states: (a) The diking, filling, or dredging of open coastal waters, wetlands, estuaries, 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 effect's, and shall be limited to the following: (1) New or expanded port, energy, and coastal—dependent industrial facilities, including commercial fishing facilities. (2) Maintaining existing, or restoring previously dredged, depths in existing navigational channels, turning basins, vessel berthing and mooring areas, and boat launching ramps. (3) In wetland areas only, entrance channels for new or expanded boating facilities; and in a degraded wetland, identified by the Department of Fish and Came pursuant to subdivision (b) of -Section 30411 , for boating facilities if, in conjunction with such boating facilities, a substantial portion of the degraded wetland is restored and maintained as a biologically productive wetland. The size of the wetland area used for boating facilities, including berthing space, turning basins, necessary navigation channels, and any necessary support service facilities, shall not exceed 25 percent of the degraded wetland. (4) Tri open coastal waters, other than wetlands, including streams, estuaries, and lakes, new or expanded boating facilities and the placement of structural pilings for public recreational piers that provide public access and recreational opportunities. (5) 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. R (6) Mineral extraction, including sand for restoring beaches, except in environmentally sensitive areas. (7) Restoration purposes. (8) Nature study, aquaculture, or similar resource dependent activities. (b) Dredging and spoils disposal shall be planned and carried out to avoid significant disruption to marine and wildlife habitats and water circulation. Dredge spoils suitable for beach replenishment should be transported for such purposes to appropriate beaches or into suitable long shore current systems. (c) Tn addition to the other provisions of this section, diking, filling, or dredging in existing estuaries and wetlands shall maintain or enhance the functional capacity of the wetland or estuary. Any alteration of coastal wetlands identified by the Department of Fish and Game, including.JC'-N Huntington Beach LCP Amend 2-90 Revised Findings Page 6 but not,limited to, the 19 coastal wetlands identified in its report entitled, "Acquisition Priorities for the Coastal Wetlands of California', shall be limited to very minor. incidental public facilities, restorative measures, nature study, conmercial fishing facilities in Bodega Bay, and development in already developed parts of south San Diego Bay, if otherwise in accordance with this division. For the purposes of this section, 'commercial fishing facilities in Bodega Bay' means that not less than 80 percent of all boating facilities proposed to be developed or improved, where such improvement would create additional berths in Bodega Bay, shall be designed and used for commercial fishing activities. (d) Erosion control and flood control facilities constructed on water courses can impede the movement of sediment and nutrients which would otherwise be carried by storm runoff into coastal waters. To facilitate the 'continued delivery of these sediments to the littoral zone, whenever feasible, the material removed from these facilities may be placed at appropriate points on the shoreline in accordance with other applicable provisions of this division, where feasible mitigation measures have been provided to minimize adverse enviornmental effects. Aspects that shall be considered before issuing a coastal development permit for such purposes are the method of placement, time of year of placement, and sensitivity of the placement area. The subject Pacific Coast Highway wetlands are not one of the 19 enumerated wetlands where development is strictly controlled, as specified in section . 30233(c) . Instead the wetlands are governed by section 30233(a) and the thermal electric generating industrial siting provisions of section 30264. The activities and types of development permitted in wetlands, pursuant to Sections 30233(a) and 30264 of the Coastal Act are as follows: 1 . Port facilities 2. Energy facilities 3. Coastal-dependent industrial facilities, such as commercial fishing facilities 4. Maintenance of existing or restoration of previously dredged depths in navigation channels, turning basins, vessel berthing and mooring areas, and boat launching ramps, 5. Incidental public service purposes which include, but are not limited to, burying cables and pipes, inspection of piers, and maintenance of existing intake and outfall lines, 6. Restoration projects 7. Nature study, aquaculture, or similar resource-dependent activities 8. In wetland areas only, entrance channels for new or expanded boating facilities may be permitted according to the requirements of .Section 30411 , and 9. New or expanded boating facilities in estuaries. The allowable uses of wetland resources contained in the certified land Use Plan mirror the above Coastal Act wetland policies. The certified LUP contains land use designations and policies which protect wetlands resources as required by the above policies of the Coastal Act. The Conservation land use designation of the certified LUP states: S Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 2-90 Revised Findings Page 7 Conservation- Conservation is a new designation intended to protect valuable resource areas in the coastal zone for most types of development. The designation allows only certain low intensity activities which provide public access, so long as the resources being protected are not impaired. Such support activities could include picnic and observation areas, nature trails and peripheral bike paths, informational signs or displays, and peripheral parking areas. This designation .also allows the additional uses outlined in Sections 30233 and 30264 of the Coastal Act under the conditions stated therein. Conservation areas may be publicly or privately owned; however, public access to these areas is encouraged and should be provided where possible. The designation is applied to those areas where only very limited use is best due to the unstable soil conditions and slopes or the existence of significant wildlife habitats or endangered species, and is an important tool for protecting environmentally sensitive habitats and visual resources. Pursuant to the LUP, there must first be a finding that the project is one of the specific enumerated uses set forth in Sections 30233(a) and 30264 of the Coastal Act, in order to approve a project involving the diking, filling or dredging of a wetland or estuary. Tn addition, allowable development- is pe nnitted in these areas only if- there is no other less environmentally damaging alternative and where feasible mitigation measures are provided to minimize adverse environmental impacts. The development must also meet the requirements of all other applicable provisions of the certified LUP. The proposed Implementation Plait Amendment for the Pacific Coast Highway ADC retains the existing base zones for the 149.9 acres containing wetlands and designated Conservation in the Land Use Plan. The only area where the base tone is being changed is the 7 acre Caltrans property along Pacific Coast Highway which the Mills land and Water Company has an option to repurchase (see Exhibit 5). The existing base zoning on this property is Residential Agriculture combined with Oil. Production (RA-0) . The subject amendment request will change the base zone to Visitor-Serving Commercial (VSC). No wetlands were found to exist on the parcel in the 1983 wetlands study. The existing base zones which are being retained for areas identified as containing wetlands are Limited Use District (LUD) , Restricted Manufacturing District combined with Oil Production (MI-A-O), Industrial District combined with Oil Production (M2-0) , Residential Agriculture (RA) , Qualified Recreational Open Space [(Q)ROS], and Visitor-Serving Commercial (VSC) as shown in Exhibit 4. A Coastal Zone (C7-) suffix is also being added to the base zone which restricts the full range of uses normally allowed in the base zone. These base zone districts, as modified by the CZ district, allow uses that are not permitted in wetlands and include agricultural and horticultural uses; horse stables; single family dwellings and accessory buildings; wholesale nurseries; golf courses; country clubs; restricted, light and general manufacturing uses; and administrative offices and services uses. The above uses, which would be allowed by the base zoning, do not fall within the category of low intensity recreational uses for the enjoyment and preservation of the natural resources of the area nor allowable uses under Section 30233 or 30264 of the Coastal Act as required by the certified LUP. The proposed Implementation Plan Amendment therefore does not conform to the certified LUP. The City asserts that the proposed zoning for the Pacific Coast Highway ADC is in conformity with and :adequate to carry out the Conservation land use designation of the certified 1 UP for the area because the modified Coastal 46012 , Huntington Beach LCP Amendm*2-90 Revised Findings Page 8 Conservation (CC) zone ordinance uses and standards will take precedence over all other zone districts for identified wetland areas (see Exhibits 1 and 2). Accordingly, the proposed Implementation Plan amendment adds the CC suffix to the existing zone for the 141 .5 acres which have a Conservation or Industrial Energy Production/Conservation designation in the LUP. The strategy of using a suffix or more restrictive appelation to protect wetlands rather than changing the base zone to reflect the on-site conditions has some merit. Rather than decide whether this strategy is in conformance with the requirement that zoning be consistent with the land use designation, the suffix will be evaluated for its effectiveness in carrying out the goal of protecting environmentally sensitive habitat areas. Appending the CC suffix to the existing underlying zoning is an unusual method of conforming the zoning to the land use designation of the land Use Plan. This alternative was chosen by the City of Huntington Beach after much debate. After Coastal Commission certification of the lUP for the ADC in October, 1986 the City began the process of conforming the zoning to the certified Land Use Plan. As early as October, 1988 the City Attorney expressed concerned over the proposed zoije change (88-18) intended to carry out the conservation land use designation of the certified LUP. In February, 1989 when the City conducted a public hearing on the matter, the City Attorney advised that a zone change to allow only 'conservation' uses may deny the landowners a viable economic use of their property and that the City may be found liable for a taking. The Planning Commission then directed the City staff to prepare a request for withdrawal of the zone change application. The Planning Commission withdrew the. zone change application based on this legal advice. This action was appealed to the City Council in March, 1989. The Council continued the matter and sought an outside legal opinion on the issue of a potential taking. In October, 1989 the Council after obtaining an outside legal opinion, authorized the formation of a citizens wetlands coalition to study alternative land Uses and referred the zone change request back to the Planning Commission. In December, 1989 the Planning Commission approved the zone change only after being modified to retain the current base zoning and to affix a Coastal Conservation (CC) suffix. On February 20, 1990 the City Council approved Zone Change 88-18 as modified along with Resolution 6061 and Ordinance 3033 pursuant to the zone change. The currently certified Implementation Plan for the City of Huntington Beach contains the Coastal Conservation (CC) zone ordinance. The City now proposes to modify the CC zone ordinance in accordance with Zone Change 88-18 in order to carry out the environmentally sensitive habitat protection policies -of the Land Use Plan (see Exhibit 6, proposed Coastal Conservation zone ordinance) . The CC zone ordinance is being recodified and restructured so that the text and format is consistent with the changes that were made to the entire Implementation Plan through LCP Amendment 1-90 ('clean up' amendment) approved by the Commission in December, 1991 . The major changes proposed to the CC district ordinance are the addition of sections 9422.2 and 9422.3 which affixes the CC suffix to an existing base zone to denote and protect environmentally sensitive areas, and provides for the removal of the CC suffix. Additional changes to the Coastal Conservation ordinance are a change in the definition of wetlands and a change to allow new flood control facilities without requiring that they be in conjunction with a habitat restoration plan, as required under the current certified Coastal ordinance. Other significant changes in terminology are proposed which render the Implementation Plan Amendment inconsistent and inadequate to carry out the provisions of the Land Use Plan. '�� t i Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 2-90 Revised Findings t Page 9 The proposed CC zone ordinance on the one hand allows only those appropriate uses designated in the IUP where wetlands are identified. Article 9422.5 allows uses pursuant to a Use Permit and Arcticle 9422.6 allows uses pursuant to a Conditional Use Permit. Only those uses which are consistent with the low intensity recreational uses or allowable wetlands uses specified in Sections 30233(a) and 30264 are allowed pursuant to these two articles. Additionally. Article 9422.7 expressly prohibits any other use or structure not permitted pursuant to the ordinance if a property contains the CC suffix. However, on the other hand, the proposed changes to the CC ordinance allows for the removal of the CC suffix from land containing wetlands by adding an. article, 9422.3 Coastal Conservation suffix-Removal of (see Exhibit 6, page 2 of 8). Once the CC suffix is removed the base zone uses as modified by the CZ district standards, would be permitted. These uses are not allowable in a wetland pursuant to the certified LUP. The removal of the CC suffix is not necessary to develop a parcel with the uses allowed in the LUP and sections 30233(a) and 30264 of the Coastal Act where the property contains wetlands. Therefore, the only justification for the removal of the CC suffix from any parcel is that a site-specific topographic, vegetative, hydrologic and soils analysis indicates that the site does not contain wetlands. As proposed, the CC suffix removal provision Section 9422.3 (Exhibit 6, page 2) is unclear as to the required findings for removal. According to Section 9422.3(a) a finding that, the underlying base is consistent with the coastal element or certified I.UP is one of the necessary findings for the removal of the CC suffix. Most of the underlying base zones are not consistent with the coastal element, except for the CC suffix. None of the base zones are "conservation" while more than half of the area has a Conservation land use designation in the coastal element. Section 9422.3(b) is vague and requires the removal to be consistent with "the policies, standards and provisions of the California Coastal Act". The final required finding is that there is no less environmentally damaging alternative site for any land use or development allowed by Section 30233(a)(1 ) and 302.64 of the Coastal Act. The CC suffix removal procedures for parcels which are subsequently found not to contain wetlands or where the base zone is inconsistent with the coastal element (LUP) land use designation is unclear. Therefore the proposed revised Coastal Conservation ordinance will not carry out the mandate of, nor is in conformity with, the certified Land Use Plan for the protection of wetlands. Therefore the Implementation Plan amendment must be denied as submitted. 2. Wetland definition The City is proposing to remove language from the definition of wetlands. The certified version of the definition contained in the Coastal Conservation district ordinance is: 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 proposed modification to the CC district is to remove freshwater marshes and open or closed brackish water marshes from the wetland definition. The local government's rationale for removal is that no wetlands of these types have been identified in the ADC. Section 30121 of the oastal Act contains a wetland definition which is identical to the definition contained in the Imo.. Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 2-90 Revised Findings Page 10 certified version of the CC ordinance. At some point in the future wetlands of the types proposed to be removed from the definition may be identified within the city. As proposed, the new definition is therefore inadequate to protect all types of wetlands which are afforded protection in the certified Land Use Plan. Therefore the Commission denies the modification to the wetlands definition proposed in the subject LCP amendment. 3. New Flood Control Facilities Within Conservation Areas: The LCP amendment proposes to delete language from the Coastal Conservation District regarding new flood control facilities in Conservation areas. The certified version of the CC ordinance allows new flood control facilities only in conjunction with wetlands restoration. The proposed language states: (d) New flood control facilities in conjunction with plans where necessary for public Safety and to protect existing development in the flood plain. Section 302.33 of the Coastal Act does not identify new flood control facilities as permitted uses. Thus the amendment would allow a use which is inconsistent with the certified LUP. The Commission therefore denies the proposed deletion of the provision that new flood control facilities be approved only if they are part of a habitat restoration project. 4. General Uses The modified CC ordinance recodifies and rearranges the articles so that the format is consistent with the other zoning ordinances. One such proposed change is to create a new article, 9422.4 Uses generally (see Exhibit 6, page 3 of A) . This article states that all uses allowed pursuant to the ordinance must be the least environmentally damaging alternative and employ mitigation measures to minimize any significant adverse environmental impacts. By creating a new general article with this requirement, this statement does not have to be repeated in each article as the certified ordinance now does. The Commission finds that this concept is in conformance with the certified LUP. However, the article uses the term "practical mitigation measures' which is unclear. The certified ordinance requires that "feasible mitigation measures" be provided where necessary. Additionally, the certified ordinance contains a definition of the term "feasible" so there is no ambiguity as to its meaning. The proposed amendment requires "practical" measures be used without defining this term. The Commission therefore finds that the proposed amendment is inadequate to carry out the environmentally sensitive habitat protection provisions of the certified LUP and therefore must be denied. S. Allowable Uses in Wetlands Proposed article 9422.6 refers to conditional uses allowed on parcels with the CC suffix. Properties which have been identified to contain wetlands have the CC zone suffix added. Therefore this article should provide for the consideration of the full range of uses allowed in wetlands pursuant to the certified IMP. The certified LUP potentially allows all of the uses enumerated in Section 302.33 and 30264 of the Coastal Act provided they can meet the test of being the least environmentally damaging alternative and provide feasible mitigation measures to minimize any significant adverse '/�; Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 2-90 Revised Findings ` Page 11 environmental impacts. Because the modified CC ordinance does not allow for habitat restoration projects, commercial fishing facilities or port facilities as specifically enumerated in the certified LUP, the proposed amendmert is not in conformance with the certified Land Use Plan. 6. Mitigation Measures The proposed CC ordinance correctly requires that feasible mitigation measures be incorporated into the design of any approvable project in order to protect environmentally sensitive habitat areas in the new article 9422.10. However as proposed, the mitigation measures employed only have to "moderate" adverse environmental effects. Similar to the use of the term "practical mitigation measures", the meaning of the term "moderate" is unclear. The certified LUP allows only specific uses within wetlands and requires that any development be the least environmentally damaging alternative and provide all feasible mitigation measures width minimize adverse environmental impacts. The certified CC ordinance, article S. 969.7.6, requires that, "all feasible mitigation measures shall be incorporated into projects to minimize adverse environmental effect". The Commission therefore denies the proposed CC ordinance change with regards to mitigation measures as it is not in conformance with and is inadequate to carry out the certified LUP. IV. RESOLUTTON TO CERTIFY THE AMENDMENT TO THE TMPI.EMENTATION PLAN IF MODIFIED: MOTION II. 1 move that the Commission approve the City of Huntington Beach LCP Implementation Plan Amendment 2-90 for the Pacific Coast Highway Area of Deferred Certification if it is modified in conformity with the modifications suggested below. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends a YES vote which would result in the adoption of the following resolution. The motion requires an affirmative vote of the majority of the Commissioners present to pass. RESOLUTION TO CFRTTFY THE IMPIEMENTATION PLAN AMENDMENT IF MODIFIED The Commission hereby approves certification of the City of Huntington Beach Implementation Plan Amendment 2-90 for the Pacific Coast Highway ADC based on the findings set forth below on grounds that the Zoning ordinances, Zoning maps, and other implementing materials conform with and are adequate to carry out the provisions of the Land Use Plan as certified. There are no feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen any significant adverse impact which the approval of the amendment to the Zoning and implementation Program if modified would have on the environment. Huntington Beach LCP AmendmRA-90 Revised Findings Page 12 V. SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS: The Commission hereby suggests the following changes to the Coastal Conservation (CC) and the Coastal Zone (C7) district ordinances which are necessary to bring the Implementation Plan Amendment into conformity with and adequate to carry out the applicable provisions of the certified Huntington Beach Land Use Plan for the subject area. If the local government accepts the suggested modifications by formal resolution of the City Council. the , Implementation Plan Amendment will become effective upon Commission concurrence with the Executive Director finding that this has been properly done. Suggested additions are underlined and deletions are crossed out. . Certification of the Implementation Plan Amendment is subject to the following modifications: 1 . Wetlands Definition 942.2..1(f) Wetland shall mean lands within the coastal zone which may be covered periodically or permanently with shallow water and include salt water marshes, freshwater marshes, open or closed brackish water marshes swamps. mudflats and fens. 2. Development on Geographically Contiguous Parcels Under Common Ownership Add the following article to Coastal Conservation District: 9422.2.1 As applicable to parcels described as Assessors Parcel Numbers: 148-011-01 , 148-011-02, 114-150-76, 114-150-51 , 114-150-53, 114-150-58 and 114-150-55, development of any parcel , or portion thereof, shall be permitted only pursuant to an overall development plan for all above parcels, if at said time of application the parcels are geographically contiguous and under common ownership. As rt of an such a lication the applicant shall include topographic vegetative, hydrologic and soils information, prepared by a Qualified professional and reviewed and concurred in by the Department of Fish and Game, which identifies the extent of any existing wetlands on the property. Conservation easements, dedications or other identified similar mechanisms shall be required over all wetland areas as a condition of development, to assure permanent protection against development inconsistent_with sections 9422.5 - 9422.7. Specific drainage and erosion control requirements shall be incorporated into the project design to ensure that wetland areas are not adversely affected. No further subdivision of any parcel shall be permitted which would have the effect of dividing off environmentally sensitive habitat from other portions of such parcels for which urban uses are permitted in the City's Coastal Element until such time as the Permanent protection on any wetland is assured. Alternatively, if an owner of geographically contiguous parcels wishes to develop only those parcels which have Coastal Element land use designations other than Conservation, the required overall development plan and coastal development permit application is not required to include the wetlands determination as stated above. However a conservation easement, dedication or other identified %linilar mechanism shall he required over all parcels which have a Conservation land use designation. The conservation easement ma be 4PHuntington Beach LCP Amen d-90 Revised Findings Page 13 removed from those parcels or portions thereof which are found not to contain wetlands through a subsequent overall development plan and coastal development permit application which shall include a wetlands determination as specified above. The above drainage and erosion control and no further subdivision provisions also apply under this alternative. Public vehicular traffic (the extension of Hamilton Avenue) shal•1 be permitted in wetland areas governed by a conservation easement provided the road is constructed in a manner consistent with Section 9.4.5. Area 1 (Beach Blvd. to Newland Street) and Section 6. Environmentally Sensitive Habitat of the certified i-and Use Plan. 2a. Development on Geograhpically Contiguous Parcels Under Common Ownership Add the following to the C7- Coastal Zone Suffix district, Article 969.9: 969.9.21 (a) As applicable to parcels described as Assessors Parcel Numbers 148-011-01 , 148-011-02, 114-150-26, 114-150-51 , 114-150-53, 114-150-58, and 114-150-55, development of any parcel or portion thereof, shall he permitted only pursuant to an overall development plan for all above_ parcels, if at said time of application the parcels are geographically contiguous and under common ownership. All provisions of Section 9422.2.1 shall be applicable. 3. Removal of the CC Suffix 947.2.3 Coastal conservation suffix--Removal of. Prior to removal of the Coastal Conservation suffix (-CC), the following findings shall be made: (a)7K�X/KKK/Krf►��t,T��rS�1�l��f�f�'di/d���'��S�t�dr(/�'f/ B.i �+ldf/Ndr(X�rl�zd�f/i3d�ldK( No wetlands exist on the subject parcel as determined by a site-specific topographic, vegetative, hydrologic . and soils analysis of the subject parcel, prepared by a Qualified wetland biologist or other qualified professional and reviewed and concurred in by the Department of Fish and Game: and (b) That the proposed removal of the suffix is in accordance with the policies, standards and provisions of the California Coastal Act; and (c) That there is no feasible, less environmentally damaging alternative site for any proposed land use or development which may be allowed under California Public Resources Code sections 30233(a)(1) and 30264. Any such removal of the Coastal Conservation suffix (-CC) shall constitute an amendment to the Implementation Plan and, if applicable, the land Use Plan portion of the Local Coastal Program. Pursuant to Section 30514 of the Coastal Act, an I.CP amendment shall not take effect unless and until it has been effectively certified by the California Coastal Commission. • Huntington Beach LCP Amends 2-90 Revised Findings Page 14 4. General Uses: 9422.4 The uses set out in this article shall only be allowed where there is no feasible,less environmentally damaging alternative and where Otiffle$7 feasible mitigation measures have been provided. 5. Conditional use permit required: 9422.6(a) New or expanded port, energy and coastal dependent industrial facilities, including commercial fishing facilities. (d) Only in conjunction with restoration plans, new flood control facilities where necessary for public safety and to protect existing development in the flood plain. (j) Habitat Restoration projects. 6. Development standards--Mitigation measures: 942.2.9 Before any application is accepted for processing, the applicant shall meet the following standards of this article, and shall incorporate into the project design any feasible mitigation measures which will a669itifE minimize adverse environmental effects. VI. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL IF MODIFIED:The Commission hereby finds and declares as follows: At the May 12, 1992 public hearing the City of Huntington Beach offered alternative langauge to the April 28, 1992 staff recommended suggested modification pertaining to development on geograhpically contiguous parcels under common ownership (section 942.2.2.1). Additionally, the city requested a similar modification to section 969.9.21 , Coastal Zone suffix district which would reference the development standards of the modified section 9422.2.1 of the CC suffix district. Commission staff subsequently modified the suggested modifications accordingly to incorporate the requested changes by the city. The suggested modifications adopted by the Commission are found in section V of this report. The Commission denied the Implementation Plan amendment as submitted and adopted the findings of denial as contained in section III of this report. The Commission found that the proposed amendment to the CC suffix ordinance, specifically those provisions allowing for the removal of the CC suffix thereby allowing uses in wetlands that are inconsistent with the certified LUP, was not in conformance with and adequate to carry out the Land Use Plan. After lengthly public testimony and Commission discussion the Commission also approved the Implementation Plan amendment with the suggested modifications found in section V of this report. • Huntington Beach LCP Amend& 2-90 Revised Findings Page 15 Several of the affected property owners testified during the public hearing asserting that the 1983 Department of Fish and Game (DFG) wetlands determination was inaccurate and that the Implementation Plan, including the suggested modifications, would severely restrict the use of their properties. The Land Use Plan imposes a land use designation of 'conservation' on all properties that were determined to contain wetlands pursuant to the 1983 DFG determination. The Commission found that an Implementation Plan amendment public hearing is not the appropriate time to argue land use designations contained in the land Use Plan. Any property owner has always had the right to seek a Land Use Plan amendment to change the conservation land use designation if he can substantiate that wetlands are not present through a . site specific analysis of the site. The Commission further found that the Implementation Plan, as modified by suggested modification 3, contains a procedure for the removal of the CC suffix and thus the restrictive wetlands uses if wetlands are found not to be present on a given parcel. Some of the property owners argued that the uses allowed pursuant to the Implementation Plan are not sufficient. The Commission found that the Implementation Plan as modified allows precisely the same uses within wetlands as section 302.33 and 302.64 of the Coastal Act. Therefore a challenge to the validity of the Implementation Plan is essentially a challenge to the Coastal Act. On their face, the uses allowed under sections 30233(a) and 30264 are economically viable uses of land. The Commission approved the Implementation Plan amendment as modified in section V finding that it is in conformity with and adequate to carry out the wetland protection policies of the certified Land Use Plan while allowing for the range of land uses as specified in sections 30233 and 30264 of the Coastal Act. Below are additional specific findings to support each of the modifications contained in section V of this report: Modification 1 — Wetlands Definition The suggested modification to the proposed revisions to the wetland definition will restore the original language contained in the certified CC ordinance. The local government rationale for the revision is that the new wetlands definition more accurately reflects the types of wetlands currently found in the ADC. The Commission however finds that the previous wetland definition is consistent with the Coastal Act definition (Section 30121) and more fully describes potential wetland types. This definition is the one used in the certified LUP and therefore must be retained in order to conform with the LUP. Modifications 2. and 3 — Coastal Conservation Suffix The certified land Use Plan contains policies to protect existing and future wetlands currently identified to exist on more than half the subject ADC area. Wetlands are among the most stringently protected environmentally sensitive habitat types under the Coastal Act. In 1986 with the certification of the Land Use Plan, the Commission recognized the special role of wetlands in the ecosystem and approved the Conservation land use designation on all land where wetlands were identified pursuant to the 1983 Department of Fish and Game determination. Further, as required by Sections 30233(a) and 30624 of the Coastal Act the certified I.UP set forth certain uses allowed in wetland areas. ��O . , 0 Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 2-90 Revised Findings Page 16 The City is proposing zoning on the sites within the ADC that allows the base zones to remain with the addition of the CC suffix. The existing base zones are, Limited Use District (LUD) , Restricted Manufacturing District (MI-A) , Industrial District (M2) , Residential Agriculture (RA) , Recreational Open Space (ROS) and Qualified (Q). The uses allowed pursuant to the base zones are listed above. Additionally, the previously certified Coastal Zone (CZ) and Flood Plain (FP1 and FP2) districts will be applied to all parcels in the ADC. The CZ district ordinance restricts the range of permitted uses otherwise allowed in the base zone categories. However, the CZ ordinance still allows uses which are not allowed in wetlands pursuant to the certified LUP. With the proposed additions to the CC ordinance the CC suffix can be removed from parcels containing wetlands and allow the base zone uses, as modified by the CZ ordinance. Only with the suggested modifications to the CC and CZ ordinance can the proposed zoning be found to conform with and adequately carry out the provisions of the certified land Use Plan for the protection of existing -and future wetlands while allowing for appropriate uses. As modified, the removal provisions of the Coastal Conservation ordinance explicitly states the rationale for removal and provides that protection 'will be given to adjacent. . wetlands that might be impacted by the change in zoning. If a site specific wetlands determination at the time of an application for a coastal development permit indicates that wetlands are not present on a parcel, the CC suffix can be removed and the base zone uses can be permitted, provided the adjacent wetlands are protected. However, if a parcel or a portion thereof is found to contain wetlands, the CC suffix shall not be removed and only those uses specified in Sections 9422.5 and 9422.6 of the CC ordinance can be permitted- on the wetlands portion of the property, provided the development is the least environmentally damaging alternative and feasible mitigation measures necessary to minimize any significant adverse impacts to the wetlands resources are provided. Suggested modifications 2 and 3 make it clear that (1) parcels found to contain wetlands shall retain the CC suffix; (2) adjacent wetlands shall be protected; and (3) the removal of the CC suffix constitutes a zone change requiring an LCP amendment which must be approved by the Coastal Commission. Suggested modification 2 requires an overall development plan for contiguous parcels in common ownership where both wetlands and uplands are present. Commission staff had initially recommended that the geographically contiguous uplands and wetlands parcels under common ownership be tied through a conservation overlay zone. This type of conservation overlay zoning is currently being used in the portion of the city which has a fully certified LCP, namely along the west side of Beach Boulevard adjacent to the subject ADC. The certified LCP utilizes several resource overlays in addition to the Conservation Overlay concept. However the City of Huntington Beach objected to the overlay zoning and recommended that these parcels be subject only to a requirement of an overall development plan. The Commission found that an overall development plan for contiguous upland and wetland parcels under common ownership accomplishes essentially the same goal of integrated planning. The development plan concept provides the landowner and the local government with information pertaining to all contiguous land holdings so that the development potential can be fully analyzed, the environmentally sensitive habitat areas identified and only the appropriate uses are allowed in wetland areas. Pursuant to an overall development plan the uplands could be develo ed with the base zone use provided that any necessary feasible mitigation measures are incorporated to protect the adjacent wetlands. '�p ' Huntington Beach LCP Amend rt 2-90 Revised Findings Page 17 A property owner of contiguous wetland and upland parcels is not required to have a wetlands determination prepared on the parcels designated conservation if no development of those parcels are proposed. Although a coastal development permit application must still include all contiguous parcels under common ownership for comprehensive planning purposes, the owner may simply record a temporary conservation easement over the parcels previously identified in the 1983 DFG wetlands determination as containing wetlands in order to protect the environmentally sensitive habitat area. The conservation easement may be removed from those parcels or portions thereof which are found not to contain wetlands through a subsequent overall development plan at the time development is proposed for these parcels. This alternative allows the property owner of contiguous' wetland and upland parcels to avoid a costly and time consuming wetlands determination if development is not proposed on parcels containing wetlands. However the requirement that the coastal development permit application which seeks approval for development of the uplands only must include the contiguous wetland parcels so that an analysis of the development potential _of the entire land holding can occur in a - comprehensive manner. This procedure will assure the protection of the wetland resources while allowing the developer to proceed with upland development in a timely manner. Modification 2a was requested by the city. Tt adds a new section to the CZ suffix district. All parcels of land within the coastal zone contains the CZ suffix and thus are subject to the requirements of this district. The modification is intended to reference the overall development plan requirement of the specified contiguous parcels as contained in the modified CC suffix zone. Finally, the suggested modification allows for the extension of Hamilton Avenue through the wetlands between Beach Blvd. . and Newland Street (see Exhibit 5, page 2) . However any road through the wetlands must be consistent with the certified Land Use Plan provisions. The Commission in April , 1987 adopted findings for the 1986 approval of the road through the wetlands. Those findings state that: The Commission finds that the precise alignment of Hamilton Avenue can not be approved without the necessary environmentally damaging feasible alternative is the chosen alternative. However, the Commission finds that there is a need to provide an alternative route paralleling Hwy. . 1 for public safety needs. The Commission further finds that such minimization of impacts shall include, at a minimum: (1) placing of the roadway in an alignment which is most protective of wetland habitats, which may require the entire road to be constructed on pilings or other road designs such as bridging over the wetlands, (2) limiting the width of the roadway by narrowing lanes and eliminating shoulders, and (3) requiring full mitigation for any impacted wetlands. The Commission also finds that the EIR, which will need to be done before this project could occur, will need to adequately address the alternative alignments for Hamilton Ave. and will need to address the mitigation needs generated from each alternative. Section 9.4.5, Area 1 of the Coastal Element or LUP refers to the subarea (Oq • Huntington Beach LCP Amendmik 2-90 ' Revised Findings Page 18 between Reach Blvd. . and Newland Street. The Plan allows for the extension of the road through the wetlands and states: The Hamilton Avenue extension will be constructed in such a way as to minimize impacts on the wetland. This includes raising the entire structure on piling if necessary. Appropriate mitigation shall be provided. It is the City's intent that no net loss of wetland occur. Any wetland which is filled or reduced in productivity by the project will be replaced by restoring otherwise degraded or non-functioning wetland as close as feasible to the project site. Any extension of Hamilton Avenue shall be done in accordance with the above LUP provisions. Therefore, for the reasons stated above, the Commission finds the suggested modifications are necessary to bring the proposed Implementation Plan Amendment into conformance with and adequately carry out the Conservation land use designation of the certified Land Use Plan for the area. Modification 4 - Uses generally The Conmission finds that this modification is necessary in order to bring the Plan Amendment into conformity with the mitigation requirements of the certified LUP. The LUP requires and defines "feasible" mitigation measures. The term "practical" mitigation measures is ambiguous and is not defined in the LUP or the Plan Amendment. Modification 5 - Conditional use permits The Commission finds that this modification is necessary to allow for the potential of the full range of uses and developments that are allowed in wetlands, pursuant to the certified IUP. While currently there may not be plans for port or commercial fishing facilities within the Pacific Coast Highway ADC, these are allowable uses n a wetlands provided the use is the least environmentally damaging alternative and feasible mitigation measures are provided. These uses are also provided for in the certified LUP. The modification will restore the original language of the ordinance regarding the provision of new flood control facilities in a wetlands. The Commission notes that new flood control facilities are not one of the enumerated uses allowed in a wetland pursuant to section 30233 of the Coastal Act or the certified LUP. However wetland restoration projects are allowable uses. Therefore a new flood control facility in conjunction with a wetlands restoration project could be an allowable use provided it is consistent with the environmentally sensitive habitat protection policies of the LUP. Wetlands restoration projects are practical uses in degraded and restorable wetlands. A successful wetlands restoration project was implemented at the wetlands at the eastern end of the ADC located between Brookhurst Blvd. . and the Santa Ana River. The Commission finds that only as modified to add the full potential of uses allowed in wetlands is the Implementation Plan Amendment consistent with the certified LUP. Modification b - development standards - mitigation measures The certified LUP requires that any development approved in a wetland be the least erivir•onmPntally damaging alternative and provide feasible mitigation measures nec:e%%ary to minimize any significant adverse environmental impacts. Kin . • Huntington Beach LCP Amendot 2-90 Revised Findings Page 19 The Iinplemeritation Plan Amendment requires that adverse impacts be only "moderated". This term is not defined and is therefore ambiguous. The suggested modification requires that the original 'anguage be retained thereby assuring conformity with the certified LUP. VII. CEQA FINDINGS Pursuant to SB 1B73, which amended the California Environmental Quality Act the Coastal Commission is the lead agency in terms of meeting California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements for local coastal programs. In addition to making a finding that the implementation plan amendment is in full ' compliance with CEQA, the Commission must make a finding that the least environmentally damaging feasible alternative is chosen. Section 21080.5(d)(2)(i) of the Public Resources Code requires that the Commission not approve or adopt an LCP: . . .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. As outlined in section III of this report, the local government considered several methods of conforming the zoning for the subject area to the land use' designations and resource protection provisions of the certified Land Use Plan. The chosen alternative, to retain the base zoning and to append the Coastal Zone (CZ) and Coastal Conservation (CC) zone suffixes to them, was found to be in non-conformance and inadequate to carry out the environmentally sensitive habitat protection policies of the Land Use Plan. The proposed changes to the CC ordinance, specifically the provision allowing for the removal of the CC suffix which would have the effect of allowing uses in a wetland inconsistent with the certified I.UP, were also found to be not in conformance with the certified LUP. CEQA requires the Commission to make the finding that the implementation plan is the least environmentally damaging feasible alternative. The Commission finds that there are no feasible mitigation measures available that could substantially reduce adverse environmental impacts. For the reasons discussed in this report, the Implementation Plan Amendment, as modified by the Commission herein, is the least environmentally damaging feasible implementation alternative and that there are no feasible mitigation measures available that could substantially reduce adverse environmental impacts. The Commission further finds, therefore, that the Implementation Plan Amendment, as modified, is consistent with Section 21080.5(d)(2)(i) of the Public Resources Code. 6292E 9los )*. �1 • _ .._. City of Huntington Beach t ' 2M MAIN 57AEET CALIFORNIA2A 64E . DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 6ut16�n;Olvisivn 536.5241 Planninz Division 536.5Z71 April 4, 1990 APR 1 S 1990 ' CA11;04RIA . _ • Charles Damm CoAs1A1 :(.oN A15S10H South Coast District Director &DXS CORS1 DISTRICt. California Coastal Commission South Coast Area 245 West Broadway, Suite 360 Long Beach, California 90802 SUBJECT: HUNTINGTON BEACH LOC-kL COASTAL PROGRRl4 A.NDJ NT ?ii0. • 90-1 . Dear Xr.,..Damn: The City of Huntington Beach is -submitting Local Coastal Program ;x,endnent (LCPA) No. 90-1 and pursuant to Section 13551(a) of the California Coastal Act intends to carry out the LCP Amendment in a manner fully consistent with the California Coastal Act. The LCPA 2:o. 90-1 includes a zone change acted upon by the Huntington Beach City Council within the non-certified O hitehole' area. Pursuant to Section 13552 (b) , the subject location and full description- contained in the Huntington Beach LCPA No. 90-1 is as follows: A 232 acre area identified as the non-certified •Whitehole• area located on the inland side of Pacific Coast Highway extending between Beach Boulevard and the Santa Ana River. On February. 20, 1990, the City Council approved Zone Change No. 88-28 for this area which: 1) designates a 7.0 acre parcel as Visitor Serving Commercial; 2) amends the toning on a 55 acre and a 28 acre parcel to affix a Coastal Zone (CZ) suffix; and 3) applies the Coastal Conservation (CC) suffix to the existing toning on the remaining 142 acres. rnelosed please find copies of all written documents pertaining to the zone change request included in the Huntington Beach LCPA NO. :s 90-2. In addition, toning maps reflecting the previous and propoked - land use designations are Included. Li F __.. I0 April 4 , *1990 Fa-e Two Pursuant to Section 13551(a) of Article 15 of the California Coast Commission Regulations, a resolution was presented for adoption to the City Council on Xarch 19, 1990, which adopted the amendment to the Huntington Beach LCPA No. 90-2, The adopted Huntington Beach City Council resolution is included in the Huntington Beach LCPA 24 90-1 request. Also, as provided in Section 13551 (b) , the City is submitting Huntington Beach LCPA No. 9D-1 which will take effect automatically upon Coastal Commission approval. The following is a discussion pursuant to Section 13552(b) (c) of tl Coastal Act concerning the zone change request included in the Huntington Beach LCPA No. 90-1 and the relationship to, and effect on, other sections of the Certified Local Coastal Program. The City Council approved Zone Change No. 88-18 on the subject 232 acre area extending from Beach Boulevard to the Santa Ana River on the inland side of Fadific Coast Highway. This zone change designates a 7. 0 acre parcel as visitor Serving Commercial ; . affixes a Coastal Zone (-CZ) suffix to a 55 acre end a 28 area parcel; and applies a Coastal Conservation (-CC) suffix to the remaining 142 acres. In addition this zone change Will assist in the implementation of the Coastal Act policies (Chapter 3; Sections 30230, 30231, 30240, 30251, 30260, 30262) . This zone change will help maintain marine resources and their biologic productivity. Limited coastal-dependent and industrial development may be permitted where appropriate. Coastal Act policies will be implemented by this zone change pursuant to Section 9422.2 of the City of Huntington Beach Division 9 of the Ordinance Code. The proposed Huntington Beach LCPA No. 90-1 which includes Zone Change No. oB-18 is submitted pursuant to Section 13511 of the California Coastal Commission Administrative Regulations which 'L conforms to the requirements of Chapter 6 of the Coastal Act. The subject area is located in' a non-certified area of the City. This zone change requires Commission approval and is proposed to achieve consistency with the Coastal Commission's previously certified land use plan for the area (approved on April 13, 1987) . Approval of this request would constitute the final step is certification of the subject area and the City's Local Coastal Program. This zone change is consistent with the objectives and policies contained in the Coastal Element of the City's General Plan. These Policies address visitor-serving facilities (Section 3.6.2.2), visual resources (Section 3.6.2.3) water and marine resources (Section 3. 6 .2.4) , environmentally sensitive habitats (Section 3.6.2.5) , and energy (Section 3. 6.2. 6) . $A April 4, '1990 Page Three On October 4, 1988, the Planning Commission held a public hearing ( the proposed zone change. The meeting was advertised in the local newspapers. In addition, the Coastal Commission and other concern( agencies were notified at Ieast 10 days prior to the public hearing. Comments pertaining to the proposed zone change were addressed at the public hearing. At that time, the City Attorney requested that this Item be continued to a later date so that legal ramifications of the zone change could be assessed. The Planning Commission continued the item to the December 6, 1988 meting. On the December 6, 1988, the Planning Commission held an open publi hearing continued from October 4, 1988, on the proposed zone change. At that meeting the City Attorney advised staff to withdrai the zone change application. Rather than withdraw the -zone change, the Planning Concnission continued the item to a study session on February ?, 1989, to consider processing the zone change. f On February ?, 1989, the Planning .Commission held a study session of Zor.e Change No. 88-18. At that study session, the City Attorney advised the Commission that the zone change may deny the subject Iandowners a viable ecomonic use of their property and that the Cit1 may be found liable for a taking. Based on that Information, the Conmission directed staff to prepare a request for withdrawal of the zone change application for action on February 22, 1989. On February 22, 1989, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on Zone Change No. 88-18. The meeting was advertised in the local r.ewsrarers. In addition, the Coastal Commission and other concerned agencies were notified at 7east- 10 days prior to the public hearing. Comments pertaining to- the proposed Zone Change were addressed at the public hearing. At that meeting the Planning Commission took formal action to withdraw the zone change. Subsequently, the Planning Commission's action was appealed to and heard by the City Council on March 20, 1989. On March 20, 1989, the City Council held a public hearing on the appeal of the Planning Commission's withdrawal of Zone change wo. 88-18. The meeting was advertised in the local newspapers. In addition, the Coastal Commission and other concerned agencies were notified at least 10 days prior to the public hearing: Comments pertaining to the appeal of the Planning Commission's action were addressed at the public hearing. At that meeting Council took action to obtain a second legal opinion on the issue and continued the appeal for 60 days pending receipt of the legal opinion. Egli I April 4, '1990 Page Four At the October lb, 1989, meeting the City Council discussed the second Iegal opinion and continued open the public hearing. The Council took action on the appeal of the Planning Commission's action to withdraw the Zone Change No. 88-18. The City Council mad three recommendations. There were 1) Refer Zone Change No. 88-18 back to the Planning Commission for action and zoning recommendations consistent with the Certified Land Use Plan of the area; 2) Authorize the formation of a wetlands coalition consisting of property owners responsible agencies, the City, consaivation, ant Interest group representatives to study alternative land uses for the area; 3) Direct staff to work with the coalition to prepare a land use plan and explore various land planning techniques such as specific plans and Transfer Development Right's Programs. At the November 23, 1989, meeting the Council approved a list of participants for the wetlands coalition and directed staff to make preparations for theddroup. At the December S, 1989, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on Zone Change 88-18. Thd meeting was advertised in the local newspapers. In addition, the Coastal Commission and other concerned agencies were notified at least 10 days prior to the public hearing. Corr„-r,ents pertaining to the proposed zone change were addressed at the public hearing. At that meeting staff recor—.men6ed modifications to the proposed zone change. The zone change was modified to retain existing zoning and add the Coastal Conservation suffix on the subject property. The following findings for approval were prude: 1. The proposed zone change is consistent with the General plan designations adopted by Council and the Coastal Commission because it recognized the goals of the Land Use Plan; 2 . The proposed zone change is compatible with surrounding General Plan designations of Medium Density Residential and Low Density residential; 3. The proposed zone change will not create adverse impacts on the surrounding uses because it is designed to protect the identified wetlands; 4 . The proposed zone change is consistent with the goals and policies of the Coastal Commission and the City's Coastal Land Use Plans and reconciles the inconsistency between the Land Use Plan and Implementation Plan. The Planning Commission approved Zone Change No. 88-180 as modified, and forwarded the item to the City Council for adoption. On February S, 1990, the City Council held a public hearing on the proposed zone change. The meeting was advertised in the local newspapers. In addition, the Coastal Commission and other concerned agencies were notified at least 10 days prior to the public hearing. Comments pertaining to the proposed zone change Were addressed at the public hearing. The Council continued the public" hearing open to February 20, 1990. F)/- 11 1 lbll- IOW cm- f}�G G April 4 , 1# Pbge Five On February 20, 1990, the City Council held an open public hearing continued from February 5, 1990. At that meeting, the City Counei: approved Zone Change No. BE-IS to designate a 7.0 parcel to Visitol Serving Commercial, to apply the Coastal Zone (CZ) suffix, to the t acres of existing Edision facilities, and to affix the Coastal Conservation (CC) suffix to the existing zoning on the remaining 14 acres in order to achieve consistency with the adopted Land Use Fla and to complete certification of the subject area and the •Local .Coastal Program. The Council also approved a Resolution No. 6119 and Ordinance No. 3033 .pursuant to said zone change. The first reading of Ordinance No. 3033 occurred at the City Counct meeting of March 19, 1990. The second ,•reading of the Ordinance too, place on April 2, 1990. Regarding the public hearings, all legal notices made reference the! the staff reports weft available for public review in the Huntingto3 Beach Public Library and in the Co7mu pity Development Department, 2000 Train Street, Huntington beach; California 92648. Enclosed are the certified minutes of the public hearings, where public . testimoni was given. During the public hearing process, staff made every effort to maximize public participation in the process. I This concludes the discussion of the proposed Huntington Beach LCPA No. 90-2. Pursuant to Section 15265 of the California Environmental Quality Act, Zone Change No. Be-IS is classified exempt. Section 25265 states that CEQA does not apply to approvals by any local government pursuant to the preparation of a local costal program. Rather, the burden of CEQA compliance is incorporated within the certification process of local coastal programs. In addition, pursuant to Section 13552(a) , enclosed you Will find the measures taken to ensure public participation: a list of public hearing dates, public hearing notices indicating where and when published, a mailing list of all people notified for the zone change, and a sumnary of comments received at the public hearings. Please refer to the enclosed public hearing minutes for those public commentors on the subject zone change. also, enclosed please find staff 's response to public comments received at the public hearings. April '40 1990 Page Six ?hank you for your cooperation in this matter. If you should have any questions regarding the completeness of this submittal or any detail of the Huntington Eeach LCPA No. 90-2, please Do not hesitatf to contact Ruth Lambert, Assistant Planner, or myself at (714) 536-5271. Sin,cerel • ' Nike Adams Director of Community Development Enclosed: . Supplemental Information, Huntington Beach IXPA No. 9-0-1 N.A:RLL:lab (5302d) /4a4q ril-&-,i ec, PG - RESOLUTION NO. . 6190 A RESOLUTION OF THE HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AN.ENDJI.ENT NO. 90-1 (ZONE CF.ANGE NO. 88-IB FOR THE `WHITEHOLE'AREA) MAEREAS, after notice duly given pursuant to Government Caft §65090 and Public Resources Code §§30503 and 30510, the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach held public hearings to consider the adoption of the Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 90-1, and such amendment was recommended to the Aity Council for adoption; and The City Council, after giving notice as prescribed by 1i held at least one public hearing- on the proposed Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 90-1, and the Council finds V r Proposed amendment is consistent with the certified Huntington Be Coastal Land Use Plan and Chapter 6 of the California Coastal Act and The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach intends implement the Local Coastal Program in a manner fully consistent with the California Coastal Act; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE. 2T RESOLVED by the City Council of. th City of Huntington Beach that the Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 90-1, consisting of the following changes a- as set forth on Exhibit We attached hereto, and by this referee incorporated herein, is hereby adopted: v NT(NTJ i Various districts within the 232 acre noncertified "whitehole' area are designated as follows: I. The 7.0 acre parcel depicted as Aiea A on Exhibit A designated as VSC-CZ-FP2 (Visitor Serving Commercial within the Coastal Zone within a Flood Plain) , and 2. The 55.0 acre parcel depicted as Area H and a 27.0 a portion of a 28 .0 acre parcel depicted as Area I on Exhibit A, are designated as M2-0-CZ-FP2 (Industrial District within an Oil District within a Flood Plain and the remaining 1 .0 acre portion of Area' I is designaoted as M1-A-CZ-FP2 (Restricted Manufacturing within the Coastal Zone within a Flood Plain) , and 3 . The Zoning of the pArcels depicted as Areas B, C, D, F, G, and J on Exhibit A is changed by affixing a Coastal Conservation suffix and the Coastal Zone suf to the existing zoning. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that pursuant to Coastal Commissi -Regulations §13551(b) , Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 90-1 will take effect automatically upon Coastal Corrinission approval pursuant to Public Resources Code §§30512, 3t and 30519. � 1� LC •� L� qq -2- t PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beech at a regular meeting thereof held on the IS day o f June 1990. This Resolution shall become effective upon approval of the California Coastal Comm�ssiou. it •-1 Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS 0 FORM: City Clerk City Attorney ✓may �• •�G REVIEW AND APPROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVED: City Administrator Director of Community Development Exh Z I 0 b10 —3— • - Res. No. bibG STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY 6F ORANGE tt: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH I, CONNIE BROCKWAY* the duly elected, qualified City Cler of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole „umber 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 rdqular meeting thereof held on the 18th day of June _, 19_.on , by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers: MacAllister, winchell . Green. Mgvs, Bannister, F`rakinP NOES: Councilmembers: Nnne ABSENT: Councilmembers: Si]va ABSTAIN: Couciimembers: None • ��Y7✓l'I.GG r�� . • The fottroinf instrument is a Cotttd City Clerk and ex-officio Cler, copy of the or,p?r, f on file in this Off)= of the City Council of the Cit; .,.Attest._,__g;/ 19 9G� C0Nyj.L.E of Huntington Beach, California '-' City Cltrk tic Ex•c:;:cio C!!:+ of the M LL' • Council of the City of Hurtinfion Beach Ey.,1 l 11.1/�` California. s fC 14 Gt-CP CL4: 1-7 C,G �. G f 7 acres► � � . t�.ws�s ..a.n , • sUlm sus AREA M" '4 �*ra.►►�wpss _ la�w4 ��G1, for HUN'TINSTON EACH PLANNING DMSION G L- t ` Map ( ) 904 r ;111j1 �V I e 4•�f� ♦ ��III� � • I 1, r ' X • • IY' •' ?�,: ' Kati ,cS% I 'jo ' r ?����' \ •fib .Q 1 r_ I��Ilrr�wrr^����' A PAS •: Y L OF 'Or =.r.t roo" �A 9�t •r 1 iSI.CZ.F r hh �\ r-1 Z•FPZ nnurl m1'F N• 11 .c+•c \�- ��- K,prrrrrra �...,r sl•CL•r►t j� r,r.r. C)) FP2 51-CZ-FPZ 51•CZ-FP2 srtt•rK ,,r111 f�f � :r� 1e�gr T.\K, r:ra ', Illlf� �!�!T1t1R1111111TI11Tf11ftiT1 r. •1 1�1. r r Kc•w �t T �4 (Zorle •, ,- Y� 1 r ' � V . a • as ��'�•�•� �� � a v �+tea � �'•,• � „d.', �Ir� II 1'� I�1 I ,�,�� I� II (� � '�,•-� !� '%� �✓ LAMP Ui�pe fLA14 roll tp • (� �.;.r,.�,!•�`♦ fi';'ll I,�II. I��I I�'� .;I�) .J�IIIInnI1I� I' I I��1 '�I •!� � �.�� 'r.�� �- "�,� ' •C.s,wunor •��.•1;.�• ••,..2:'• t•� III 1'. '�I III U,. � � `'�,=;-. - :�:{{��...-. O(•1 �... 10�+11/1�1411� '�►�.�•.�•. �..-. L� �j��II III ,1 � � I ( J /1111'{.till{{.11. r.�rr�. .t.'�_. r. ��.� .'rJ. o •'li I� �` ,�� i�I ,� ` I . ._-.a•�,r-- ;�• , , OIv �- 111 •,•'-r.�'�� ��':'•YI.- IIII�,II(11 ��(I!I I." iII�•I��I�I11J��•.r.{/ �;''�i•��'�.'.,.�- ��ci:%i% %''%•y:: i ' OC• �'(,%,,.'.•I�1.+)'�� � •'llll��1���II'�Il.n��.11 ,• ill• .! •�� ,��'I j�ii i.: 'i-i t% 'i�i�,f/j-:�.l��I ••, • 4 �h/ �� •�'•; "•r,�..•• I111�,I'illljfl ll.�� Ill.11lli i •„•+7. �:..] '�')�:���•'{�""•..�. ...�•/ 1�/rI','y� �. �. '_+.� rt ••• ,\� �;. •�."1 �. III I I II�I I� ( ( �1�.-�I�t-.. '•�l � �•..�/.�:j.• �.'t�:��t ,/r�!�•-�:.' ''�Y. __ _•3: l."'-1�;y 1 � ,� • �:, ..�.f}li Lam'��•.7�:.+. .•._:,,��{ .... _ �� �I I��� ��� �I���I�II�► ��lil i� :. :..:, - 66i at AreaAmok � ..} Ez111s1f A VISITOR SEI;um CQImIAL- 1UCM EXIEIIS1011 ly c011SU AtIaI ,cam► NONCERTIFIED COASTAL AREAS IIIDUSRTIAL ENERGY PRODIK11011 �(G�(�W��� w..r■.G alwlwli • JI in. cir-my PROD./ COU:ENAT11A ,.i NX . ` ♦ t ���. ````` I 1 (.IIII I,r ,II�iI' I�IIIr;�• I I �' \,�� 1� f�i��. v r �'` �I`�;: �,� Iw II�4�I 1•r'U 11 i �.I�rrll�III(fl�il � i� � �i v� �! .,e� •",• III u' I 11 11 �I ' al • '*.�i•�i-' �;'_��1 ��''� (YuI II IIUII��IUI'I III ^III•Inl�l!I"�n11 III I I ill 11I tZ� ��, � /tSiitCi►�tMC(t,►IJ1MT -�• �� ~�• , O� �{II�II IIIIrIr l 11 IIIIIII/1 11 s a/�� C .�'`' I /�•; •i. / .'-., ►r�.i/i /. .• !•• .ram O IIIIIIIII�I All f I'I.rl I�I iI ice;...:;- '..•��,,"•����i �f;i�r'�r �'��7��/"�'�f�' ✓ . C�� h-1 •• I f''I'�1l yl W � II „I� �!� i�ii/.�:ii1 Ji��� �I• '�ir'li�"'�r�: il��' �t'+11�:I a•'a.`t•.�: _ I wYiljtll Ill f � . .3i�%i• I.�ji%J.�.y/';�J. I�/�i''A.�r/ f'.)��1,•�'�', ��"'Sj.. ,•",I���.�',a�.�,.� -igtrr.. 1Id �lij.y�1�J�/1� ►:. �s�• / ' I` Iy� ..� j �J'♦ t .�.fALYN.WA'llllM. i 55 news 10 iw yrS 1 ��'•S J 7a S 17 MWvS 5(p acres . t 1� �y w �rf� f 1 tr�1 117 et 1nN VISITM .7Fr InG tA'NEPTIAL rrrrrIMIILTCiI UMNSION CMSERVATIOI ► NONCERTIFIED -+s A FpPO\SP I-AN? q�1 COASTAL AREAS I I IMKTIAL VIERGY P!tMXTIM ,�me4c.,� .,,,a, CAFOI"UbF. . •.. IN. E�I-;MY mom coHsEvATim 232 Aws— oj 9421 . 1 Permitted uses. (a) The following uses shall be permitted: S. beaches P. Private boat ramps, slips, docks, cantilevered decks, windscreens and boat hoists in conjunction with adjacent single family dwellings Public boat ramps and piers L (b) Conditional use permit. The following public and semipublic uses sr.all be permitted subject to the approval of a conditional use permit by the planning commission: B. Boat related activity Boat slipf - D. Docks t, marine fueling docks,," S. Sight-seeing vessels Sport fishing W. heater taxi service "(Ord, 2662, 2 Oct 66; Ord. 2752, 4/85; Ord. 2704, 7/84; Ord. 2659, 12/83) 9421 . 2 Development standards. (a) No use shall be sited or designed so as to obstruct public access to any sandy beaer or public use area. (b) No deck or structure shall extend more than five (5) feet over or in front of any bulkhead in any channel except f o a landing or brow for access to a gangway for a dock. No structure shall extend beyond the bulkhead in an area identi- fied as envitonm-entally sensitive such as, but not linited to, eelarass begs and mudflats. (Ord. 2662, 2 Oct 66; Ord. 2752 </H; Ord. 2704, 7/84) 9422 General provisions--Coastal conservation district. The i,urpose of the coastal conservation District is to imple- atent the general p]an land use designation of open space eon- :ervation, and proviJe for protection, maintenance, restoration and enhancement of Wetlands and environmentally sensitive habi. tat areas located within the cc.astal zone while permitting appropriate land uses. (Ord. 28881 31 Dec 86; Ord. 2862, .I 10/86) 7/67 on Berc. l o At� c- LIP-& Hh Caa s4a I censer blS*fir iG f- orc{inc. • 9122. 1 Definitions. The following words and phrases sha be construed as defined herein unless the context clearly Ind gates otherwise: (a ) rnercy facility sh911 mean any public or private processing, procucin�g, generating, storing, trbnsvitting, or recovering facility for electricity) natural gas, petroleum, coal , or other source of energy. (b) Tnvironrentell sensitive (habitat ) area 3oal2 r.ean e • wetland or any area in which plant or animal life or their habitats are either rare or especially valuable because of their special nature or .role in an ecosystem and which could k easily disturbed or degraded by hurr.an activities and develop- (c) Feasible shall mean capable of being accomplished in successful nannertwithin a reasonable period of tir,,e# taking into account economic, social , and technological factors. (d) Functional capacity ,e.I neap` the ability of * an environmentally sensitive area to be self-sustaining and to rr,aintain natural species diversity. . (e) Significant disruption shall r^tan having a substantial ti adverse effect upon the functional capacity. (f ) t^etlend shall rr,ean ]ands within the coastal zone which rr,ay be covered periodically or permanently with shallow water and include salt water nershes, swamps, mudflats and fens. (Ord. 2688, 31 Dec 66; Ord. 2862, 10/86) 9422. 2 Coastal conservation suffix (-CC) . There is hereby established the suffix (-CC) to be appended to any base district to denote and protect environmentally sensitive areas. Such suffix shall take precedence over any other district designation. (Ord... 2888, 31 Dec 86) 9422. 3 Coastal conservation suffix--Yemoval of . Prior to removal of the coastal conservation suffix (-CC) , the following findings shall be made: (a ) That the underlying district designation is consistent with the coastal element of the general plan of the city of Huntington Beachr (b) That the proposrd removal of the suffix Is in ac- xh ib1+ in� � P• Z of 9422. i-�72.b • . cordance with the policies, standards and provisions of the California Coastal Act; and (c) That there is no feasible, less environmentally damaging alternative site for any proposed land use or development which may be allowed under California Public Resources Code sections 30233(a) (1) and 30264. (O7r-d.---Y886 31 Dec 86) 9422. 4 Uses Generally. The uses set out in this article shall only be allowed where there Is no feasible, less enviror nentally damaging alternative and where practical mitication measures have been provided. (Ord. 2868, 31 Dec 861 Ord. 2862, 10/86) 9422. 5 Use permit required. The following uses shall be permitted in the, fcoastal conservation district upon approval o a .use pernit by the board of zoning adjustments: (a) Incidental public service projects such as, -but not limited to, burying cables anti pipes. (b) Maintenance of existing streets and utility . structures. (Ord. 2688, 31 Dec 86; Ord. 26621 20/86) ' 9422 . 6 Conditional use pernit recuired. The following uses nay be permitted upon approval of a conditional use permit by the planning commission: (a ) New or expanded energy and coastal dependent industrial facilities. (b) Diking, dredging and filling necessary for the protection, maintenance, restoration or enhancement of the areas functional capacity as a habitat. (c) Provision for exi-sting flood control facilities Where the primary purpose is to n.aintain existing capacity, necessary for public safety or to protect existing development in the flood plain. No maintenance activities shall' be permitted wt,icb have the effect of draining wetlands. Such maintenance activities may include maintenance dredging of less than 100,U00 cubic yards in a twelve-month periods lining of in-place artificial channels; increasing the height of existing lcvevs; changes In the cross suction of the Interior channel to accommodate the aesign capacity of channels when no widening of the top dimensions or widening of the outer levee Is required. 7/87 PC1 DC Ep' � �J P- 3 0-F '• • 9422.7--9422.8 low (0) New flood control facilities in conjunction with plan f,- where riecessa:y for public safety and to protect existing de- L e3o;,-"Ant in the flood plain. (e ) Mineral extraction, including sand for beach restora- tion, except in environmentally sensitive areas . (f) Pedestrian trails and observation platforms for pas- sine nature study, including bird watching and the study of flora and fauna. Such uses may be located within ai, environ- n.entally sensitive habitat area provided that tkey are Immedi- ately adjacent to the area's peripheral edge. (g ) Maintenance of existing or restoration of previously dreozed depths of navigational charnels, turning basins, vessel berthing and mooring areas, and boat launching ramps. (h) Entzance< <channels for new or expanded boating facili- ties it a wetland area nay be permitted . in a degraded wet- . and, identified by the state 1deFartr•.ent of fish and game pur- si;ant to California public Resources Code section 30411 (b) , such facil ides MAY be perrr,iti ed if a aL stantial portion of the degraded wetland is restored and maintained as a biolug ical iy productive wetland. The naximutr, area of the wetland used for boating facilities, including berthing spacF, turning basins, necessary navigation "channels, and any necessary sup- ' port service facilities , shall be twenty-five (25% ) percent of ` the total degraded wetland area. ( i ) Mature study, acusculture, or .sindlar resource dependent activities. (Ord,: 2688, 31 Dec 66; Ord. 2862, 10/66) 9422 .7 Prohibited uses. Any use or structure not ex- pressly permitted shall be prohibited. (Ord. . 2668, 31 Dec 86; Ord. 2862, 20/86) 9422 . 6 Requited j2ermits and acreerrents. Before any appli- cation is accepted for processing, pzoo s all be provided that the necessary state and federal regulatory permits or agree- ments have been obtained, or a statement from the regulatory body that such permits are not required shall be submitted: (a) United States Army Corps of Engineers: S. 404 and F . 10 permits; • (b) California Department of Fish and Game: 36D1-2603 Y. agreement; PCH J Fit. (c) state ' ater Resource control Board (permit depends o: the operation)l (d) Regional water quality control board (permit depends on operation)= (e) California state Iands commission peritit. (Ord. 2868, 31 Dec 661 Ord. 2662, 10/86) 9422 .9 Development standards--ritication measures. Befor any app icition is accepted for processing, the app 3cant . ahal. r,eet the followino standards of this article, and shall incor— porate Into the project design any feasible r,iti=ation reasure. which will moderate adverse environmental effects. (Ord. 2666, 31 Dec 87: Ord. 28620 10/86) 9422 . 10 Mitigption measures--Dre32ing. If the project involves any dreg ing, ritic_ation r.easures shall include the followinq: (a) Dredging and spoils d1sposal shall be planned and car- ried out to avoid significant/;'disruption to wetland habitats and to stater circulation. (b) Limitations r-ay be V�posed on the timing of the operation, the type of operation, the quantity of dredged r.aterial removed, and the location of the spoil site. ( c ) Dredge spoils suitable for beach replenishment shall , where feasible, be transported to appropriate beaches or into suitable• longshore current systems. (d) Ozher r:ftigation measures ray include opening up areas to tidal action, removing dikes, improving tidal flushing, or other restoration r.essures. (Ord. 2888, 31 Dec 86: Ord. 2862, 10/86) 9422 . 11 Mitigation reasures--Diking or filling. If -the project involves diking or filling of a wetland, the following raninum mitigation reasures shall apply. These mitigation r..easures shall not be requires for temporary or short—term fill or diking if a bond or other evidence of financial responsi— bility Is provided to assure that restoration will be accom— plished in the shortest feasible time. (a ) If an appropriate restoration site is available, the IL 7/8 7 W17 Y)5'� zz to PC 14 c r� kill P s� � 9422. 12--9422 • applicant shall submit a detailed restoration plan to the di- rector which includes provisions for purchase and restoratiot of an equivalent area of Equal or greater biological produc- tivity and dedication of the ]and to a public agency or o;.'erwise permanently restricting Its use for open apace pur- poses. The site shall be purchased before the dike or fill development proceeds. (b) The applicant may in sorre cases be permitted to open equivalent areas to tidal action or provide other 3jurces of surface water . This lrethod of mitigation is appropriate if is applicant already owns filleds diked areas which themselves ar not environn-entally sensitive habitat areas, * but tray become st If orened to tidal action or provided with other sources of surface water . (e) If no appropriate restoration sites under options contained in thissjarticle are availables the applicant shall pay an in-lieu fees deterrrinec by the city council , which steal be of sufficient value to an appropriate public agency. for trie purchase and restoration of an- area of equivalent productive value , or equivalent surface area . This option shall be allowed only if the applicant is unable to find a willing seller of a potential restoration site . Since the public agency ray also face difficulties in acquiring appropriate sites , the in-lieu fee shal� -reflect the additional costs of • acquisition, including litigation and attorney 's fees, as Well �'- as the cost of restoration, relocation and other costs . If the public agency's restoration project is not already approved by the coastal cor,nissions the public agency ray need to be a ccapplicant for a coastal development permit to provide ade:;ate -assurance that conditions can be inposea to assure that the pure..hase of the mitigation site shall occur prior to tr.e issuance of the permit . In additions such restoration shall occur in the same general region, e.g. , within the same- _ streams lakes or estuary where the fill occurred. (Ord. 28881 31 Dec 86; Ord.. 2862, 10/86) c+422 . 12 feitication measures--vecetatton. Any areas where vecetation is temporarily removed shall be replanted with a native or an adaptable species in a quantity and quality equal to the vegetation removed. (Ord. 2888, 31 Dec 66; Ord. 26621 10/8b) 9422. 13 Mitiyat_ion measures--Reduction of disturbances. Pedestrian trails, observation platforms and other incidental structures shall be designed to reduce disturbance of wildlife and vegetation. Examples of Improvements to 'effect such reduc-' PC --133- P. tion are elevated walkways and viewing platforms, and vegeta- tive and. structural barriers to lessen disturbances from perrr.'tted uses and inhibit internal access. (Ord. 2668, 31 Dec 86; Ord. 2862, 10/66) 9422.1E ritication measures--Litter control . Passive nature study uses shall include a program to control litter such as placement of an adequate number of containers and posted signs. (Ord. 2888, 31 Dec 86; Ord. 2862, 10/86) 9422. 15 Xitioation reasures--Flood control . Liviron- mentally sensitive habitat areas shall be restored and augmented to lessen the risk of flood danage to adjacent properties. (Ord. • 2888, 31 Dec $61 Ord. 2662, 20/66) 9422. 26 Mitigation measures--Construction and im rove- nents . Any construction, alteration or other improver,ent shal c_Enerally be carried out between SeytenDer 15 and 'April 15 to " avoid disturbingirare, threatened, or Endangered species which utilize the area for nesting. This requirement Sh&21 not appl, if it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the director that no such disturbance would# occur , in which case construction shall be timed to cause the least disturbance to wetland dependent species, such as migratory waterfowl and shorebirds. Construction or maintenance activities shall be carried out in areas of ninimal size . The site shall be restored to its original state prior to completion of the project unless such site is to be altered to conform with an approve6 restoration project. (Ord. 2668, 31 Dec 86; Ord. 2862, 10/66) • 9422 .17 Miti_oation r:easures--Duty of applicant . The epplicant shall demonstrate that the functional capacity is r,aintained or ai 5;nented unless relieved of any 'one or more of these requirements by the California department of fish . and came, and it is also shown that the project will not significantly: (a ) Jolter existing plant and aninal populations 3n a manner that would impair the long-term stability of the Ecosystem, i .e. , natural species diversity, abundance and composition are essentially unchanged as a result of the project. ib) Harm or destroy a species or habitat that is rare or endangered. • ��ht bt'f' to 7/67 �rrv)- n 9422. 18--9<22. . (c) Harm a species or habitat that is essential to the natural biological function of a wetland or estuary. (d) Reduce consumptive (fishing, aquaculture and hunting ) or nonconsumptive (water quality and research opportunity) values of a wetland or estuarian ecosystem. (Ord. 2668, 31 Dec 86; Ord. 2862, 20/86) 9422. 19 Degraded wetland restoration. If the iroposed project involves restoration of a degraoed wetland, the ap- plicant shall comply with California Public Resources Code sections 30411 and . 30233 to the satis action of the director. (Ord. 2868, 31 Dec 86; Ord. 2662, 20/86) 9422. 19 Findings--rnvironn.entelly sensitive habitats . Th( purpose of this section is to ensure ar, environment which is suitable for the self-perpetuation of environmentally sensitive habitat areas. Prior to approval of energy production facili- ties , the decision-making authority shall rake' a finding with i statement of fact that : (a ) Provision has been trade for the enhancement of a sig- nificant portion of the project area to ensure preservation of plant and Wildlife species. ..r (b) For all other projects, a finding shall be trade that the functional capacity of the environmentally sensitive habi- tat area is maintained. (Ord. 2668, 31 Dec 66; Ord. 2662, 10/66) (Prior law: Ord. 2655, 22/83; Ord. 2657, 1083; Ord. 2700, 7/E4 ; Ord. 2701 , 7/84; Ord. 2702, 7/64; Ord. 2716, 9/84 : Ord. 2751 , 4/85; Ord. 2753, 4/85; Ord. 2862, 10/66) . t 7/67 �p oa '' g �•f- 9 9100 PISIDERTI I$IU CTS Articles: 9�1 1s*-d�n3��3i n�i i oistrict tRl� �Sd�n�l • zn Ki h Density Residtntjal Distriei�s R3 &no RO 9t 91 Q,rn n6 T9rnlet Districts (OT end n) 91A K 1lehaces (MH) . P nr y tes1 dent 181 ppyelnDmr n And Planned �vE10D*�nY�yf ix (P"A'D and -PD) apt ti r.eSpffix (-MFH) M Senior Residtntial Suffix (-SR) s� Article 910 f R�$a.DEIiT R _l.UCUtM)R DI-STRICT (8E1-1/62. 1DS0-5/64. 1077-si64. 110E-1/65. 1222-8/66. 1235-8/66, MS-6/73. 1247-7/73, 1952-2/75, 2166-3/77. 2373-9/79. 2411-2/8% 2E34-7/86, 2900-8/87. 2967-11/88) sections: 9100 General provisions 9101 Permitted uses 9102 Prohibited uses 91D3 Minimum parcel .size/frontage 91D4 Maximum density/intensity 9105 Miximumn building height 9106 Maximum site coverage 9107 Setbacks 9108 Parkin 9109 Miscel aneous requirements 91O0 Generat,-provisions. The residential agriculture district (RA) is intended to serve as a transition or holding Zone for property with current agricultural activities and as a zone where restricted residential development is permitted. • • (2834-7l86) Ey% + 7 ., 11IBB tic 9101--9101td)(2) ytpl jr 'tW use The following shall be 'permitted within the RA district: (a) U^re:Ullted, Agricultural and horticultural uses such as orchards, field or bush crops, vegetable and flower gardening. (b) Building o rmi . Single family dwellings and accessory buildings whit are permbnently located on a parcel and greenhouses, barns. tool sheds and buildings accessory to farming uses shall be permitter subject to the approval of a building permit. Tents, trailers, vehicles, or temporary structures shall not be used for dwelling purposes. (e) li,� permit. The following uses shall be permitted subject to the approval of a use permit by the Zoning.Administrator: (1) Wholesale •nurseries. (2) Uses where animal feces are used in bulk quantities or where _ packaging of products constitutes more than 2S percent (25%) of the site's activities. (2067-10188) The Zoning Administrator shall consider in reviewing the above uses. traffi*e circulation. the provision of off-street parking. required dedications and ir.provements, and the buffering and tor.pttibility of the site with surroundin; uses. (2957-10/86) (d) �p.0 n tie prrm , The following uses shall be permitted subject to the approval of a conditional use permit by the planning commmission: (1) Unclassified uses pursuant to Article 963. (2) ' Tempc►racy contractor's storage yards for the storage of construction related r,aterials only may be permitted pursuant to the standards contained in section 9530.15(b) (M1 district outside storage requirements) except that screening may be provided by chain .link fence with wood slats rather than a a,asonry wall. inhere the use is adjacent to an arterial highway, the minimum setback shall be twenty (20) feet, all of which shall be fully landscaped. Such uses shall be prohibited on any site • located less than one thousand (1 .ODD) feet from a residential structure. Initial approval shall be for a maximum of three (3) years. with two (2) one-year extensions subject to planning commission approval, except that any storage use shall cease operation once a building permit is issued for a residential structure within one thousand 0,00D) feet. This temporary contractor's storage use shall only apply to construction contractors while they are engaged in active construction within the city limits of Huntington Beach. 11/88 �� 1 0 " At the time of application applicant shall submit a declaration under penalty of perjury stating the construction proSect location and the owner of the' property if other than the applicant. (2E34-7/86. 29DD-8/87) (3) Temporary uses resulting from an operation being displaced due to property acquisition by a govErnrr,ental agency may be permitted for a maximum of five (5) years. Such uses shall be similar in nature to the prevailing surrounding uses of the gent-al area and shall comply with all applicable requirements of this code such as parking. landscaping, access, and setbacks that would pertain to such use if located in a district in which it would be a permitted use. (2967-10/88) 9102 Prohibited uses, The following uses shall be prohibited in the RA district: (a) Garbage or sewage disposal plants. (b) Animal husbandry and any commercial raising of Animals. - (2634-7/96) - 1-103 W-On, Lr.�ircs1 z_e/frontage• a licensed land surveyor or civil engineer stall submit calculations showing lot width. depth, and area for any nee• parcel. The minimurr, lot size sha11f be one acre and the minimum lot frontage shall be lSD feet. (2E34-7/8$,) JIDd M=_xim;jtr, de sitylin ne situ. The maximum density shalt not exceed one unit per tore. A r.,aximon. of five (5) units is permitted on any single parcel . (2 04-7/86) . 9105 h ie ofit• Maximum building height shall be twenty-five (25) fiet and mzximum two (2) stories for all structures. (2834-7/86) 9106 Ferimutr site coverage. Maximum site coverage shall be fifty percent (SM). Site coverage shall be as outlined in the definitions article. (2E34-86) 9107 Setbacks. Setbacks for the dwelling shall be provided as Indicated below. Garages shall be set back a minimum of twenty-two (22) feet from any exterior property line. Setbacks for architectural features art contained in section 9109(b). front yard Twenty (20) feet Interior side yard five (5) feet Exterior side yard Twenty (20) feet Rear yard Twenty (20) feet (2834-7/86) 9108 Parking. Parking shall comply with the standards outlined in Article 96D. The parking of inoperable motor vehicles, trucks and machinery. trailers. car„pers and boats shall be prohibited in front of the a►ain =� dwelling. (2634-7/86) • ll/ s atli Xh1�bi�' 9 4 t ._._Y LE1JAV TlQlJtren+entt, ta) ks_pj3j�.ry U1 .61 . Accessory buildings may be perMitted on a lot wit a perrtAtted rr.ain building. Setback requirements are as specified for the rr,ain dwelling, except accessory buildings other thin detached garages shall set back fifty (50) feet from the front property line. The rr„nimum distance from any building to any other building on the sarr,e lot shall be tofenty (20) feet. (b) &mh A&rtura1 features. Architectural features. including eaves... fireplaces . and open unroofed stairways and balconies shad a,aintain a minimum. distance of five (5) feet from any portion of any other building on the same lot. Such features shall set back thirty OD) inches from the side property lines and sixteen (16) feet .from the front and rear property lines. ;c) Fn 1n Fencioq shall comply with the standards outlined in Article toss huntington beach deptment of community develop. _��AfF TO: Planning Commission FROM: Conimunity Development DATE: December 5, 1999 SUBJECT: ZONE CKANGE NO. 88-18 (REFERRED FROM CITY COUNCIL) Aa1.ICANT: City of Huntington Beach - ' _m: Change of toning on various parcels to achieve consistency With Land Use Plan. LOCAZION: Inland side of Pacific Coast Highway between Beach Boulevard and Pacific Coast Highway ACR'EP2 Approxin.ately 232 acres I - P ' "S.r D ACTION: I Approve Zone Change No. 88-18 as modified With findings and forward to City Council for adoption. � CEK=�R1,L INrORN.A?IO?�; Zone Change No. 88-18 is a request to to apply appropriate zoning tesi;nations to the properties in the coastal zone in order to achieve consistency with the Land Use designations and to complete certification of the Local Coastal Program. On June 2 . 1986, the City Council adopted a Land Use Plan for the nor:-certified coastal zone area along Pacific Coast Highv:ay, between beach boulevard and the Santa Ana River. On April 13, 2967 the California Coastal Commission certified the Land Use Plan as - submitted by the City. The Land Use Plan, as certified, designates approximately 7. 0 acres as visitor Serving Commercial , 225 acres as Conservation, 83 acres as Industrial Energy Production and 27.0 acres as Industrial Energy Production/Conservation. On February 7, 19891 the Planning Commission held a study session on Zens Change too. 88-18. At that study session, the City Attorney advised the Commission that the zone change may deny the subject landcwntrs a viable economic use of their property and that the City may be found ]iable for a taking. Based on that information, the Commission directed staff to prepare a request for Withdrawal of the zone change application for action on February 22, 1989. PCH-Are raec �'• m -T The Commission further directed staff to prepare an analysis of alternative land uses for the property. Those land uses could then be ir,C0:p9X5ted into a future Local Coastal Plan for the area . Staff informed the Commission, however, that current levels of staffing will not allowa new 'whitehole study' to be addressed as a top priority item. Rather, it may be necessary to wait for the landowners to file an application for land use amendment. Staff could then retain a consultant to prepare the analysis. At the February 22, 1989 meeting the Planning Commission took formal action to withdraw the zone change. Subsequently, this action was appealed to and heard by Council on Xbrch 200 1989. At that meeting the issue was continued so that an outside legal opinion could be obtained regarding the City's exposure for a taking. The outside legal opinion was discussed by the City Council at their October 16, 1969 meeting. This opinion addresses the legal question: Does zoning property as Coastal Conservation within the coastal zone constitute a cause of action for a taking pursuant to the Firth xmenarnent ed the United States Constitution? In summary the opinion states the following: 1. As applied to a particular parcel, the zoning could give rise to a constitutional claim if the facts showed that the zoning was applied to property that is not, in fact, a 'wetland• ; deprived the owner of all viable economic use of his property without justification; or was impermissibly discriminatory. 2. The zoning of functioning and restorable wetlands property as Coastal Conservation does not, on its face, give rise to a cause of action for a taking because preservation of wetlands serves a legitimate governmental purpose related to the public health, and the zoning, on its face, permits some use of the property. Four additional recommendations were also Included: 1. To reduce potential exposure to liability, the City should consider implementing zoning consistent with the General Plan. 2. An administrative review procedure should be incorporated into the Coastal Conservation zone to allow applicants to challenge the economic viability of the permitted uses and the designation as wetlands. - 3. The City should also consider adopting a •Transfer of Development Rights' ('TDR') program which would permit the transfer of development rights from certain 'sending tone' _ Properties (such as functioning and restorable Wetlands) to other properties in the jurisdiction (such as nearby unrestorable Wetlands or upland properties) . • f3e-k 4 Staff Report — a9 —2- � Z ����195d) o0 • i. other planning concepts, such as a specific plan, nay also be appropriate for the subject properties. .- S::bsequently, the City Council Trade three recommendations. These were: (1) Refer Zone Change No. 88-18 back to the Planning Commission for action and zoning recommendations consistent with the Certified Land. Use Plan of the area. (2) Authorize the form8tion of a wetlands coalition consisting of property owners, responsible agencies, the City, conservation, and interest group representatives to study alternative land uses for the area. (3) Direct staff to work with the coalition to prepare a land use plan and explore various land planning techniques such as specific plans and Transfer Development Right's Programs. 2 . 0 LV,P. 1 �:ENS STX713ROG Pursuant to Section 15265 of the California Environmental Quality Act, Zone Change No. 88-18 is classified exempt. Section 15265 states that CEQA' does not apply to` approvals by any local government pursuant to the preparation of a local coastal program. Rather, the burden of CEQA compliance is shifted to the California Coastal Cor..r,ission for the certification of local coastal programs . 4 - 0 COA5Tf,L -STATUS: Zone Change No. 88-16 is a part of the local coastal program for the p:evioLsly non-certified area of the City's Coastal Land Use Plan. After City Cour:il approval , Zone Change No. 66-16 must be certified by the California Coastal Commission. B. 0 ISSJ=S An AhALYSIs: Prc�pet HistorS*: The City•s Coastal Element was prepared in accordance with the California Coastal Act of 1976, and submi-tted to the South Coast Re„ional Coastal Commission for a hearing in May 2981. The Coastal Element Land Use Plan was rejected by the Coastal Commission at that time partly due to failure to adequately protect wetlands Which had been delineated by the Department of Fish and Game in preliminary wetlands. studies conducted in 1979 and •1981. After completion of minor changes, a second rejection by the Coastal Commission, and further modifications, the Land Use Plan was finally certified in geographic part by the Coastal Commission on November - 17, 1982. The Coastal Commission, .however, denied certification of the geographic area along the inland side of Pacific Coast Highway between beach boulevard and the Santa Ana River, due to the preliminary wetland status ass.igroto it by the Department of Fish and Game. Staff Report - 22l5 �1'9Sd 11) 414 _ In February 1983, the Department of Fish and Game released their report entit;]ed "Determination of the Status of the Huntington beach Wetlands." That study reaffirmed their preliminary assessment and concluded that 136. 6 acres of land betweer. beach boulevard and the Santa An& River were either viable or restorable Most of this wetland area was within the non-certified area of the coastal zone. In 1986, the City of Huntington Beach prepared a study which was. Intended to resolve the wetland issue and result in a Land Use• Plan for the non-certified area. The study analyzed three altc:native land use scenarios which were intended to address a range of intensities from almost no development to almost complete development of the area .. During an extended public rearing process, the Department of Fish and Game, the California Coastal Conservancy and the Coastal Commission staff emphasized that virtually the only certifiable land use designation under the provisions of the Coastal Art was Conservation. The only exceptions were the Action Boat Brokers property at they outheast corner of Beach boulevard and Pacific Highway, the strip of land between Cabrillo 14,obile Home Park and Pacific Coast Highway, and the d4veloped Edison Company - Property. On June 2, 1986s the City Council concurred with that a!vice and adopted a Lsnd Use Plan for the area which was largely Conservation. The Coastal Corrmmi --son subsequently certified that designation. d Zone Chance: The Land Use Plan which was adopted and certified by the Coastal Co..-:rlssion is depicted in Attachm--t No. 1. Four land uses were approved for this area. These . isitor Serving Commercial, Conservation, Industrial Energy Production, and Industrial Energy Production with a Conservation Overlay. For purposes of clarity, the subject property has been separated into 10 different areas. Each of these areas is discussed in the Study Session Staff Report dated February 22, 2989 (attachment No. 2) . Discussion information Includes a description of the land use designation; current use, and past, existing and proposed zoning for each area. Pursuant to the Council's direction, this zone change has been referred back to the Planning Commission for action. This zone change is consistent with the Certified Land Use Plan for the area previously adopted by Council and the Coastal Commission. Further, the City is required under State Planning Law (planning, Zoning and Development Laws) to bring the General Plan and Implementing Ordinances, such as the Zoning Code, Into conformance with one another. The proposed zone change provides the City with one option to meet that need. . The subject zone change affects approximately 232 acres and Includes 7.0 acres of visitor Serving Commercial , 27.0 acres of Industrial Energy Production with a Coastal Conservation Overlay, $3 .0 acres of Industrial Energy Production within the Coastal Zone, and 124.5 acres of Conservation, as indicated on the map on Attachment Fo. 2. Each of these zoning districts 'and permitted uses is briefly Cescribed below. 011 tot Dc Staff Report — 12/5/89clb VJw �. �-�-_IS , P.C1cid 0 ••• v L,11J�_11_rasu C-1:nmr-mial zistyset Cpmtinej with Lio�, t�n Districts; The propDfed zoning will permit a hotel, restaurant or other visito-, serving comwnercial uses, Which would- be located at the corner of Beach boulevard and Pacific Coast yighway (Area 1) . The narrow- strip of property along Pacific Coast Highway could be used as an access road or parking for the commercial use. The property is presently owned by Caltrans. The Coastal Conservancy staff has propcsed that Caltrans sell this property back to the Mills Land and Water Company who previously owned it and who presently own other property in the area which has been designated Wetlands by the Department of Fish and Game. Development of a hotel on the site would allow Mills to generate some profit from their interest in the area. The City Council and Coastal Commission agreed with this - concept when they designated the property visitor Serving Commercial on the Land Use Plan. The Coastal Zone (CZ) pnd Floodplain (FP2) suffixes indicate that the property is geographically located within the coastal Lone and subject to flooding. These suffixes pertain primarily to Iocation and are assigned to properties situated within certain boundaries. Cp. rvatin Do tricJ combireo. witbSoa tal Zone and The majority of property in the non-certified area has been identified by the Department of Fish and Game as restorable wetlands end has been designated on the Land Use Plan as Conservation. The -• proposed zone change is to place the Coastal Conservation District on those properties (Areas 2, 3, S, 6 and 7) . The CC (Coastal Conservation) District is a restrictive designation which permits wetland related uses such as pedestrian trails and observation platforms, wetland restoration projects, mineral extraction and limited public works projects. The fact that much of this p::;>erty is privately owned was discussed in detail during the public hearing process for adoption of the Land Use Plan. This zone change is consistent with . the Land Use Plan and does not reduce the iTpacts on private property owners within the area. Under the adopted Land Use Plan and proposed zoning, the Conservation areas will probably only have market value as restorable wetlands which eculd be used to mitigate other projects elsewhere in the Coastal Zone. It is anticipated that Conservation designated areas Will eventually be restored to functioning wetland status as is presently being done with the It-acre parcel adjacent to the Santa Ana River mouth. Area 20 is an approximately 2 acre area designated Conservation on the Lend Use Plan. It is owned by the City and 3s presently vacant. The existing zoning is (Q)RDS-FP2 (Qualified Recreational Open, Space District combined With Floodplain District) . The Proposed zone change is to add the CZ (Coastal Zone) suffix to the existing toning. This property was not identified by Fish� and Game as wetlands. isXAr �; ; _ Staff Report - 12/5/29 -S- X . P. Crzn,ervetl n. Coastal Zone end Floodp)fin Districts: This proposed zoning applies to Area 4 which is an approximately 17 acre area designated Industrial Energy ProdvetiontConservation of the Land Use Plan. It has been identified by Fish and Game as degrade3 wetland. Although the Coastal Act would not normally alloy development of so-identified property, the Act would permit development for energy production purposes if it could be demonstrated that no other alternative site is available. Since the property is owned by- the Edison company and is adjacent to their - generating plant, the special combined designation of industrial Energy Production/Conservation was placed on it. This Land Use Designation and the proposed zoning recognize the property's identification as wetlands, but would permit expansion of .the powerplant if proven necessary in the future. Areas B and 9 shown on Attachment No. 1 are currently designated industrial Energy Prolvction on the Land Use Plan and are developed with the Edison Company power generating plant an¢ oil storage tanks. The proposed zone change Is to add the -CZ suffix to the existing zoning designations. , �♦ r a' r Staff ' s Pecownended Zone Chance: After careful consideration of the need to achieve consistency within the General Plan and Ordinance Code, the Coastal Com.ission's recon.mendetions for a Certified Local Coastal Program for the subject area , and the interests of several parties, staff is recorrr.ending modifications to the zone change. Staff recom-nends that the existing zoning remain and that the Coastal Conservation (CC) suffix be applied to all parcels. This change will accomplish the goal of General Plan consistency and would be advantageous for the following reasons: dW 1. ' The CC suffix can be appended to any base district to denote and protect environmentally sensitive areas . This suffix takes precedence over any other base district designation (see Attachment No. 4), . 2. Application of the CC suffix may satisfy the Coastal Commissions requirement that the property be zoned consistent with the Certified Land Use Plan. 3. A procedure for removal of the CC suffix is detailed in the Ordinance Code. Removal of this suffix requires a zone change with findings approved by the Planning Commission, City ICOunci2e and Coastal Commission. This procedure is explicit for the CC suffix and allows applicants to challenge the econo:rric viability of the permitted uses and the designation as wetlands as suggested in the second le;al opinion. , xhlbt [ Staff Report — a2is/xo _c_ 4. In addition to standard findings of compatibility and consistency, a3ditional findings must be made to remove this suffix. These are detailed in the Ordinance Code and require the proposed change be justified for that site after consideration of alternative locations. S. Mitigation measures are defined and described in the Ordinance Code should a CC suffix be removed. ?n suninary, staff believes that the application of the CC suffix will bring the land use plan and the zoning into conforn}nce for the subject area. In addition, the recommendations of the Coastal Commission Would be met and the existence of a suffix removal process, as described in the Ordinance Code, provides the affected • property owners with a mechanism to challenge this zone .change. Staff views the modifications to this zone change as an interim measure to bring the City into conformance with State Planning Law while the newly formediVetlends coalition discusses various options for the subject property. The first meeting of the coalition is scheduled for early January. A report to Council detailing the coalition's recommendations is antiSipsted three .to four. months following the onset of discussions. , - 0 RrconanP T70N: Staff recommends that the M anning' Commission approve Zone Change No. 88-18 as modified to retain existing zoning and add the CC suffix on the subject property, with the following findings and . forward to the City Council for adoption. fIKOIVOS FOR hP?ROV�,I,: 1. The proposed zone change as shown on attached map (Exhibit A) is consistent with the General Plan designations adopted by Council and the Coastal Commission because it recognizes the .. goals of the Land Use Plan. . 2. The proposed zone change as shown on attached map (Exhibit A) Is compatible with surrounding General Plan designations of Medium Density Residential and Low Density Residential. 3. The proposed zone change as shown on attached map (Exhibit A) Will not create adverse impact's on the surrounding uses because It is designed to protect the identified wetlands. a. The 'proposed zone change as shown on attached map (Exhibit A) Is consistent with the goals and policies of the Coastal Commission and the City's Coastal Land Use Plan and reconciles the inconsistency between the Land Use Plan and Implementation Plan. , P. 7or Staff Report — 12/5/E914 d) 7.0 AI.TrgNATIVE AC?IOR: • Deny Zone hange No. 88-29 as modified with findings and, approve Zone Change No. 88-28 as originally proposed. An�c�nrs: 2. Proposed Zone Change Map (recommended by staf!) 2. Area Map 3. Study session staff report dated February 7, 1289, *ith related attachments 4. Memorandum dated September 26, 2989, from Freilich, btone, Leitner and Carlisle 5: City Ordinance Code Sections 9422 througb 9422.19 •SH:REL:kia - 4 Staff Report — 12/5/39 —B- �• 99tr-K" L=1 GAMsTAL&ALT MAQW COASTAL SALT FLAT FRESWKRACKUNWATIg . '•� s ww wE k. ' PGAM R (p1STORIC) MRTIAM tNt��• s N• ® testorable IL IM llot Restorable o I 1 " �� *k%P •e•@ COASTAL ZONE OOLMOA j � ',► ��;� ..•':- \Hoy.• � � ✓ �I CALIF-LEAST TEAM A,ACNE + t NESTING SAmCTuAnV • �' I V t ` J �At � � oENt�� � • � %dP* •.� dr Or, �J.J f • � � Mtn n� � • it M 'w..� .w Imo" •:i'�'�%•.�.. Kip •.. OS WETLUMRSOCI�M HIND$ unsi a I;h VAV UMY -,4 RIGU 4+q M UEUTR or © LOW 0 soo' U PLA S� :._..._� CF'R i f LU=NEST SITE Figure modified by the Dept. o! Pisb and Gum, WETLANDS D1'1S1ON As Depicted Ey The De L �` Tigre 2 P O f F C"STALSALTfLAT Gf,R r 04"� ICt�`I FMIUU AC+clwwAT[4 NUM (DUSTOAIC) WLTIrWDS •.. • �1. \ ~ '� Restorable .� P. Opp CM Not Restorable • • • O - 0000 } 00 , 1►�JSt P '•~ v V r p G •40• OQAtTwL 20ME YONMDAAy • CALIi.1.EAtT TERM i•ACAE /\I ' � • r/ •® MEST1AGiM1CTUAMyIr . '00" Soo r . L tti ,tip �il�T i" `� ' (.w'�'� — � •. MCIATED DIRDS `'''1' 0 t9oo' U PLA Cf-Rt s f . i...r... J • flu=MUT f1TE u D.pt• of pisb Nld Game, x4aN WETLANDS As Depicted Ey The Dept, Of f=tsh And Game • � its. 2 2a•Fz. �ia� ATTACHMENT I I Page 24 - Council/Agency Minutes - 6/21/93 Discussion Re: Zone Change No. 88-18 - White Hole Area - Pacific Coast Highway - s/o Beach Blvd Following discussion, a motion was made by Leipzig, seconded by Moulton-Patterson, to direct staff to prepare a zone change for the White Hole area with staff recommendations consistent with the general plan for that area. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Bauer, Moulton-Patterson, Winchell , Silva, Sullivan, Leipzig NOES: None ABSENT: Robitaille (out of room) Di ion Re: Sea Wall Graffiti Art Program - Motion fail Follow\ed sion by Councilmember Leipzig and staff, motion was made by Leipzie need to take action regarding the se all graffiti art arose to posting of the agenda. The moti failed for lack of second Follow 'on by Council and staff, dis ssion regarding painting of the seff ti art was deferred to a ter date and Council directed that tnot b painted over at this ime.Di it h Beach - luff Ar n/ G ld nw Street In response to Councilmember ilv s question, the Community Services Director reported on the expense and di culty of constructing stairs to the beach in the bluff area north of Golden e t Street. ADJOURNMENT - COUNCIURED EL PMENT A N Mayor Winchell adjourn d the regular mee ngs of the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency f the City of Huntingg,ton Beach to Monday, July 6, 1993 at 5:30 p.m. , Room -8, Civic Center, Hunti ton Beach, California. Clerk of ts�e Redevelopment Agency and City C1`erk and ex-officio Clerk of the City\council of the City of Huntington Beath, California ATTEST: City Clerk/Clerk Mayor/Chairman ATTACHMENT NO. .�- ATTACHMENT 12 1p \`� ��� / ���.nit \ � ••. '� /! �• 0.c.3 A-14 AnOM •'�" ^'�• �' } ,,�;�:•'•`' G°,+ Cq o,.L , '` 0 TBEATYLvtPLlxr 1 �lf!1:'..,���;;1 `` •J +. jam• +.J�. ••/+'J �' V O .+r. / •'};J•j�J.:+•. i' T!^J.��Jr_J� DTI .in •'i. �... �•J :%�. {.;l y'���JY1ri�/i J:i> >)'.M J•i:i.':i�l�� ,�J a�iJ.: •J':�J+� �:i.�.`1:�.:i v .� i• i•Jf' J,T/i/.�i ai J+;. •J+ J+�.':: +� f=i+: �,��•���'+"'.,T". •� ij+.� .•JJr/ ��'i J.LiJ::;!,• � ,�'J J• d-+••''• / 5LqcYeS � 10 7os 17 acrvS VISITOR SERVING COMMERCIAL ---- HAMILTON EXTENSION CONSERVATION ® NONCERTIFIED A#�pWJY�� LAW? I fl I COASTAL AREAS INDUSRTIAL ENERGY PRODUCTION V5F. PLAN WONGrON MACH uFOMIA . PI "*- c"*..MB'T ... [ND, ENERGY PROD,/ CONSERVATION / (Z3ZO►Cv�S�LI� �1�41� �Ld1'VIP.rI`f' :ATTACHMENT NO. �,. Z ATTACHMENT 13 •t, , W vJ L 29�.i 353•�5' /263 � . o N o ,fib O �BF aj9.30-/-/ OI Ln 4.66� ,�a o 5.26AC. ( 4.06AC. �C\+ 20AC. `66' N N O.C.F.C.D. FREEWAY o �. 6 /. /2 AC. 'jam• ,,,•�. N �e'ieF 57\ ,� 3.09 AC a /6. 37 AC. 6.36AC. 0. C. F. C. D. R F=._ moo: 'to.y; 22J6 /a1B.25' - ' 66 FREEWAY •r�o' ,?�, p o co /9. 9 AC.. N N ° 0721 = 53� A �G� 6 9C' �o o min �' \T QG a0✓ �'3- �-FkJ��Y •�o° 62 PA��G�l•5 GI'f�D Its 25AC. v 59f/4P-. �T ION dot 2 2 . Z . l �COA�sT�►1. CAMM�tiS10P1 ��Nt�31�'� a 0 y/ ? S' 'N ATTACHMENT 14 i W W 2 Q LOAIOIVZI m ,, �353•�s �263• O i O e O N I O o• �Q "' a.66� I 2 ova O � 5.26AC. 4.06AC. ON 20AC. `6G N N O.C.F.C.O. o• 4 FREEWAY o �. 6 /, /2 AC. N 130, Lr;e Fy6-olI- ..114-i5o•- cV .09 AC /6. 37 AC. _ 5 Q 41 6.36AC. 0. C. F. C. D. 6 FREEWAY _ W CV :. -/9. 9 AC. ' 6. r„ N b SJ - 0 22 3r A 53% l- A •e- 7� e e �9 62 <� •av 25 AC. SBEl4 B 40 i e \ 0 ?a. C� C � (V%V:F REuoMMetAOep L.AN*OU A fq e Fs. 09 y I'�q PAR.z 0. C. f. C. 9.&55 AC. P.M. 226-19 % PAR. (D4 5 0 16,154 AC R.S. 43-Z 2-91AC 28 75 t 9AC. 31875 AC(C) C4 (5,", All 35.68AC. 1, set 148-30-43A-1 R. S. ISO-z 4 R.S. 91-55 01 44 IT 28.17AC. FRWY S S.Z 148-30-66-3 AC. rca.W .55AC. J.93AC. mo-30-4J-Z R.S.74-11 o. Ism S-8-47. 148-30-43-1 me-s S.8.C. 148-30-,43C TH ACiZ Fo i All— R) 27 Ot- C, ec • AC. R.S. 74-11 70 01. 10 V4 q�tz2 . z. t OSTAFF Kee--OMMF.NOP-V J�It �O r rP . 5' v- 34.83 AC. ?90. R.S.29 -27 A i 93.. ` Q>> 42 �k 43. r z 2/.45AC. 51 sR• �i CEN. SEC./9-6-/O . 9 ►d Ar - 64 ° c>, 84.69 AC. L�a��q�� 37 R. S. 86-8 e r qy /4.664C. ,y �ic�sfl 73 z 13 roe.es' s roe.s�' 4t eo! 72 0 5./72AC. O F•q F Y� 4..74 1 6UW&,T To y��T�oN �Iy 22. 2 . 1 ('P-rAfr- Fk6eOOMMft4DeP 1.ANOVAege) ATTACHMENT 16) MCRTCHEN, DOYLE, BROWN & EORSEN .'GAN,FRANCISCO GOUNSIELORS AT LAW WA SMINGTON,O.0 LO! ANOELC9 1331 NORTH CALIFORNIA BOULEVARD TAIPCI SAN jOBC POST OFFICE SOX V WALNUT GREGK WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA 94E96 APFILIAMO OrFfCE TELIEPHONE (510) 037-9000 BANGKOK FACSIMILE (510) 975-5390 January 31, 1994 DIRECT DIAL NLIM96C HAND DELIVERED r-P, a " Shirley Dettloff, Chair, JAN 31 1994 and Members of the Huntington Beach Planning Commission Huntington Beach City Nall 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 RE: City of Huntington Beach LCP Proposed "White Hole" Area Rezoning February 1, 1994 Planning Commission Agenda - Item B-8 Dear Commissioners: This letter is submitted in connection with the proposed Zoning Code Amendments designated 93-8, and prior proposed Amendments 93-3 (formerly Zone Change 88-18). This firm represents the Mills Land & Water Company, which is one of only two or three private property owners who will be affected by the proposed amendments. Mills is a small, family-owned company; it has held property between.Beach Boulevard and the Santa Ana River for more than 90 years, Most ofthe zoning for the area located within the City of Huntington Beach Coastal Zone has been certified by the California Coastal Commission to conform to Coastal Act requirements. However, an area of approximately 232 acres on the inland side of Pacific Coast Highway, between Beach Boulevard and the Santa Ana River was set aside by the Commission for deferred certification. This Area of Deferred Certification (ADC)was created on November 17, 1982 and is commonly referred to as the "White Hole" area. The proposed zone change purports to be the final step needed to complete the Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program (LCP) -- a process which has taken over fifteen years to date. Given this unconscionable delay, the Mills group of families is naturally most anxious to have the process completed in order finally to learn what uses, if any, will be permitted on their property. The owners, nonetheless, would expect the process to be completed in a fashion that is both substantively and procedurally correct. So far, this has not occurred. Shirley Dettloff, Chair, and Members of the 'Huntington.Beach.Planning Commission. January 31, 1994 Page 2 Mills hereby incorporates by reference all previous statements, both written and oral, presented to the Planning Commission and City Council with respect to the Local Coastal Plan and all of its implementing resolutions and ordinances. While we here briefly touch on some of the previous objections, we do not abandon any previous claims, comments or arguments by omitting them here. (See, esp. letters from Mills dated February 5, 1990 and July 6, 1992.) The Conservation Designation of the White Hole Area Is Improper In 1986, with no apparent concern for the devastating impact on the rights of property owners, the restrictive "Conservation" designation was placed on property owned by Mills and others which had previously been depicted as degraded, but "restorable wetlands." Mills has repeatedly objected to that designation on the ground that it is based on insufficient evidence to support a conclusion that any wetlands restoration project would ever be economically, environmentally, or technologically feasible. Until such time as it may be demonstrated that re-creation of a wetlands on. any of the parcels within the White Hole area is feasible, within the context of the Coastal Act, the "Conservation" designation applied to this property is neither necessary nor appropriate. To date, Mills has been unable to challenge the Conservation designation because the LCP process still is not complete. First, the City of Huntington Beach delayed for years in preparing and adopting any implementing zoning ordinances; then, the zoning finally proposed was rejected by the Coastal Commission, which sent suggested modifications back to the City. These modifications were, in turn, rejected by the City in July, 1992. As a result, the City must now recommence procedures for adopting the implementation zoning for the White Hole area in order to complete the certification process. The City Must Adhere to Procedural Requirements In Adopting the Implementation Zoning. In their report, City staff appear to take the position that because Zone Change 93-3 (formerly Zone Change 88-18), was adopted in 1990, it "established a new zoning on the subject property" and is still "in effect." Staff has therefore concluded that only the modifications to Zone Change 93-3 (proposed by the Coastal Commission) are required to be processed. With all due respect to City's staff, their assertion with respect to this important procedural issue is incorrect. The Coastal Act specifically provides that the implementation zoning cannot become "effective" until it is unconditionally approved by the Coastal Commission, or until the Coastal Commission's modifications are accepted by the City. Pub, Res. Code § 30513. Neither event has occurred. Because the Coastal Commission's certification of the implementation zoning with.suggested modifications was rejected by the City, the certification proceeding lapsed and expired six months after the action was taken by the Coastal Commission on May 12, 1992. Cal. Code of Regulations Title 14 § 13542(b). As a result, the City must now recommence the Shirley Dettloff, Cliai.r, f and Members of the • • Huntington Beach Planning Commission January 31, 1994 Page 3 process of adopting the implomontation z onin.g, in accordance with the established Niucedut e, and then resubmit the fill package of proposed zone changes for certification. From a due process standpoint, it behooves the City to hold full public hearings on the implementation zoning. At a minimum, this is necessary to enable the City to hear the objections, comments and suggestions of the affected property owners. This will also provide a forum for the City to clarify the proposed revisions to Zone Change 93-3, mid to explain how the City intends to address the serious concerns that the zoning will effectuate a taking by precluding any economically viable use of the land. The Proposed Zoning Should Be Deferred Until the General Flan Advisory Committee Has Completed Its Report The law requires that zoning ordinances be consistent with a city's general plan. Technically, the City need only concern itself with the existing General Plan, if it is current and otherwise legally adequate. Because of concern about the legal status of the Huntington Beach General Plan, the City Council commissioned the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) to conduct a complete review of the existing General Plan and provide specific recommendations for its update as required by law. The GPAC has expended a substantial amount of time and effort to initiate a General Plan update, and the issuance of its findings and recommendations may be expected by March. GPAC's recommendations may well include land use designations which do not support the proposed zone changes encompassed in Zone Change No. 93-8 (and 93-3). Under the circumstances the City should defer any action on the proposed zoning implementation measures until it has an opportunity to consider the extensive work and recommendations of GPAC. The Staff Report Contains Serious Errors and Omissions The staff report, which advocates adoption of the Coastal Commission's modifications to the proposed implementation zoning, contains statements that might be misleading to, or misunderstood by, a reader unfamiliar with the history and substance of the proposal. > At the outset, the staff report states that Ordinance No. 3033, adopted by the City Council in 1990, is "in effect." As explained above, that ordinance lapsed because the City did not accept the Coastal Commission's modifications within six months. The staff report also states the zoning ordinance "includes a detailed removal procedure that allows applicants to challenge the economic viability of the permitted uses and the designation as wetlands . . . . As Mills has repeatedly pointed out in its comments on this proposed ordina,..i.ce (.see, e.g., letter to City Council dated February 5, 1990), the ordinance does not provide for any procedure that allows applicants the challenge the economic viability of the permitted uses. Moreover, the so-called "removal procedure" is a chimera. r Shirley Dettloff, Chair., • and Members of the Huntington Beach planning Cortunission January 31, 1994 Page 4 Section 9422.3 [Coastal conservation suffix-- Removal of] contains no provisions ivharsoever for removing a -CC suffix on the ground that none of the permitted uses are economically viable. Moreover, denial of any application to remove a -CC suffix is essentially a foregone conclusion, since it would require the reversal of every action taken by the City and Coastal Commission in the White Hole Area over the last fifteen years. Throughout this lengthy process the landowners have objected vociferously to the adoption of the Land Use Plan [LUP] and the proposed zoning, including submission of documentation which calls into question the "wetlands" designation and which raises serious issues concerning the feasibility of their restoration. The objections and comments had no effect whatsoever on the actions taken. Indeed, the staff report now before this Commission states that the Department of Fish and Game, the California Coastal Conservancy, the Coastal Commission staff, and the City all agree that "virtually the only certifiable land use designation under the provision of the Coastal Act [is] conservation." Given the history and outcome of the LCP procedure it would be irrational indeed to conclude that, using the very same procedure, the result could or would be reversed. > The staff report states that the Coastal Commission "adopted [the Zone change] with modifications . . _ based upon several review of the proposal by legal counsels from both the City and Coastal Commission, staff and property owners." This statement implies that the zoning and its proposed modifications were subject to rigorous legal review and were "based upon" input from the property owners as well as the City and Coastal Commission staff. If that implication was intended, it is more incorrect than accurate. As the staff report noted elsewhere, the original zoning proposal (Zone Change 88-18) was reviewed by two legal counsels, wbo disagreed in their conclusions. But neither counsel, to our knowledge, has reviewed the proposed modifications which are the primary focus of Code Amendment 93-8. (If such review has occurred, it should be made available to the.public prior to the hearing.) Nor are we aware of any legal opinion or review of the proposed implementation zoning that takes into account significant legal developments occurring since the Fall of 1989.1 The Coastal Commission has not made available to the public any legal review prepared by counsel., if any was conducted. Of course, such disclosure is required if, as the staff report indicates, the Coastal Commission "based" its May, 1992 action on any legal review. 1 In addition, it might be noted here that Mills disagrees with many of the conclusions reached by the outside counsel.. For example.they opine that the City is not vulnerable to a takings claim from Mills because only a portion of the Mills property is restricted 1 y the Conservation designation, and the remainder is in profitable use. While it is true that, as a general rule, a single parcel cannot be"carved up"for the purposes of a talrings analysis, a different rule applies if differential zoning is imposed on the parcels. Shirley Dettloff, Chair, • • and Members of the Huntington Beach Planning Commission January 31, 1994 Page 5 Further, to the extent the staff report implies that the Coastal Commission's action is "based," in part, on reviews provided by the landowners, that simply is not the case. The Coastal Commission's actions have, quite obviously, been taken despite the landowners' comments and objections, which were neither responded to nor even acknowledged. 3> The staff report states that in November, 1992 "the City Council reviewed the modifications and did not take action accepting them because some council members wanted more time to evaluate them." This statement leaves the impression that the Council has never taken. action on this matter, and further implies that the Zone Change was evaluated by the Council in November, 1992. The record reflects otherwise. The plain fact is that in July 1992 the proposed modifications were reviewed and rejected by the City Council as unacceptable. According to a later staff report, the rejection occurred because of concerns raised by CalTrans. A representative of Mills, who was present at the meeting, recalls that the rejection was based also upon the fact that the modifications were probably unlawful. The matter was returned to the City Council agenda in November of 1992, but was withdrawn without any substantive "review" by the Council at that time. In sum, Mills appreciates and applauds all of the work done by City staff, and acknowledges that staff may not agree with Mills' continents. However, because portions of the report may well create misleading impressions, these matters should be given serious consideration before the Commission takes action. The Proposed "CC" Overlay Is Irreconcilable With The "Base" Zoning The City has spent more than six years trying to address the implementation zoning for the Land Use Plan (LUP), and its confiscatory impacts on private property owners. Those issues have never been addressed. Instead, the City has proposed an internally inconsistent "hybrid" zone which purports to allow economically viable uses (such as Light Industrial) but at the same time prohibits any development, with the possible exception of nature trails, observation platforms, peripheral parking and similar uses. Such uses would not generate sufficient income even to carry tax and maintenance costs for the property. The Coastal. Commission staff quickly recognized that this "hybrid" zoning was the result of a superficial attempt to address concerns about potential liability for inverse condemnation. The staff analysis makes clear, however, that the -CC suffix is neither a "compromise" nor a "solution" to the taking problem: The -CC suffix is, in fact, "functionally equivalent" to the Coastal Conservation.District by which "all permitted uses and protections to wetlands will be in force." (Coastal Commission Staff Report, 6/21/91, at p. 14.) Certainly no one denies that attaching the -CC suffix onto a base zoning, instead of rezoning the property as conservation, does not reduce the impact of the LUP on the private property owners. (Huntington Beach Staff Report, 12/5/89, at p. 5,see also, Staff Report on Zone Change 93-8 at p.4) Indeed, the addition of the --CC suffix was originally intended as an Shirley Dettloff, Chair, and Members of the Huntington.Beach Planning Commission January 31, 1994 Page 6 interim measure, pending the issuance of recommendations from the Wetlands Coalition. (12/5/89 Staff Report at p. 7) As you know, the Wetlands Coalition is defunct, and never produced any recommendations. 'Thus, the retention of the base zoning provides no solution to the taking problem. Moreover, when the implementation zoning for the LCP was initially proposed, the City Attorney advised that the City could be liable for inverse condemnation damages if the properties were rezoned as proposed. The City hired outside counsel to provide a second opinion. In that opinion, the attorneys concluded the zone change did not constitute a taking on its face, but might result in liability as applied to certain properties. In order to reduce that exposure to liability, counsel recommended that an administrative claims procedure be provided to allow applicants to challenge (a) the economic viability of the permitted uses and (b) the designation as wetlands. Counsel also recommended the adoption of a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program which would allow property o,%vn.ers to transfer development rights on "conservation" properties to other parcels. The letter also suggested that a specific plan for the area be prepared by a coalition of property owners, governmental officials and other interested persons. None of these recommendations has been put into effect. To our knowledge, none are even under consideration. The So-Called "Removal" Provisions Are Incomprehensible and Inadequate This letter has already commented upon the absence of any administrative procedure to challenge the zoning restrictions on the ground that it leaves no economically feasible use of the property. The "Removal" provisions are also flawed because they do not make sense. According to $Prtinn 9422.3, a -CC suffix can beretnoved only if ujI thref of the following findings are made: (1) There are no wetlands on the entire parcel proposed for development; and(2) the removal of the suffix will not violate any policies, standards and provisions of the Coastal Act, and. (3) "there is no feasible, less environmentally damaging alternative site for any proposed land use or development which may be allowed under California Public Resources Code sections 30233(a)(1) and 30264." These findings essentially create an insurmountable barrier for the removal of the proposed -CC suffix. But even assuming these conditions could ever be satisfied, the third required finding is entirely superfluous. That finding must be made whenever a landowner seeks to develop any wetlands area with a permitted use: According to Pub. Res. Code § 30233(a)(1), even the permitted uses will not be allowed unless the finding of"no feasible, less damaging alternative site" is made. Thus, in seeking removal of the -CC suffix, if finding (1) [no wetlands] is made, why is finding (3) required? Shirley Dettloff, Chair, and Members of the Huntington Beach Planning Commission January 31, 1994 Page 7 The Froposed Conservation "Overlay" Zoning On the Seven Acres of Pacific Coast Highway Frontage Designated for "Visitor-Serving Commercial" Uses Is Arbitrary, Discriminatory and Without Evidentiary Support The most far-reaching modification proposed by the Coastal Commission, and redrafted by City staff, is Section 9422.2.1 which purports to give the City the right to demand dedication of acres upon acres of property, with no apparent legal basis. In 1986 the Coastal Commission certified the City's Land Use Plan that designated seven acres of frontage on the Pacific Coast Highway as "Visitor-Serving Commercial." City staff, prompted by the Coastal Commission's suggested modifications, now proposes that this site together with the balance of the parcel and any contiguous parcels held in common ownership, be impressed with a "conservation overlay." Under the Coastal Commission's version, the overlay provisions were applicable only to parcels owned by Mills and CalTrans, designated by Assessor's Parcel number. The original staff reports describing the overlay provisions leaves no doubt that they were designed to impose an additional and patently invalid condition of development on the only site designated under the LCP for development. This condition was also remarkable in that it would apply only where there was a unity of ownership. Of course, the only likely scenario for such "common. ownership" -- and the one clearly being targeted --was the exercise by Mills of its statutory option to reacquire the Pacific Coast Highway frontage from CalTrans. The City Council wisely rejected this arbitrary and discriminatory attempt to take land for the State without compensation. Although staff have now redrafted the proposal, the impact of the provisions now before this Commission is virtually identical to the Coastal Comnu.ssion's proposal. The latest draft provides that any proposed development on any parcel which is fully or even partly impressed with the -CC suffix would be permitted "only pursuant to an overall development plan for all such parcels, if at said time of application the parcels are geographically contiguous, under common ownership, and carry the Coastal conservation suffix (- CC)." The proposed modification goes on to require that "conservation easements, dedications or other identified similar mechanisms shall be required over all wetland areas as a condition of development, to assure permanent protection against development inconsistent with Sections 9422.5-9422.7." An "alternative" is also proposed, which would allow the owner of"an above parcel(s)" who wishes to develop only the parcels) which has "coastal element land use designations other than conservation" does not have to submit an. overall development plan. However, a "conservation easement, dedication or other . . .mechanism . . .shall be required over the parcel(s) area which have a conservation land use designation and are within the parcel(s) proposed for development." By definition, this "alternative" can only apply to the CalTrans parcel., which contains the only area the Coastal Commission has designated for development. Shirley Dettloff, Chair, and 'Members of the Huntington Beach Planning Commission January 31, 1994 Page 8 The proposed ordinance is not only extremely confusing and ambiguous, but raises serious constitutional implications for the City: > The proposed Section 9422.2.1 does not make sense. Why is the proposed ordinance drafted to require a wetlands survey on property that has been depicted as "wetlands" by the Department of Fish & Game, and impressed with the restrictive -CC zoning on that basis? > The first paragraph of the Section appears to require the dedication of all wetlands areas on the parcel proposed for development and dedication of all commonly owned, contiguous -CC parcels. The second paragraph of the Section appears to require, as an alternative, the dedication of the balance of any parcel proposed for development. There does not appear to be any principled distinction for the alternatives, nor any requirement that the provisions of the first paragraph be followed under any circumstances. > The proposal violates the Coastal Commission's procedures by attempting to effectuate a change in.the Land Use Plan by means of implementation zoning. k The Section proposed is both novel and patently 'illegal. The adoption by zoning ordinance of a specific dedication requirement is entirely premature. At the legislative stage, the nature and size of a proposed development is rarely known, so its potential impacts, and the burdens it may (or may not) create, cannot possibly be discerned. Mere, there is simply no evidence anywhere in the record to support a conclusion that dedication of arty land -- whether "wetlands" or not -- will be either necessary or justifiable under the constitutional due process standard, or the nexus test articulated in Government Code § 66005. Nor are any standards articulated concerning the dedication requirement. Accordingly the conservation easement/ dedication requirement imposed by the zoning ordinance should and would be struck down as arbitrary and capricious. > The proposal appears to be nothing more than a subterfuge to stave off a facial taking claim. The overlay is drafted as if to allow development in the "conservation" areas under certain conditions. In reality, it does the opposite: It overburdens without any justification the development of even the smallest part of the 232 acres encompassed by the White Hole area, which the City and Coastal Commission had previously unconditionally approved for "Visitor- Serving Commercial." uses. The proposed zoning overlay also places property owners at the mercy of the Department of Fish & Game, whose "wetlands" depiction has spawned the current dilemma. There is no reason to believe that Fish& Game would ever give favorable consideration to any development in areas it has labeled "restorable wetlands." In sum., the proposed "Requirements" found in Section 9422.2.1 are extremely ill-advised and should not be adopted. i. • . ,Shirley Dettloff, Chair, and Members of the Huntington Beach Planning Commission January 31, 1994 Page 9 A Modest Proposal The rapidly decreasing supply of wetlands in California and across the United States has resulted in a properly conservative approach to land use regulation wherever wetlands are affected. But in the case of the Huntington Beach White Hole area, this response is entirely unjustified. The historic wetlands which previously existed on the Mills property were lost in the 1940's when the State filled the Gamewell Estuary to create a publiu beach. From that point on, an irreversible transformation of the former wetlands began, and continues to this day. Even the laity has approved construction of a major hotel on acreage, a portton of which has been designated by Fish& Game as "restorable wetlands." Nearly 50 years have passed since these wetlands were lost, due to the actions of various governmental agencies. Meanwhile, between the actions of CalTrans, the Coastal. Commission and the City of Huntington Beach, Mills Land & Water Company has been in a legislative Iimbo for over 25 years. Mills has not even been allowed to process an application for development without first seeking a general plan amendment to remove the "conservation" designation from its property. Miffs has systematically disputed both the basis for and the propriety of the "wetlands" designation on its property, and has previously pointed out how the City, over the years, has allowed other development in so-called "wetlands" [see,e.g., Mills' letter of July 6, 1992] while refusing to permit).Mills to process its own application for development. Nevertheless, recognizing that the City and the Coastal Commission appear unlikely to retract the .Iwetlands" depiction short of a court order requiring them to do so, Mills requests that the Planning Commission consider the following: i. Delay action on the implementation zoning until the City has rPreived the GPAC recommendations, and until the following actions have been taken: 2. Initiate and complete within six months a scientific study of the White Hole area to determine the feasibility of re-creating, in any part of the area, a functioning wetlands, applying the statutory criteria for "feasibility" set forth in Public Resources Code § 30108. 3. If the study concludes that a wetlands re-creation is feasible, and if it is determined that these wetlands are necessary for the health and welfare of the State, initiate condemnation proceedings to acquire the Mills property for public use to accomplish this goal. 4. If the study concludes that restoration of all or part of the area is not feasible, initiate amendments to the LUP to permit development in the areas where wetlands cannot be re-created. i Shirley Dettloff, Chair, and Members of the Huntington Beach Planning Commission January 31., 1994 Page 10 Mills is prepared to cooperate with and assist any and all agencies in making an accurate determination of the feasibility of re-creating any part of the tidal marsh that once existed in this area. Conclusion Over the past 25 years, the Mills property has been carved up, condemned, landlocked, and over-regulated by a variety of governmental agencies. If the proposed zoning is adopted, there can be no doubt that the remaining patchwork of parcels will be left with no economically viable use. The historic wetlands in this area were lost, not through Mills' activity, but through progressive improvements completed by the State and its agencies. J.t would be. unconscionable, not to mention unconstitutional, for the Coastal Commission and the City to impose upon two or three landowners the entire burden of. "protection" of the pathetic vestiges of a former coastal salt marsh on behalf of all the people of this State. Thank you for your serious consideration of these matters. Very truly yours, / Maria P. Rivera cc: See attached list i Shirley Dettloff, Chair and Members of the Huntington Beach Planning Commission January 31, 1994 Page 11 DISTRIBUTION LIST Linda Moulton-Patterson, Mayor Huntington Beach City Council Members Ralph Bauer Victor Leipzig Earle Robitaille Jim Silva Dave Sullivan Grace Winchell Michael Uberuaga, City Administrator Gail Clifford Hutton, City Attorney Melanie Fallon, Director Dept. of Community Development Connie Brockway, Huntington Beach City Clerk State of California Dept. of Transportation LAW OFFICE OF q . RICHARD J. SILBER i PAOFESSIONAL COpPOpaT1ON 2134 MAIN STREET. SUITE 130 SEACLIFF OFFICE PARK HUNTINGTON BEACH. CALIFORNIA 92648 (714) 960-7646 FACSIMILE(714)960-7640 September 6, 1994 TO: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: SURF CITY LIFEGUARDS EMPLOYEE ASSOCIATION (11SCLEA11) SCOTT FERRY, REPRESENTATIVE PATRICK GRAHAM, REPRESENTATIVE RICHARD J. SILBER AND JEFFREY P. KOLLER, ATTORNEYS RE: SURF CITY LIFEGUARDS EMPLOYEE ASSOCIATION (11SCLEA1111) OPPOSITION TO PROPOSED COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT BUDGET CUT/REDUCTION OF LIFEGUARD PERSONNEL CONCEPT 1 SCLEA vigorously opposes the Proposed Community services Department Budget Cut/Reduction of Lifeguard Personnel Concept. 1. The - CityIs "Public Safety" Tax Structure and its current Budget Surplus neither support nor justify the proposed Community Service Department Budget Cut/Reduction of Lifeguard Personnel Concept. a. The 5% annual Utility Tax levied by the City to Ilavoid additional Budget Reductions in Policy and Fire Departmentso, (Resolution No. 6493) has not been earmarked for Public Safety Services. The actual Utility Tax Revenue received for the 1993- . 1994 Fiscal Year was $914,865. b. The City also received $950,000 from the Proposition 172 Sales Tax for the 1993-1994 Fiscal Year ($1,000,000 is projected for 1994-1995) to offset a loss in Property Tax Revenue. Such Proposition 172 Tax Revenue, only to be used for "Police and Fire Services" , does not appear to have been earmarked or utilized for Public Safety Services when the Proposed Budget Cut was submitted. c. There is a current Budget Surplus of $7,063,337. $352,309 of the 1993-1994 Budget Surplus was utilized to establish the new Ambulance Program for non-City Employees, but Budget Surplus Funds have not been applied to maintain existing level(s) of Fire Service and Firefighter "Suppression" Personnel. I The City has received about $15,300, 000 in PERS Rebates since 1990 (exceeds the current Budget Reserve) , but the City does not earmark such Funds for Employee Compensation (including PERS Benefits) - an apparent "Breach Of Trust" with City Employees. d. The Cityls Self-Insured Workers' Compensation Fund will have a Balance of $2,6909,264 (even after $782, 000 is spent on Claims Payments, and a $500,000 transfer is made to the Liability Self- Insured Fund) . Therefore, this Projected Balance (based on prior experience) appears to be highly excessive/not needed. e. The City's Equipment Replacement Fund has a Cash Balance of $4,149,249. Based upon prior experience, this large balance is not justified- particularly at the expense of reducing the level of Fire Service and Firefighter "Suppression" Personnel. In view of the City Revenue Structure (including Special Tax Levies to maintain Public Safety) , SCLEA submits that the City has sufficient funds to maintain the current level of Community services Department/Lifeguard Personnel. Therefore, SCLEA urges the City Council not to approve the Proposed Budget Cut/Reduction of Lifeguard Personnel Concept. 2. City Council adoption of the Proposed Community Services Department Budget Cut/Reduction of Lifeguard Personnel Concept will 1 violate a Public Agency's "MMBA" "NOTICE/MEETING ON MATTERS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION" REQUIREMENT. [Gov. Code Sec. 3504.5] Gov. Code Sec. 3504.5. "NOTICE RELATING TO MATTERS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; MEETING; EMERGENCIES. 11Except in cases of emergency as provided in this Section, the Governing Body of a Public Agency and Boards and Commissions designated by Law or by such Governing Body, shall give reasonable written notice to each recognized Employee Organization affected by any Ordinance, Rule, Resolution, or Regulation directly relating to matters within the scope of representation proposed to be adopted by the Governing Body or such Boards and Commissions and shall give such recognized Employee Organization the opportunity to meet with the Governing Body. . .11 a. The Hearing requirement of Gov. Code Sec. 3504.5 is separate/ distinct for the "meet and confer" requirement of Gov. Code Sec. 3505. [Los Angeles Civil Service v. Superior Court, 74 Cal.App. 3d 1 (12/01/77) ] b. Since the City did not accord SCLEA "reasonable written noticell/opportunity for a full public @'Due Process') Hearing before the City Council- presentation/cross-examination of witnesses/City Officials- the City Council is precluded from taking action on the Proposed Community Services Department Budget Cut/Reduction of Lifeguard Personnel Concept at this time. Such City Council action, without "reasonable written notice" and a "Due Process" Hearing, will be invalid/null and void. 3. Adoption by the City Council of the Community Services Department Budget Cut/Reduction of Lifeguard Personnel Concept will be a "per sell violation of the City's "MMBA" "meet and confer in good faith'I obligation to SCLEA. [Gov. Code Sec. 3505] a. Adoption of the Community Services Department Budget Cut/ Reduction of Lifeguard Personnel Concept without "good faiths' Negotiations will violate the City's "meet and confer" obligation to SCLEA. Consequently, such action will be set aside as invalid/ null and void. ["MMBA" Gov. Code Sec. 3505; IAFF Local 1186 v. City of Vallejo, 12 Cal. 3d 609 (10/01/74) ; Intl. Assn. of Firefighters Union v. City of Pleasanton, 56 Cal.App.3d 959 (1976) ; NLRB v. Katz, 369 U.s. 756 (5/21/62) ; Santa Clara County Counsel Attorneys Assn. v. Woodside, Cal. 28 Cal.Rptr.2d 617 (3/31/94) ; Vernon Firefighters v. City of Vernon, 107 Cal.App.3d 802, 810; 165 Cal.Rptr. 908 (1980) ] b. SCLEA has not had an opportunity to engage in "good faithle Negotiations with the City over the proposed Community Services 2 Department Budget Cut/Reduction of Lifeguard Personnel Concept. c. SCLEA's right to I'meet and conferee is more than just the right to be heard. It involves Negotiations, a '$serious attempt to resolve differences and reach a common ground. To be blunt, it leads to a bargaining session. (Los Angeles Civil Service v. Superior Court, 74 Cal.App. 3d 1 (12/01/77) , supra] d. The City is obligated to @'meet and conferll/"bargain') over "conditions of employment" to flendeavor to reach an Agreement1l; and not to make unilateral changes in employee 11conditions of employmentle until an Impasse is reached (Impasse Procedure utilized) . Therefore, the City Council may not act/implement the proposed Community Services Department Budget Cut/Reduction of Lifeguard Personnel Concept until completion of the 11MMBA11 Negotiation/,,meet and conferlt/Impasse Process. (Santa Clara County Counsel Attorney Assn. v. Woodside, Cal. 28 Cal.Rptr.2d 617 (3/31/94) ] Since the City has an "MMBA" obligation to Negotiate/:meet and confer in good faith" with SCLEA over its proposed Community Services Department Budget Cut/Reduction of Lifeguard Personnel Concept and unilateral action without "good faith" Negotiations is an unlawful/invalid/null and void action that will be set aside, SCLEA urges the City Council to refrain from any unlawful approval/ unilateral implementation of the proposed Community Services Department Budget Cut/Reduction of Lifeguard Personnel Concept. Respectfully Submitted, Richard J. ilber Attorney For SCLEA J tey P. Koller tEorney For SCLEA 3 Exhibit 1 i • PETTIS. TESTER. KRUSE & KRINSKY KE11r. P 8.5..0P ATTORNEYS AT LAW MARK R "CGUIRE AOELE K. CAPOOZA •A•.•+...- +C1.0.....019-0..L co•ro••••o.■ MIC.ACL L.MILLER ••IC.AEL S.CUCC••-SS SCOTT J- OAPUTY BBB VON IaARMAN AVENUE.IS— FLOOR DNA L. •.. ' NE NC DENNIS O O. -L DEAN DUNN-RANKIN IRVINE.�ALIFORNIA 9271S JAY F. PALCMIKOFF CMAPLES S. EXON OANIEL L.PELEKC---AS -n P.STOP..ER J. FAPLCY• POST OFFICE BOX .9766 A LAN W. PETTIS MAPK B IELOMAN IPV:NE.CALIFORNIA 927-3 L:SA M. OUINN GLENN E FL:LLER ROSERT A. RIZZI ROBEP' - GEPARD. ,P. PAVL A. ROWE •LAN J. GOPOCE 'ELE'-.ONE !7,41 SS3.2SOO DONALD J� SAJOR PO6ERT L.GREEN FACS-MILE P.CRAIG SCOT' -•OwAPO -ALL CAPOLE STEVENS WILLIAM E -IALLE 17i4i 261-0882 Dial 261-725 BRuCC A.TESTER C..EPIE ERICKSON --QQ-S NILLIAM L.rWCME- ANDREW K. wARTZE a.. -CS' SEVEN'-. 57REE1. S—IC 230 KENNET.. A.WOLFS:-N -UG•• -EW.TT .O•.N P y LAWOENCE J. "ILTON _;S ANGC-ES.CAL,F.GPN•A 90= MSC^•A[L0 A'OOER .O-N D. .•UDSON •E,EP--ONE 213- 362 =350 CARY K. •••OCN FACSLE!2131 362.O3S9 O.CO—SILL DAVIO A..KRINS [API M, R DAMON _AWRENCE KY M RUSSELL KRUSE June 15, 1992 M,C..AEL 6.LUS-C C..R,STINC L.LUKETIC •—CrCf II-C—L COK•O14710N WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL NUMBER OUR FILE NUMBER (714) 253-2443 18705-00001 VIA MESSENGER Mayor James Silva Huntington Beach City Council City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 Re: Proposed Resolution to Agree to Accept the California Coastal Commission's Action to A22rove Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 90-2 Mayor Silva and City Council Members: My clients, the Coastal Magnolia Group ("CMG") and Pacific Enviro Design ("PED") , own approximately 66-acres of property (collectively, the "Property") in the City of Huntington Beach (the "City") which is included in the City's 232-acre Pacific Coast Highway Area of Deferred Certification (the "Whitehole Area") . On May 12, 1992, the California Coastal Commission (the "Coastal Commission") certified an amendment to the City's Local Coastal Plan ("LCP") and an Implementation Plan for the Whitehole Area "with suggested modifications" (collec- tively, the "Certification") . Before the Certification becomes effective, .the City must formally agree to the suggested modifications and take whatever formal action is required to meet the terms of the Certification. Cal. Admin. Code tit. 14, § 13544 . I understand 05-06-92 19M-00001 G:\P0C\196\CMR\92060016ATR EXHIBIT 1 f PETTIS, TESTER, KR[.• .3c KRItiSKY • Mayor James Silva Huntington Beach City Council June 15, 1992 Page 2 that the City will consider these modifications in its proposed "Resolution to Agree and Accept the California Coastal Commission's Action to Approve Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 9-2" (the "Resolution") tonight at its City Council meeting. CMG and PED wish to voice their concerns about and objections to the Resolution. CMG and PED respectfully submit that the City should not accept the Certification because, quite simply, the LCP would violate the constitutionally protected rights of private property owners. I detailed these same concerns to the Coastal Commission in my May 6, 1992 letter to Chairman Gwyn and the other members of the Coastal Commission. Rather than reiterate these concerns, I refer you to that letter, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated by this reference as though set forth at length. CMG and PED have already initiated legal action against the City, the Coastal Commission and others to vindicate its legal rights vis-a-vis the Property. As I stated to the Coastal Commission, the City should treat this letter as notice that, should the City formally accept the Certification by passing the Resolution, it will be subjecting itself to yet another legal challenge. The Property owners in the Whitehole Area have their backs to the wall and will have no choice but to seek redress from the courts. CMG and PED urge the City to reject the Resolution and work to apply land use regulations to the Property which will permit economically viable use of the Property. Very truly yours John P. eager JPY/cl cc: Gail Hutton, Esq. Mr. Paul Cook Mr. Michael Adams 05-06-92 ISM-00001 G:\OW\196\CM\92WW16ATR PETTIS, TESTER. KRusE 8c KRI�tsi y ' a[ : e 5--a AT-ORNCYS AT LAW .c[.L _A•OOZA ••••...••-. -_._a.e•ro• »-o..,ce.ro•.•o-• �•oa a aE .1 C-AC6 S _---- SS see, ON -ARMAN AvCN; c e'• r'-00R : •C_ _a 5_- - ZAA•-- AN• _ .S-r[ :EA, �-NN.RAN•.N =S- zrr ze e0: 9766 :CNN S NE _ _-aa-CS S EAON a.. a[ _A- rORN.A 927•S _•N E_ _ :C_C• r:ai __a 5-:a-cc r.oL"• a.AN H aE-- S _-S.-ONC 7 a SS3•2500 _ .. rAcS •• _C :coca, • a LZ a .Sc ::CE•. A, 26�•:ee2 :ZNAIO Sa-:a :aRC_[ S'f.ENS ~_r aa•- a -aaa i oar-_c • -[S-r. 9'• DES' SCiEr-- S—CE' S-.'C 230 [ 'r C-- • '_•5: _es .Np[_CS CA,..O01" aco" - --C:-ONC 2•31 ae 2•o Aso " _-.C. --Ea :.: 7 oN3.. :.•aOr _..v oEN_c _-0--_SiE__ -a_SL " _ •E_ 9 _-9 _ 3- .E _ __.[- : May 6, 1992 . ..cless ..:..•:. N R 'E4 S REC' O-AL N�"SER 7uR r_E .,••wgra (714) 253-2443 18705-00001 VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS Thomas Gwyn, Chairman 'California Coastal Commission South Coast Area 245 N. Broadway, Suite 380 Long Beach, CA 90802 Re: City of Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 2-90 and Amendment to the Implementation Plan Portion of the LCP to Certify Zoning for the Pacific Coast Highway Area of Deferred Certification Chairman Gwyn and Members of the Coastal Commission: My clients, the Coastal Magnolia Group ("CMG") and Pacific Enviro Design ("PED") , own approximately 66-acres of property (hereinafter referred to collectively as the "Property") in the City of Huntington Beach ("City") which is included in the City' s 232-acre Pacific Coast Highway Area of Deferred Certification ("Whitehole Area") . The City has submitted an amendment to its Local Coastal Plan ("LCP") and an Implementation Plan for the Whitehole Area to the Coastal Commission ("Commission") for its consideration at the Commission' s May 12 , 1992 hearing. Due to recent events in the cities- of Los Angeles and Long Beach, the Commission's staff did not complete or mail the staff report on this agenda item until Tuesday, May 5th, and we have not yet received the staff's report. In a telephone conversation with Teresa Henry of the Commission's staff, I learned that the Commission's staff has recommended that the Commission reject the City' s proposal as submitted but 05-06-92 1870-00001 G:\DW\196\CORK\920400 ATR ` PETTIS. TESTER. K• 3 & KRI�iSKY • Thomas Gwyn, Chairman - May 6, 1992 Page 2 conditionally approve a modified LCP amendment and Implementation Plan. This letter is being submitted to comply with the Commission ' s requirement that all written correspondence be submitted no less than three working days before the hearing date. If necessary, I will submit another letter prior to the hearing to address issues raised by the latest staff report. I hope that under the circumstances all correspondence received prior to or at the May 12 , 1992 meeting will be considered by the Commission prior to acting on this item. CMG and PED wish to voice their concerns about and objections to both the City and Commission staff proposals. CMG and PED respectfully submit that the Commission has an obligation under law to order the preparation of a new staff report which considers whether the proposals presented to the Commission, if adopted, would violate the constitutionally protected rights of ..private property owners. See Cal. Pub. Res. Code SS 30001. 5 (b) , 30001. 5 (c) , and 30010. The confiscatory nature of the City' s proposed LCP for this area has been a hotly debated subject for many years. The City has struggled with this issue openly and in private, and has even sought outside legal counsel on how to address it. Property owners in the Whitehole Area, including another State agency, have written the Commission on numerous occasions to explain why the LCP for this area results in the uncompensated taking of private property. CMG and PED have reluctantly been forced to pursue an inverse condemnation suit relating to their Property because of a series of confiscatory acts by Caltrans, the Commission and the City. The City and staff proposals ignore the fact that much of the land within the Whitehole Area is privately owned and that real peoples' livelihoods are affected by the Commission' s actions with respect to this area. The Coastal Act of 1976, California Resources Code 30000 gt sec. ("Coastal Act") , provides this Commission with a mandate to act in a manner "consistent with sound resource conservation principles and constitutionally protected rights of private property owners. " Cal. Pub. Res. Code S 30001. 5(c) (emphasis added) . In order for the Commission to carry out this mandate, the Commission must reject the City' s proposal as well as its staffs. Instead, the Commission should inform the City that the Commission is only willing to consider proposals in which all private property owners are allowed some viable economic use of their property or are compensated for that property which is effectively taken by regulatory action. 05-06-92 18705-00001 G:\000\196\00R1t\92040002.LTR PETTIS. TESTER, k.SE & KRINSKY • - Thomas Gwyn, Chairman May 6, 1992 Page 3 The "Coastal Conservation" Overlay Constitutes an Unlawful "Taking" on Its Face and As Applied. By placing a "Coastal Conservation" zoning overlay on 124 . 5 acres within the Whitehole Area, including all 66 acres owned by CMG and PED, the City has unlawfully taken the Property of PED and CMG without any compensation whatsoever. It is absolutely clear that the Coastal Conservation overlay proposed for Commission certification or as modified per the Commission staff alternative denies PED and CMG all viable economic use of their Property. The Commission staff ' s proposed expansion of the potential conditional uses on property within the Coastal Conservation overlay zone to allow for port or commercial facilities is totally meaningless to PED and CMG. - No such uses are physically possible on the Property, let alone economically feasible. In addition, the Commission staff's proposal to allow habitat restoration projects and new flood control facilities (when in conjunction with habitat restoration projects) reveals the Commission staff ' s future hope for these historical but now thoroughly degraded wetland parcels, but this proposal too provides no opportunity for meaningful economic use of the PED and CMG Property. With the Coastal Conservation overlay in place, most of the remaining allowable uses for the Property are physically or economically infeasible as well, and those uses which are feasible have no economic value. There are no existing streets or utilities to maintain on the Property, so this use is not applicable. The Property has been rejected as a site for any new energy facilities by the State Energy and Resources Conservation and Development Commission. There is no water on the Property or access to the coast, thus ruling out aquaculture or similar resource-dependent activities, coastal dependent industrial activities and all the allowable uses relating to boating facilities, navigation channels, etc. This leaves three allowable uses under the Coastal Conservation area: restoration projects, nature study and incidental public service purposes such as burying cables and pipes. The three allowable uses under the Coastal Conservation designation which are at all practical for the PED and CMG Property all relate to Sublic benefits with no private benefits whatsoever. To allow property owners to use their land as public parks, nature reserves or conduits for incidental public works 05-06-92 ISM-0=1 c:\O=\l96\C=\92o40=-LT1e PETTIS. TESTER. KRRE 8t KRINSKY • Thomas Gwyn, Chairman May 6, 1992 Page 4 projects does not provide economically viable use of such property so as to avoid the constitutional obligation to compensate the owners for taking their property. Consequently, PED and CMG wish to reiterate to the Commission that approval of either the City or Commission staff proposal will in fact preclude any economically viable use of the PED and CMG Property and would constitute an unlawful taking of the Property. Lawyers for the Commission have repeatedly taken the position that the means to raise an alleged "takings" claim against the Commission is through an administrative mandamus action. The Commission should treat this letter as notice that should the Commission adopt either the City or Commission staff s proposal, it will be subjecting itself to yet another legal challenge. The Property owners in the Whitehole Area have . their backs to the wall and will have no choice but to seek redress t from the courts. The Commission, on the other hand, does have a choice: it can obey the oath taken by each member of the Commission to defend and uphold the constitutions of the State of California and the United States. The courts should not be the Commission's testing grounds to see if its actions are constitutionally out of bounds. Pursuant to the Coastal Act, The Commission Should Balance Conservation Concerns with Social and Economic Concerns. The Coastal Act was adopted in part to "assure orderly, balanced utilization and conservation of coastal zone resources taking into account the social and economic needs of the people of the state. " Cal. Pub. Res. Code S 30001.5 (b) . The PED and CMG Property alone has the potential to generate millions of dollars per year in tax revenue for the City and provide substantial housing opportunities for citizens of this State. Such economic and social benefits, which would directly address pressing economic and social concerns faced by this State, are blindly ignored in the proposals being presented to the commission. The current proposals before the Commission, however, monomaniacally focus on the conservation of coastal resources which are degraded and only marginally useful in their present state. For example, the PED and CMG Property, if left alone, will become further degraded and removed from its historic wetland character. Indeed, the designation of the Property as wetlands at present is an unprecedented expansion of the "wetland" definition (analogous to defining a desert which was 05-06-92 ISM-OOWI G:\Dot\196\CMR\92040W-1TR PETTIs. TESTER. K&E 8c KRIzvsKY • - Thomas Gwyn, Chairman May 6, 1992 Page 5 once -;-.der the ocean as an "historical sea" and subjecting it to the Coastal Act) . To restore the PED and CMG Property to a functioning wetland would require extensive human intervention and physical invasion of the Property, and any physical invasion would undoubtedly require compensation to PED and CMG. See Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp. , 458 U.S. 419 , 428 ( 1982 ) . Such a restoration effort would be expensive and subject to possible failure due to the extent of degradation which has occurred over many decades. PED and CMG are quite sure that the Coastal Act does not allow the Commission to undertake such an ambitious effort without at least compensating the property owners whose land has been taken. But does the Coastal Act require the Commission to undertake such an expensive effort for such a limited potential return? PED and CMG submit that the Coastal Act does -not compel such an inefficient result, and arguably compels a different outcome. Unfortunately, the Commission to date has blithely ignored all proposals for use of the Property that would balance the competing concerns of restoring potential habitat areas, promoting economic and housing opportunities for the people of this State and acknowledging the rights of private property owners. For the above stated reasons, PED and CMG urge the Commission to reject both the City's and its staff's proposed LCP amendment and Implementation Plan for the Whitehole Area or commence formal condemnation proceedings on the Property at once. veryi772:;_ Jo P. JPY: jmm cc (via regular mail) : Teresa Henry, Coastal Program Analyst Robert Nastase Gail Hutton, Esq. Paul Cook Michael Adams ,5-06-92 IBM-0=1 0:\WC\196%C0n\92040=.LTR Exhibit 2 Mc EN, DOYLE, BROWN 6 ARSEN !AN FgANC19C0 COUNSELORS AT LAVN WASHINOTON,0 LO! ANOELCs 1331 NOIRTM CALIP'ORNIA 90ULItVARO TAI^[' •N J086 POST OFFICE BOX V Jr Cw[[x WALNUT CREEK, CALIRORNIA OAaea ArrILIAr6D Oirl TEl6PMONC (510) 037-0000 BANGKOK FACSIMILE (510) 075-5300 January 31, 1994 DIRECT DIAL NUMI HAND DELIVERED Shirley Dettloff, Chair, and Members of the Huntington Beach Planning Commission Huntington Beach City Hall 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 RE: City of Huntington Beach LCP Proposed "White Hole" Area Rezoning February 1, 1994 Planning Commission Agenda - Item B-8 Dear Commissioners: This letter is submitted in connection with the proposed Zoning Code Amendments designated 93-8, and prior proposed Amendments 93-3 (formerly Zone Change 88-18). This firm represents the Mills Land & Water Company, which is one of only two or three private property owners who will be affected by the proposed amendments. Malls is a small, family-owned company; it has held property between Beach Boulevard and the Santa Ana River for more than 90 years. Most of the zoning for the area located within the City of Huntington Beach Coastal Zone bas been certified by the California Coastal Commission to conform to Coastal Act requirements. However, an area of approximately 232 acres on the inland side of Pacific Coast Highway, between Beach Boulevard and the Santa Ana River was set aside by the Commission for deferred certification. This Area of Deferred Certification (ADC)was created on November 17, 1982 and is commonly referred to as the "White Hole" area. The proposed zone change purports to be the final step needed to complete the Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program(LCP) -- a process which has taken over fifteen years to date. Given this unconscionable delay, the Mills group of families is naturally most anxious to have the process completed in order finally to learn what uses, if any, will be permitted on their property. The owners, nonetheless, would expect the process to be completed in a fashion that is both substantively and procedurally correct. So far, this has not occurred. EXHIBIT 2 Shirley Dettloff, Chair, and Members of the • Huntington.Beach Planningommission c g January 31, 1994 Page 2 Mills hereby incorporates by reference all previous statements, both written and oral, presented to the Planning Commission and City Council with respect to the Local Coastal Plan and all of its implementing resolutions and ordinances. While we here briefly touch on some of the previous objections, we do not abandon any previous claims, comments or arguments by omitting them here. (See, esp. letters from Mills dated February 5, 1990 and July 6, 1992.) The Conservation Designation of the White Hole Area Is Improper In 1986, with no apparent concern for the devastating impact on the rights of property owners, the restrictive "Conservation" designation was placed on property owned by Mills and others which had previously been depicted as degraded, but "restorable wetlands." Mills has repeatedly objected to that designation on the ground that it is based on insufficient evidence to support a conclusion that any wetlands restoration project would ever be economically, environmentally, or technologically feasible. Until such time as it may be demonstrated that re-creation of a wetlands on.any of the parcels within the White Hole area is feasible, within the context of the Coastal Act, the "Conservation" designation applied to this property is neither necessary nor appropriate. To date, Mills has been unable to challenge the Conservation designation because the LCP process still is not complete. First, the City of Huntington Beach delayed for years in preparing and adopting any implementing zoning ordinances; then, the zoning finally proposed was rejected by the Coastal Commission, which sent suggested modifications back to the City. These modifications were, in turn, rejected by the City in July, 1992. As a result, the City must now recommence procedures for adopting the implementation zoning for the White Hole area in order to complete the certification process. The City Must Adhere to Procedural Requirements in Adopting the Implementation Zoning. In their report, City staff appear to take the position that because Zone Change 93-3 (formerly Zone Change 88-19), was adopted in 1990, it "established a new zoning on the subject property" and is still "in effect." Staff has therefore concluded that only the modifications to Zone Change 93-3 (proposed by the Coastal Commission) are required to be processed. With all due respect to City's staff, their assertion with respect to this important procedural issue is incorrect. The Coastal Act specifically provides that the implementation zoning cannot become "effective" until it is unconditionally approved by the Coastal Commission, or until the Coastal Commission's modifications are accepted by the City. Pub. Res. Code § 30513. Neither event has occurred. Because the Coastal Commission's certification of the implementation zoning upith suggested modifications was rejected by the City, the certification proceeding lapsed and expired six months after the action was taken by the Coastal Commission on May 12, 1992. Cal. Code of Regulations Title 14 § 13542(b). As a result, the City must now recommence the and Members of the • Huntington Beach Plannir*ommission January 31, 1994 Page 3 process of adopting the implomontation zoning, in accordanec with the establibbcd piucedum, and then resubmit the fill package of proposed zone changes for certification. From a due process standpoint, it behooves the City to hold full public hearings on the implementation.zoning. At a minimum, this is necessary to enable the City to hear the objections, comments and suggestions of the affected property owners. This will also provide a forum for the City to clarify the proposed revisions to Zone Change 93-3, mid to explain how the City intends to address the serious concerns that the zoning w0l effectuate a taking by precluding any economically viable use of the land. The Proposed Zoning Should Be Deferred Until the General Plan Advisory Committee Has Completed Its Report The law requires that zoning ordinances be consistent with a city's general plan. Technically, the City need only concern itself with the existing General Plan, if it is current and otherwise legally adequate. Because of concern about the legal status of the Huntington Beach General Plan, the City,Council commissioned the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) to conduct a complete review of the existing General Plan and provide specific recommendations for its update as required by law. The GPAC has expended a substantial amount of time and effort to initiate a General Plan update, and the issuance of its findings and recommendations may be expected by March. GPAC's recommendations may well include land use designations which do not support the proposed zone changes encompassed in Zone Change No. 93-8 (and 93-3). Under the circumstances the City should defer any action on the proposed zoning implementation measures until it has an opportunity to consider the extensive work and recommendations of GPAC. The Staff Report Contains Senious Errors and Umissions The staff report, which advocates adoption of the Coastal Commission's modifications to the proposed implementation zoning, contains statements that might be misleading to, or misunderstood by, a reader unfamiliar with the history and substance of the proposal. > At the outset, the staff report states that Ordinance No. 3033, adopted by the City Council in 1990, is "in effect." As explained above, that ordinance lapsed because the City did not accept the Coastal Commission's modifications within six months. > The staff report also states the zoning ordinance "includes a detailed removal procedure that allows applicants to challenge the economic viability of the permitted uses and the designation as wetlands . . . . As Mills has repeatedly pointed out in its comments on this proposed ordinance (.see, e.g., letter to City Council dated February 5, 1990), the ordinance does not provide for any procedure that allows applicants the challenge the economic viability of the permitted uses. Moreover, the so-called "removal procedure" is a chimera. Shirley Dettloff, Chair, • and Members of the Huntington Beach Planning Commission January 31, 1994 ' Page 4 Section 9422.3 [Coastal conservation suffix--Removal of] contains no provisions whatsoever for removing a-CC suffix on the ground that none of the permitted uses are economically viable. Moreover, denial of any application to remove a -CC suffix is essentially a foregone conclusion, since it would require the reversal of every action taken by the City and Coastal Commission in the White Bole Area over the last fifteen years. Throughout this lengthy process the landowners have objected vociferously to the adoption of the band Use Plan [LUP] and the proposed zoning, including submission of documentation which calls into question the "wetlands" designation and which raises serious issues concerning the feasibility of their restoration. The objections and comments had no effect whatsoever on the actions taken. Indeed, the staff report now before this Commission states that the Department of Fish and Game, the California Coastal Conservancy, the Coastal Commission staff, and the City all agree that "virtually the only certifiable land use designation under the provision of the Coastal Act [is] conservation." Given the history and outcome of the LCP procedure it would be irrational indeed to conclude that, using the very same procedure, the result could or would be reversed. > The staff report states that the Coastal Commission "adopted [the Zone change] with modifications . . . based upon several review of the proposal by legal counsels from both the City and Coastal Commission, staff and property owners." This statement implies that the zoning and its proposed modifications were subject to rigorous legal review and were "based upon" input from the property owners as well as the City and Coastal Commission staff. If that implication was intended, it is more incorrect than accurate. As the staff report noted elsewhere, the original zoning proposal (Zone Change 88-18) was reviewed by two legal counsels, who disagreed in their conclusions. But neither counsel, to our knowledge, has reviewed the proposed modifications which are the primary focus of Code Amendment 93-8. (if such review has occurred, it should be made available to the public prior to the hearing.) Nor are we aware of any legal opinion or review of the proposed implementation zoning that takes into account significant legal developments occurring since the Fall of 1989.1 The Coastal Commission has not made available to the public any legal review prepared by counsel., if any was conducted. Of course, such disclosure is required if, as the staff report indicates, the Coastal Commission "based" its May, 1992 action on any legal review. t In addition,it might be noted here that Mills disagrees with many of the conclusions reached by the outside counsel. For example. they opine that the City is not vulnerable to a takings claim from Mills because only a portion of the Mills property is restricted by the Conservation designation,and the remainder is in profitable use. While it is true that, as a general rule,a single parcel cannot be"carved up"for the purposes of a takings analysis, a different rule applies if differential zoning is imposed on the parcels. Shirley Dettloff, Chatr, • • and Members of the Huntington Beach Planning Commission January 31, 1994 Page 5 Further, to the extent the staff report implies that the Coastal Commission's action is "based," in part, on reviews provided by the landowners, that simply is not the case. The Coastal Commission's actions have, quite obviously, been taken despite the landowners_' comments and objections, which were neither responded to nor even acknowledged. The staff report states that in November, 1992 "the City Council reviewed the modifications and did not take action accepting them because some council members wanted more time to evaluate them." This statement leaves the impression that the Council has never taken action on this matter, and further implies that the Zone Change was evaluated by the Council in November, 1992. The record reflects otherwise. The plain fact is that in July 1992 the proposed modifications were reviewed and rejected by the City Council as unacceptable. According to a later staff report, the rejection occurred because of concerns raised by CalTrans. A representative of Mills, who was present at the meeting, recalls that the rejection was based also upon the fact that the modifications were probably unlawful. The matter was returned,to,the City Council agenda in November of 1992, but was withdrawn without any substantive "review" by the Council at that time. In sum, Mills appreciates and applauds all of the work done by City staff, and acknowledges that staff may not agree with Mills' comments. However, because portions of the report may well create misleading impressions, these matters should be given serious consideration before the Commission takes action. The Proposed "CC" Overlay Is Irreconcilable With The "Base" Zoning The City has spent more than six years trying to address the implementation zoning for the Land Use Plan (LUP), and its confiscatory impacts on private property owners. Those issues have never been addressed. Instead, the City has proposed an internally inconsistent "hybrid" zone which purports to allow economically viable uses(such as Light Industrial)but at the same time prohibits any development, with the possible exception of nature trails, observation platforms, peripheral parking and similar uses. Such uses would not generate sufficient income even to carry tax and maintenance costs for the property. The Coastal. Commission staff quickly recognized that this "hybrid" zoning was the result of a superficial attempt to address concerns about potential liability for inverse condemnation. The staff analysis makes clear, however, that the -CC suffix is neither a "compromise" nor a "solution" to the taking problem: The -CC suffix is, in fact, "functionally equivalent" to the Coastal Conservation District by which "all permitted uses and protections to wetlands will be in force." (Coastal Commission Staff Report, 6/21/91, at p. 14.) Certainly no one denies that attaching the -CC suffix onto a base zoning, instead of rezoning the property as conservation, does not reduce the impact of the LUP on the private property owners. (Huntington Beach Staff Report, 12/5/89, at p. 5;sec also, Staff Report on Zone Change 93-8 at p.4) Indeed, the addition of the --CC suffix was originally intended as an Shirley Dettloff, Chair, , and Members of the Huntington.Beach Planning Commission January 31, 1994 Page 6 interim measure, pending the issuance of recommendations from the Wetlands Coalition. (12/5/89 Staff Report at p. 7) As you know, the Wetlands Coalition is defunct, and never produced any recommendations. 'Thus, the retention of the base zoning provides no solution to the taking problem. Moreover, when the implementation zoning for the LCP was initially proposed, the City Attorney advised that the City could be liable for inverse condemnation damages if the properties were rezoned as proposed. The City hired outside counsel to provide a second opinion. In that opinion, the attorneys concluded the zone change did not constitute a taking on its face, but might result in liability as applied to certain properties. In order to reduce that exposure to liability, counsel recommended that an administrative claims procedure be provided to allow applicants to challenge (a) the economic viability of the permitted uses and (b) the designation as wetlands. Counsel also recommended the adoption of a Transfer-of-Development Rights (TDR) program which would allow property owners to transfer development rights on "conservation" properties to other parcels. The letter also suggested that a specific plan for the area be prepared by a coalition of property owners, governmental officials and other interested persons. None of these recommendations has been put into effect. To our knowledge, none are even under consideration. The So-Called "Removal" Provisions Are Incomprehensible and Inadequate This letter has already commented upon the absence of any administrative procedure to challenge the zoning restrictions on the ground that it leaves no economically feasible use of the property. The "Removal' provisions are also flawed because they do not make sense. Anroreling to Sertinn 9422.3,s -CC suffix cett be.rema-xej only if all thref of the following findings are made: (1) There are no wetlands on the entire parcel proposed for development; and(2) the removal of the suffix will not violate any policies, standards and provisions of the Coastal Act, and(3) "there is no feasible, less environmentally damaging alternative site for any proposed land use or development which may be allowed under California Public Resources Code sections 30233(axl) and 30264." These findings essentially create an insurmountable barrier for the removal of the proposed -CC suffix. But even assuming these conditions could ever be satisfied, the third required finding is entirely superfluous. That finding must be made whenever a landowner seeks to develop any wetlands area with a permitted use: According to Pub. Res. Code § 30233(a)(1), even the permitted uses will not be allowed unless the finding of"no feasible, less damaging alternative site" is made. Thus, in seeking removal of the -CC suffix, if finding (1) (no wetlands] is made, why is finding (3) required? Shirley Dettloff, Chair, • and Members of the Huntington Beach Planning Commission January 31, 1994 Page 7 The Proposed Conservation "Overlay" Zoning On the Seven Acres of Pacific Coast Highway Frontage Designated for "Visitor-Serving Commercial" Uses Its Arbitrary, Discriminatory and Without Evidentiary Support The most far-reaching modification proposed by the Coastal Commission, and redrafted by City staff is Section 9422.2.1 which purports to give the City the right to demand dedication of acres upon acres of property, with no apparent legal basis. In 1986 the Coastal Commission certified the City's Land Use Plan that designated seven acres of frontage on the Pacific Coast Highway as "Visitor-Serving Commercial." City staff, prompted by the Coastal Commission's suggested modifications, now proposes that this site together with the balance of the parcel and any contiguous parcels held in common ownership, be impressed with a "conservation overlay." Under the'Coastal`Comniission's version, the overlay provisions were applicable only to parcels owned by Mills and CalTrans, designated by Assessor's Parcel number. The original staff reports describing the overlay provisions leaves no doubt that they were designed to impose an additional and patently invalid condition of development on the only site designated under the LCP for development. This condition was also remarkable in that it would apply only where there was a unity of ownership. Of course, the only likely scenario for such "common: ownership" -- and the one clearly being targeted --was the exercise by Mills of its statutory option to reacquire the Pacific Coast Highway frontage from CalTrans. The City Council wisely rejected this arbitrary and discriminatory attempt to take land for the State without compensation. Although staff have now redrafted the proposal, the impact of the provisions now before this Commission is virtually identical to the Coastal Commission's proposal. The latest draft provides that any proposed development on any parcel which is fully or every pard),impressed with the -CC suffix would be permitted "only pursuant to an overall development plan for all such parcels, if at said time of application the parcels are geographically contiguous, under common ownership, and carry the Coastal conservation suffix (- CC)." The proposed modification goes on to require that "conservation easements, dedications or other identified similar mechanisms shall be required over all wetland areas as a condition of development, to assure permanent protection against development inconsistent with Sections 9422.5-9422.7." An "alternative" is also proposed, which would allow the owner of"an above parcel(s)" who wishes to develop only the parcel(s) which has "coastal element land use designations other than conservation" does not have to submit an overall development plan. However, a "conservation easement, dedication or other . . .mechanism . . .shall be required over the parcel(s) area which have a conservation land use designation and are within the parcel(s) proposed for development." By definition, this "alternative" can only apply to the CalTrans parcel, which contains the only area the Coastal Commission has designated for development. r Shirley Dettloff, Chair, • and Members of the Huntington Beach Planning Commission January 31, 1994 Page 8 The proposed ordinance is not only extremely confusing and ambiguous, but raises serious constitutional implications for the City: > The proposed Section 9422.2.1 does not make sense. Why is the proposed ordinance drafted to require a wetlands survey on property that has been depicted as "wetlands" by the Department of Fish& Game, and impressed with the restrictive -CC zoning on that basis? > The first paragraph of the Section appears to require the dedication of all wetlands areas on the parcel proposed for development and dedication of all commonly owned, contiguous -CC parcels. The second paragraph of the Section appears to require, as an alternative, the dedication of the balance of any parcel proposed for development: There does not appear to be any principled distinction for the alternatives, nor any requirement that the provisions of the first paragraph be followed under any circumstances. > The proposal violates the'Coastal Commission's procedures by attempting to effectuate a change in the Land Use Plan by means of implementation zoning. > The Section proposed is both novel and patently illegal. The adoption by zoning ordinance of a specific dedication requirement is entirely premature. At the legislative stage, the nature and size of a proposed development is rarely known, so its potential impacts, and the burdens it may.(or may not) create, cannot possibly be discerned. Mere, there is simply no evidence anywhere in the record to support a conclusion that dedication of any land --whether "wetlands" or not -- will be either necessary or justifiable under the constitutional due process standard, or the nexus test articulated in Government Code § 66005. Nor are any standards articulated concerning the dedication requirement. Accordingly the conservation easement/ dedication requirement imposed by the zoning ordinance should and would be struck down as arbitrary and capricious. > The proposal appears to be nothing more than a subterfuge to stave off a facial taking claim. The overlay is drafted as if to allow development in the "conservation" areas under certain conditions. In reality, it does the opposite: It overburdens without any justification the development of even the smallest part of the 232 acres encompassed by the White Hole area, which the City and Coastal Commission had previously unconditionally approved for "Visitor- Serving Commercial" uses. The proposed zoning overlay also places property owners at the mercy of the Department of Fish& Game, whose "wetlands" depiction has spawned the current dilemma. There is no reason to believe that Fish& Game would ever give favorable consideration to any development in areas it has labeled "restorable wetlands." In sum, the proposed "Requirements" found in Section 9422.2.1 are extremely ill-advised and should not be adopted. Shirley Dettloff, Chair, • • and Members of the Huntington Beach Planning Commission January 31, 1994 Page 9 A Modest Proposal The rapidly decreasing supply of wetlands in California and across the United States has resulted in a properly conservative approach to land use regulation wherever wetlands are affected. But in the case of the Huntington Beach White Hole area, this response is entirely unjustified. The historic wetlands which previously existed on the Mills property were lost in the 1940's when the State filled the Gamewell Estuary to create a public beach. From that point on, an irreversible transformation of the former wetlands began, and continues to this day. Even the City has approved construction of a major hotel on acreage, a portion of which has been designated by Fish & Game as "restorable wetlands." Nearly 50 years have passed since these wetlands were lost, due to the actions of various governmental agencies. Meanwhile, between the actions-of CalTrans, the Coastal. Commission..and the City of Huntington Beach, Mills Land & Water Company has been in a legislative limbo for over 25 years. Mils has not even been allowed to process an application for development without first seeking a general plan amendment to remove the "conservation" designation from its property. Mips has systematically disputed both the basis for and the propriety of the "wetlands" designation on its property, and has previously pointed out how the City, over the years, has allowed other development in so-called "wetlands" [see,e.g., Mills` letter of July b, 1992] while refusing to permit Mills to process its own application for development. Nevertheless, recognizing that the City and the Coastal Commission appear unlikely to retract the .Iwetlands" depiction short of a court order requiring them to do so, Mills requests that the Planning Commission consider the following: 1. Delay action on the implementation 7.oning until the City hac rereived the GPAC recommendations, and until the following actions have been taken: 2. Initiate and complete within six months a scientific study of the White Hole area to determine the feasibility of re-creating, in any part of the ar"y a functioning wetlands, applying the statutory criteria for "feasibility" set forth in Public Resources Code § 30108. 3. If the study concludes that a wetlands re-creation is feasible, and if it is determined that these wetlands are necessary for the health and welfare of the State, initiate condemnation proceedings to acquire the Mills property for public use to accomplish this goal. 4. If the study concludes that restoration of all or part of the area is not feasible, initiate amendments to the LUP to permit development in the areas where wetlands cannot be re-created. Shirley Dettloff, Chair, and Members of the Huntington Beach Planning Commission January 31, 1994 Page 10 Mills is prepared to cooperate with and assist any and all agencies in making an accurate determination of the feasibility of re-creating any part of the tidal marsh that once existed in this area. Conclusion Over the past 25 years, the Mills property has been carved up, condemned, landlocked, and over-regulated by a variety of governmental agencies. If the proposed zoning is adopted, there can be no doubt that the remaining patchwork of parcels will be left with no economically viable use. The historic wetlands in this area were lost, not through Mills' activity, but through progressive improvements completed by the State and its agencies. Jt would be unconscionable, riot to mention unconstitutional, for the Coastal Commission and the City to impose upon two or three landowners the entire burden of"protection" of the pathetic vestiges of a former coastal salt marsh on behalf of all the people of this State. Thank you for your serious consideration of these matters. Very truly yours, li�.c.2c./.�� Maria P. Rivera cc: See attached list K Shirley Dettloff, Chair and Members of the Huntington Beach Planning Commission January 31, 1994 Page 11 I DISTRIBUTION LIST Linda Moulton-Patterson, Mayor Huntington Beach City Council Members Ralph Bauer Victor Leipzig Earle Robitaille Jim Silva Dave Sullivan Grace Winchell Michael Uberuaga, City Administrator Gail Clifford Hutton, City Attorney Melanie Fallon, Director Dept. of Community Development Connie Brockway, Huntington Beach City Clerk State of California Dept. of Transportation Mct- ,TEHEN, DOYLE, BROWN & E. _RSEN .$AN Fq ANC19C0 COUNSELORS AT LAW WASNINOTON.D L07 ANOE1.93 1331 NORTH CALIFORNIA BOULEVARD TAlwtr •N Joe& POST OFFICE BOX V Jt CwE6x WALNUT CREEK. CAL1R'ORN1A 94896 AI/rIL1Ar9D 0rr1 TELEPHONE (510) 937-9000 BANOxOK FACSIMILE (510) 975-5390 January 31, 1994 DIRECT DIAL NUMI HAND DELIVERED Shirley Dettloff, Chair, and Members of the Huntington Beach Planning Commission Huntington Beach City Hall 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 RE: City of Huntington Beach LCP Proposed "White Hole" Area Rezoning February 1, 1994 Planning Commission Agenda - Item B-8 Dear Commissioners: This letter is submitted in connection with the proposed Zoning Code Amendments designated 93-9, and prior proposed Amendments 93-3 (formerly Zone Change 88-18). ® This firm represents the Mills Land & Water Company, which is one of only two or three private property owners who will be affected by the proposed amendments. Mills is a small, family--owned company; it has held property between Beach Boulevard and the Santa Ana River for more than 90 years. Most of the zoning for the area located within the City of Huntington Beach Coastal Zone has been certified by the California Coastal Commission to conform to Coastal-Act requirements. However, an area of approximately 232 acres on the inland side of Pacific Coast Highway, between Beach Boulevard and the Santa Ana River was set aside by the Commission for deferred certification. This Area of Deferred Certification (ADC)was created on November 17, 1982 and is commonly referred to as the "White Hole" area. The proposed zone change purports to be the final step needed to complete the Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program(LCP) -- a process which has taken over ftfteen years to date. Given this unconscionable delay, the Mills group of farMlies is naturally most anxious to have the process completed in order finally to learn what uses, if any, will be permitted on their property. The owners, nonetheless, would expect the process to be completed in a fashion that is both substantively and procedurally correct. So far, this has not occurred. EXHIBIT 2 ;. Shirley Dettloff, Chair, and Members of the Huntington Beach Planning Commission January 31, 1994 Page 2 Mulls hereby incorporates by reference all previous statements, both written and oral, presented to the Planning Commission and City Council with respect to the Local Coastal Plan and all of its implementing resolutions and ordinances. While we here briefly touch on some of the previous objections, we do not abandon any previous claims, comments or arguments by omitting them here. (See, esp. letters from 1Vfills dated February 5, 1990 and July 6, 1992.) The Conservation Designation of the White Hole Area Is Improper In 1986, with no apparent concern for the devastating impact on the rights of property owners, the restrictive "Conservation" designation was placed on property owned by Mills and others which had previously been depicted as degraded, but "restorable wetlands." Mills has repeatedly objected to that designation on the ground that it is based on insufficient evidence to support a conclusion that any wetlands restoration project would ever be economically, environmentally, or technologically feasible. Until such time as it may be demonstrated that re-creation of a wetlands on.any of the parcels within the White Hole area is feasible, within the context of the Coastal Act, the "Conservation" designation applied to this property is neither necessary nor appropriate. To date, Mills has been unable to challenge the Conservation designation because the LCP process still is not complete. First, the City of Huntington Beach delayed for years in preparing and adopting any implementing zoning ordinances; then, the zoning finally proposed was rejected by the Coastal Commission, which sent suggested modifications back to the City. These modifications were, in turn, rejected by the City in July, 1992. As a result, the City must now recommence procedures for adopting the implementation zoning for the White Hole area mi order to complete the certification process. The City Must Adhere to Procedural Requirements In Adopting the Implementation Zoning. In their report, City staff appear to take the position that because Zone Change 93-3 (formerly Zone Change 88-18), was adopted in 1990, it "established a new zoning on the subject property" and is still "in effect." Staff has therefore concluded that only the modifications to Zone Change 93-3 (proposed by the Coastal Commission) are required to be processed. With all due respect to City's staff their assertion with respect to this important procedural issue is incorrect. The Coastal Act specifically provides that the implementation zoning cannot become "effective" until it is unconditionally approved by the Coastal Commission, or until the Coastal Commission's modifications are accepted by the City. Pub. Res. Code § 30513. Neither event has occurred. Because the Coastal Commission's certification of the implementation zoning with.suggested.modifications was rejected by the City, the certification proceeding lapsed and expired six months after the action was taken by the Coastal Commission on May 12, 1992. Cal. Code of Regulations Title 14 § 13542(b). As a result, the City must now recommence the and Members of the Huntington Beach Plannin , .;ommission January 31, 1994 Page 3 process of adopting the implomontation zoning, in accordance with the established Niucedul e, xnd then resubmit the fill package of proposed zone changes for certification. From a due process standpoint, it behooves the City to hold full public hearings on the implementation.zoning. At a minimum, this is necessary to enable the City to hear the objections, comments and suggestions of the affected property owners. This will also provide a forum for the City to clarify the proposed revisions to Zone Change 93-3, mid to explain how the City intends to address the serious concerns that the zoning will effectuate a taking by precluding any economically viable use of the land. The Proposed Zoning Should Be Deferred Until the General Plan Advisory Committee Has Completed Its Report The law requires that zoning ordinances be consistent with a city's general plan. Technically, the City need only concern itself with the existing General Plan, if it is current and otherwise legally adequate. Because of concern about the legal status of the Huntington Beach General Plan, the City Council commissioned the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) to conduct a complete review of the existing General Plan and provide specific recommendations for its update as required by law. The GPAC has expended a substantial amount of time and effort to initiate a General Plan update, and the issuance of its findings and recommendations may be expected by March. GPAC's recommendations may well include land use designations which do not support the proposed zone changes encompassed in Zone Change No. 93-8 (and 93-3). Under the circumstances the City should defer any action on the proposed zoning implementation measures until it has an opportunity to consider the extensive work and recommendations of GPAC. The Staff Report Contains Serious Errors and Omissions The staff report, which advocates adoption of the Coastal Commission's modifications to the proposed implementation zoning, contains statements that might be misleading to, or misunderstood by, a reader unfamiliar with the history and substance of the proposal. > At the outset, the staff report states that Ordinance No. 3033, adopted by the City Council in 1990, is "in effect." As explained above, that ordinance lapsed because the City did not accept the Coastal Commission's modifications within six months. > The staff report also states the zoning ordinance "includes a detailed removal procedure that allows applicants to challenge the economic viability of the permitted uses and the designation as wetlands . . . . As Mills has repeatedly pointed out in its comments on this proposed ordinance (.see, e.g., letter to City Council dated February 5, 1990), the ordinance does not provide for any procedure that allows applicants the challenge the economic viability of the permitted uses. Moreover, the so-called "removal procedure" is a chimera. Shirley Dettloff, Chair, and Members of the Huntington Beach Planning Convrtission January 31, 1994 ' Page 4 Section 9422.3 [Coastal conservation suffix -- Removal of] contains no provision., i hatsoever for removing a-CC suffix on the ground that none of the permitted uses are economically viable. Moreover, denial of wiy application to remove a -CC suffix is essentially a foregone conclusion, since it would require the reversal of every action taken by the City and Coastal Commission in the White Sole Area over the last fifteen years. Throughout this lengthy process the landowners have objected vociferously to the adoption of the Land Use Plan [LUP] and the proposed zoning, including submission of documentation which calls into question the "wetlands" designation and which raises serious issues concerning the feasibility of their restoration. The objections and comments had no effect whatsoever on the actions taken. Indeed, the staff report now before this Commission states that the Department of Fish and Game, the California Coastal Conservancy, the Coastal Commission staff, and the City all agree that "virtually the only certifiable land use designation under the provision of the Coastal Act [is] conservation." Given the history and outcome of the LCP procedure it would be irrational indeed. to conclude that, using the very same procedure, the result could or would be reversed. > The staff report states that the Coastal Commission "adopted [the Zone change] with modifications . . . based upon several review of the proposal by legal counsels from both the City and Coastal Commission, staff and property owners." This statement implies that the zoning and its proposed modifications were subject to rigorous legal review and were "based upon" input from the property owners as well as the City and Coastal Commission staff. If that implication was intended, it is more incorrect than accurate. As the staff report noted elsewbere, the original zoning proposal (Zone Change 88-18) was reviewed by two legal counsels, who disagreed in their conclusions. But neither counsel, to our knowledge, has reviewed the proposed modifications which are the primary focus of Code Amendment 93-8. (If such review has occurred, it should be made available to the public prior to the hearing.) Nor are we aware of any legal opinion or review of the proposed implementation zoning that takes into account significant legal developments occurring since the Fall of 1989.1 The Coastal Commission has not made available to the public any legal review prepared by counsel, if any was conducted. Of course, such disclosure is required if, as the staff report indicates, the Coastal Commission "based" its May, 1992 action on any legal review. In addition, it might be noted here that Mills disagrees with many of the conclusions reached by the outside counsel. For example.they opine that the City is not vulnerable to a takings claim from Mills because only a portion of the Mills property is restricted by the Conservation designation,and the remainder is in profitable use. While it is true that, as a general rule,a single parcel cannot be"carved up"for the purposes of a takings analysis, a different rule applies if differential zoning is imposed on the parcels. Shirley vettloff, Chair, and Members of the Huntington Beach Planning Commission January 31, 1994 Page 5 Further, to the extent the staff report implies that the Coastal Commission's action is "based," in part, on reviews provided by the landowners, that simply is not the case. The Coastal Commission's actions have, quite obviously, been taken despite the landowners' comments and objections, which were neither responded to nor even acknowledged. The staff report states that in November, 1992 "the City Council reviewed the modifications and did not take action accepting them because some council members wanted more time to evaluate them." This statement leaves the impression that the Council has never taken. action on this matter, and further implies that the Zone Change was evaluated by the Council in November, 1992. The record reflects otherwise. The plain fact is that in July 1992 the proposed modifications were reviewed and rejected by the City Council as unacceptable. According to a later staff report, the rejection occurred because of concerns raised by CalTrans. A representative of Mills, who was present at the meeting, recalls that the rejection was based also upon the fact that the modifications were probably unlawful. The matter was returned to the City Council agenda in November of 1992, but was withdrawn without any substantive "review" by the Council at that time. In sum, Mills appreciates and applauds all of the work done by City staff, and acknowledges that staff may not agree with Mills' comments. However, because portions of the report may well create misleading impressions, these matters should be given serious consideration before the Commission takes action. The Proposed "CC" Overlay Is Irreconcilable With The "Base" Zoning The City has spent more than six years trying to address the implementation zoning for the Land Use Plan (LUP), and its confiscatory impacts on private property owners. Those issues have never been addressed. Instead, the City has proposed an internally inconsistent "hybrid" zone which purports to allow economically viable uses (such as Light Industrial)but at the same time prohibits any development, with the possible exception of nature trails, observation platforms, peripheral parking and similar uses. Such uses would not generate sufficient income even to carry tax and maintenance costs for the property. The Coastal. Commission staff quickly recognized that this "hybrid" zoning was the result of a superficial attempt to address concerns about potential liability for inverse condemnation. The staff analysis makes clear, however, that the -CC suffix is neither a "compromise" not a "solution" to the taking problem: The-CC suffix is, in fact, "functionally equivalent" to the Coastal Conservation District by which "all permitted uses and protections to wetlands will be in force." (Coastal Commission Staff Report, 6/21/91, at p. 14.) Certainly no one denies that attaching the -CC suffix onto a base zoning, instead of rezoning the property as conservation, does not reduce the impact of the LUP on the private property owners. (Huntington Beach Staff Report, 12/5/89, at p. 5;SW also, Staff Report on Zone Change 93-8 at p.4) Indeed, the addition of the --CC suffix was originally intended as an Shirley Dettloff, Chair, and Members of the Huntington Beach Planning Commission January 31, 1994 Page 6 interim measure, pending the issuance of recommendations from the Wetlands Coalition. (12/5/89 Staff Report at p. 7) As you know, the Wetlands Coalition is defunct, and never produced any recommendations. Thus, the retention of the base zoning provides no solution to the taking problem. Moreover, when the implementation zoning for the LCP was initially proposed, the City Attorney advised that the City could be liable for inverse condemnation damages if the properties were rezoned as proposed. The City hired outside counsel to provide a second- opinion. In that opinion, the attorneys concluded the zone change did not constitute a taking on its face, but might result in liability as applied to certain properties. In order to reduce that exposure to liability, counsel recommended that an administrative claims procedure be provided to allow applicants to challenge (a) the economic viability of the permitted uses and (b) the designation as wetlands. Counsel also recommended _the adoption of a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program which would allow property owners to transfer development rights on "conservation" properties to other parcels. The letter also suggested that a specific plan for the area be prepared by a coalition of property owners, governmental officials and other interested persons. None of these recommendations has been put into effect. To our knowledge, none are even under consideration. The So-Called "Removal" Provisions Are Incomprehensible and Inadequate This letter has already commented upon the absence of any administrative procedure to challenge the zoning restrictions on the ground that it leaves no economically feasible use of the property. The "Removal" provisions are also flawed because they do not make sense. According to Sentinn 9427-3, a -CC suffix can bevemoue4 only if all threr of the following findings are made: (1) There are no wetlands on the entire parcel proposed for development; and(2) the removal of the suffix will not violate any policies, standards and provisions of the Coastal Act, and(3) "there is no feasible, less environmentally damaging alternative site for any proposed land use or development which may be allowed under California Public Resources Code sections 30233(axl) and 30264." These findings essentially create an insurmountable barrier for the removal of the proposed -CC suffix. But even assuming these conditions could ever be satisfied, the third required finding is entirely superfluous. That finding must be made whenever a landowner seeks to develop any wetlands area with a permitted use: According to Pub. Res. Code § 30233(a)(1), even the permitted uses will not be allowed unless the finding of"no feasible, less damaging alternative site" is made. Thus, in seeking removal of the -CC suffix, if finding (1) (no wetlands] is made, why is finding (3) required? Slvrley Dettloff, Chair, and Members of the Huntington Beach Planning Commission January 31, 1994 Page 7 The Proposed Conservation "Overlay" Zoning On the Seven Acres of Pacific Coast Highway Frontage Designated for "Visitor-Serving Commercial" Uses Is Arbitrary, Discriminatory and Without Evidentiary Support The most far-reaching modification proposed by the Coastal Commission, and redrafted by City staff, is Section 9422.2.1 which purports to give the City the right to demand dedication of acres upon acres of property, with no apparent legal basis. In 1986 the Coastal Commission certified the City's Land Use Plan that designated seven acres of frontage on the Pacific Coast Highway as "Visitor-Serving Commercial." .City staff, prompted by the Coastal Commission's suggested modifications, now proposes that this site together with the balance of the parcel and any contiguous parcels held in common ownership, be impressed with a "conservation overlay." Under the Coastal Commission's version, the overlay provisions were applicable only to parcels owned by Mills and CalTrans, designated by Assessor's Parcel number.- The original staff reports describing the overlay provisions leaves no doubt that they were designed to impose an additional and patently invalid condition of development on the only site designated under the LCP for development. This condition was also remarkable in that it would apply only where there was a unity of ownership. Of course, the only likely scenario for such "common ownership" -- and the one clearly being targeted --was the exercise by Mills of its statutory option to reacquire the Pacific Coast Highway frontage from CalTrans. The City Council wisely rejected this arbitrary and discriminatory attempt to take land for the State without compensation. Although staff have now redrafted the proposal, the impact of the provisions now before this Commission is virtually identical to the Coastal Commission's proposal. The latest draft provides that any proposed development on any parcel which is fully or every partly impressed with the -CC suffix would be permitted "only pursuant to an overall development plan for all such parcels, if at said time of application the parcels are geographically contiguous, under common ownership, and carry the Coastal conservation suffix (- CC)." The proposed modification goes on to require that "conservation easements, dedications or other identified similar mechanisms shall be required over all wetland areas as a condition of development, to assure permanent protection against development inconsistent with Sections 9422.5-9422.7." An "alternative" is also proposed, which would allow the owner of"an above parcel(s)" who wishes to develop only the parcel(s) which has "coastal element land use designations other than conservation" does not have to submit ant overall development plan. However, a "conservation easement, dedication or other . . .mechanism . . .shall be required over the parcel(s) area which have a conservation land use designation and are within the parcel(s) proposed for development." By definition, this "alternative" can only apply to the CalTrans parcel, which contains the only area the Coastal Commission has designated for development. Shirley Dettloff, Chair, and Members of the Huntington Beach Planning Commission January 31, 1994 Page 8 I The proposed ordinance is not only extremely confusing and ambiguous, but raises serious constitutional implications for the City: > The proposed Section 9422.2.1 does not make sense. Why is the proposed ordinance drafted to require a wetlands survey on property that has been depicted as "wetlands" by the Department of Fish & Game, and impressed with the restrictive -CC zoning on that basis? > The first paragraph of the Section appears to require the dedication of all wetlands areas on the parcel proposed for development and dedication of all commonly owned, contiguous -CC parcels. The second paragraph of the Section appears to require, as an alternative, the dedication of the balance of any parcel proposed for development: There does not appear to be any principled distinction for the alternatives, nor any requirement that the provisions of the first paragraph be followed under any circumstances. > The proposal violates the Coastal Commission's procedures by attempting to effectuate a change in the Land Use Plan by means of implementation zoning. > The Section proposed is both novel and patently illegal. The adoption by zoning ordinance of a specific dedication requirement is entirely premature. At the legislative stage, the nature and size of a proposed development is rarely known, so its potential impacts, and the burdens it may.(or may not) create, cannot possibly be discerned. Here, there is simply no evidence anywhere in the record to support a conclusion that dedication of any land -- whether "wetlands" or not -- wi.11 be either necessary or justifiable under the constitutional due process standard, or the nexus test articulated in Government Code § 66005. Nor are any standards articulated concerning the dedication requirement. Accordingly the conservation easement/ dedication requirement imposed by the zoning ordinance should and would be struck down as arbitrary and capricious. The proposal appears to be nothing more than a subterfuge to stave off a facial taking claim. The overlay is drafted as if to allow development in the "conservation" areas under certain conditions. In reality, it does the opposite: It overburdens without any justification the development of even the smallest part of the 232 acres encompassed by the White Hole area, which.the City and Coastal Commission had previously unconditionally approved for "Visitor- Serving Commercial" uses. The proposed zoning overlay also places property owners at the mercy of the Department of Fish & Game, whose "wetlands" depiction has spawned the current dilemma. There is no reason to believe that Fish& Game would ever give favorable consideration to any development in areas it has labeled "restorable wetlands." In sum, the proposed "Requirements" found in Section 9422.2.1 are extremely ill-advised and should not be adopted. Shirley Dettloff, Chair, and Members of the Huntington Beach Planning Commission January 31, 1994 Page 9 A Modest Proposal The rapidly decreasing supply of wetlands in California and across the United States has resulted in a properly conservative approach to land use regulation wherever wetlands are affected. But in the case of the Huntington Beach White Hole area, this response is entirely unjustified. The historic wetlands which previously existed on the Mills property were lost in the 1940's when the State filled the Gamewell Estuary to create a public beach. From that point on, an irreversible transformation of the former wetlands began, and continues to this day. Even the laity has approved construction of a major hotel on acreage, a portion of which has been designated by Fish & Game as "restorable wetlands." Nearly 50 years have passed since these wetlands were lost, due to the actions of. various governmental agencies. Meanwhile, between the actions of CalTrans, the Coastal. Commission..and the City of Huntington Beach, Mills Land & Water Company has been in a legislative limbo for over 25 years. Mils has not even been allowed to process an application for development without first seeking a general plan amendment to remove the "conservation" designation from its property. Mills has systematically disputed both the basis for and the propriety of the "wetlands" designation on its property, and has previously pointed out how the City, over the years, has allowed other development in so-called "wetlands" [see,e.g., Mills' letter of July 6, 1992) while refusing to permit Mills to process its own application for development. Nevertheless, recognizing that the City and the Coastal Commission appear unlikely to retract the .1wetlands" depiction short of a court order requiring them to do so, Mills requests that the Planning Commission consider the following: i. Delay action on the implementation zoning until the City has received the GPAC recommendations, and until the following actions have been taken: 2. Initiate and complete within six months a scientific study of the White Hole area to determine the feasibility of re-creating, in any part of the area, a functioning wetlands, applying the statutory criteria for "feasibility" set forth in Public Resources Code § 30108. 3. If the study concludes that a wetlands re-creation is feasible, and if it is determined that these wetlands are necessary for the health and welfare of the State, initiate condemnation proceedings to acquire the Mills property for public use to accomplish this goal. 4. If the study concludes that restoration of all or part of the area is not feasible, initiate amendments to the LUP to permit development in the areas where wetlands cannot be re-created. Shirley Dettloff, Chair, and.Members of the Huntington Beach Planning Commission January 31, 1994 Page 10 Mills is prepared to cooperate with and assist any and all agencies in making an accurate determination of the feasibility of re-creating any part of the tidal marsh that once existed in this area. I Conclusion j Over the past 25 years, the Mulls property has been carved up, condemned, landlocked, and over-regulated by a variety of governmental agencies. If the proposed zoning is adopted, there can be no doubt that the remaining patchwork of parcels will be left witb no economically viable use. i The historic wetlands in this area were lost, not through Mills' activity, but through progressive improvements completed by the State and its agencies. A would be. unconscionable, riot to mention unconstitutional, for the Coastal Commission and the City to impose upon two or three landowners the entire burden of"protection" of the pathetic vestiges of a former coastal salt marsh on behalf of all the people of this State. Thank you for your serious consideration of these matters. Very truly yours, Maria P. Rivera cc: See attached list Shirley Dettloff, Chair and Members of the Huntington Beach Planning Commission ' January 31, 1994 Page 11 DISTRIBUTION LIST Linda Moulton-Patterson, Mayor Huntington Beach City Council Members Ralph Bauer Victor Leipzig Earle Robitaille Jim Silva Dave Sullivan Grace Winchell Michael Uberuaga, City Administrator Gail Clifford Hutton, City Attorney Melanie Fallon, Director Dept. of Community Development Connie Brockway, Huntington Beach City Clerk State of California Dept. of Transportation i i EXHIBIT "A" T i MCCUTCHEN, DOYLE, BROWN & ENERSEN SAN FRANCISCO COUNSELORS AT LAW WASHINGTON, D.C. LOS ANGELES 1331 NORTH CALIFORNIA BOULEVARD TAIPEI SAN JOSE POST OFFICE BOX V AFFILIATED OFFICE WALNUT CREEK WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA 94S96 TELEPHONE (510) 937-9000 BANGKOK FACSIMILE (510) 975-5390 May 8, 1992 DIRECT DIAL NUMBER Thomas W. Gwyn, Chair California Coastal Commission South Coast Area 245 W. .Broadway, Suite 380 Long Beach, CA 90802 Mulls Land & Water Company Our File No. 72484-001 Dear Mr . Gwyn: This firm represents the .Mills Land & Water Company, which owns property affected by the Huntington Beach Land Use Plan. As you have heard many times, Mills is a small, family-owned company that has held this property for over ninety years . This letter is submitted in connection with the Coastal Commission' s review of the proposed zoning for approximately 232 acres along the Pacific Coast Highway between Beach Boulevard and the Santa Ana River [the "White Hole area of deferred certification" ] . The proposed zoning is before the Commission, for the second time, to determine its conformance to the Land Use Plan certified in October 1986 . In connection with the first hearing on the proposed zoning, this firm submitted a letter to you dated July 11, 1991, addressing a number of issues concerning the Land Use Plan and implementation zoning. Rather than repeat the contents of that letter, I enclose a copy and request that it be included in the record of the May 12 hearing. Last July, your staff recommended approval of the City' s proposed zoning ordinances, with modifications . Those proposed modifications included the insertion of a ''conservation overlay" on several parcels, including the only parcel designated for development by the Land Use Plan. The language of the overlay was less than clear, but could be read Thomas W. Gwyn, Chair California Coastal Commission May 7 , 1992 Page 2 to mean that any permit to develop the seven-acre parcel would be conditioned upon restoration or dedication of the adjacent 40+ acres as "wetlands . " Any development would also be made subject to the approval of the Department of Fish & Game. In the face of unanimous opposition from the City, CalTrans, and Mills, the Commission chose to postpone action on the zoning, to "make the language a little bit clearer and understandable" and to allow staff to "sit down with the City and try to work [this] out. " Not surprisingly, given the history of this certification, nothing of substance has been accomplished by the postponement . Although two meetings were held to address the problems, the Coastal Commission staff did not go back to the City or to CalTrans with any proposed changes, amendments or clarifications . The most recent staff report does reflect the addition of some language that purports to ameliorate the harsh restrictions of the modifications. However, even with the new language, .the proposed overlay has precisely the same effect as that which was before you last July. Indeed, staff has confirmed that the purpose of the overlay on the CalTrans frontage is to ensure protection .of "wetlands" on adjacent parcels, through an overall development plan; there are no environmental concerns relating to the frontage property designated Visitor-Serving Commercial . Presumably, your Commission is well aware of the legal and technical concerns which have repeatedly been raised by Mills and other property owners throughout this lengthy certification process . We will ' not repeat them here in detail , but wish to list the principal ones in summary fashion, to keep them before the Commission as it makes its decision: (1) The 1983 report by DF&G depicting the Mills land as "restorable wetlands" does not provide a credible or reliable basis for a "Conservation" land use designation or zoning, for the following reasons : (a) The accuracy of the original conclusion that there are "restorable wetlands" on the property, is dubious at best, and has been questioned by at least one expert in the field (see Vogl letter) . Thomas W. Gwyn, Chair California Coastal Commission May 7 , 1992 Page 3 (b) The report is based upon data which is more than twelve years old and has not been updated. Meanwhile, there has been continued degradation of the land, which has been permanently severed from a regular water source for some fifty years . (c) The report concluded that "wetlands" can be 'easily" created on the Mills land by breaching the flood-control channel . This conclusion is echoed and relied upon in your staff ' s report of March 13, 1992, which asserts that "the wetlands could be restored without major restoration efforts . " The meagre bases for this conclusion have been completely refuted. Not only is it environmentally unsound to use urban runoff to create a "wetland" (see Vogl letter) , but the Public Works Department, which has jurisdiction over the flood control channel, has clearly indicated it will not consider use of the channel for this purpose.' (See Nelson letter. ) These and other factors which the Department of Fish & Game has apparently chosen to ignore, demonstrate that the feasibility standards set forth in Public Resources Code § 30108 have not been adequately addressed. (2) The .bizarre "hybrid" zoning proposed by the City, which purports to permit development but which prohibits any economically viable use of the property because of. the -CC suffix, violates both the takings and due process clauses of the Constitution. The permitted uses , as described by the March 13 staff report, are either physically or economically infeasible, or are not permitted in the M1-A-0 district. (3) The Coastal Commission' s proposed "conservation overlay" on- that portion of the ADC slated for development constitutes discriminatory spot-zoning and violates the takings clause. Less onerous regulations, such as the creation of buffer zones, to protect "environmentally sensitive areas" ( if any) , are available to -- and have been suggested to -- the Commission staff . These proposals have been all but ignored. (4) The proposed "conservation overlay" requires permanent protection through a "conservation easement, dedication or other . . . similar mechanism" over all parcels which have a Conservation land use designation. This requirement would impose enormous additional costs on development of the CalTrans frontage without any relation to the environmental impact of a proposed development . Both the state and federal constitutions require a sufficient "nexus" ' R i Thomas W. Gwyn, Chair California Coastal Commission May 7, 1992 Page 4 between the imposition of conditions and the anticipated impact of the proposed development : Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 483 U.S . 825 (1987) . Here, it is conceded that no wetlands or environmentally sensitive habitat exist on the affected area. Therefore, the staff proposal would impose severly restrictive conditions on development without any nexus whatsoever to the effect of development on the area. The proposal does not even attempt to meet the nexus requirement . In sum, if this implementation zoning as modified by the Commission staff is adopted and approved, compensation will have to be paid to those landowners who will, as a result, be unable to use their property in any economically viable fashion. As pointed out in our prior presentation to your Commission. Mills Land & Water Company is not unwilling to sell (at fair market value) any property which is of real value as a "wetlands . " Whether the Mills property has any wetlands value is very much open to question; if it does, it is time for someone to come forward and create these wetlands . The mere imposition of indefinite restrictions on development will not create wetlands, and will only result in the further degradation of the ecological value (if any) of these vacant lots. Very truly yours, Maria P. Rivera MPR:sjk/0 0722G cc : see attached list Enclosure Thomas W. Gwyn, Chair California Coastal Commission May 7 , 1992 Page 5 Steve MacElvaine Vice Chairman 1325 Atascadero Road Morro Bay, CA 93442 William Rick 5620 Friars Road San Diego, CA 92028 Mark Nathanson 1640 Loma Vista Drive Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Lily Cervantes 762 Circle Drive Salinas, CA 93905 Madelyn Glickfeld 20630 Pacific Coast Hwy. Malibu, CA 90265 Bonnie Neely Chairwomen, Board of Supervisors Humboldt County Courthouse, First Floor Eureka, CA 95501 - Gary Giacomini, Supervisor Marin County Board of Supervisors Civic Center San Rafael , CA 94903 Jane Yokoyama, Councilmember City of Santa Cruz City Hall 809 Center Street Santa Cruz, CA 95060 Dorill Wright 405 San Miguel Circle Port Huaneme, CA 93041 Linda Moulton-Patterson Councilwoman City of Huntington Beach City Hall , 4th Floor 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 continued � I •1 • Thomas W. Gwyn, Chair California Coastal Commission May 7 , 1992 Page 6 David L. Malcolm 625 Third Avenue Chula Vista, CA 92010 Matthew Rodriquez Deputy Attorney General 2101 Webster Street, 12th Floor Oakland, CA 94612-3049 i MC•TCHEN, DOYLE, BROWN & ENE•EN COUNSELORS AT LAW BAN FR ANCISCO 1331 NORTH CALIFORNIA BOULEVARD WASHINGTON.D.C. LOS ANGELES POST OFFICE BOX V SNANGNAI SAN JOSE WALNUT CREEK. CALIFORNIA 04506 TAIPEI WALNUT CREEK TELEPHONE (415)037-8000 COSTA MESAFACSIMILE (415) 975-5390 AFFILIATED OFFICE BANGKOK July 11, 1991 DIRECT DIAL NUMBER Thomas W. Gwyn, Chair California Coastal Commission South Coast Area 245 W. Broadway, Suite 380 Long Beach, CA . 90802 Mills Land & Water Company Our File No. 72484-001 Dear Mr. Gwyn: This letter is submitted in connection with the Coastal Commission's review .of the proposed zoning for approximately 232 acres along the Pacific Coast Highway between Beach Boulevard and the Santa Ana River (the "White Hole area of deferred certification"] . The proposed zoning is before the Commission to determine its conformance to the Land Use Plan certified in October 1986. This firm represents the Mills Land . & Water Company, which owns property affected by the Land Use Plan and proposed . zoning. Mills is a small, family-owned company; it has held this property for more than 90 years. The Huntington Beach Local Coastal Plan (LCP) process has taken over twelve years to date, and has yet to be completed. During that time all productive use and development of the Mills property has been precluded, yet no action whatsoever has been taken to acquire or "restore" the wetlands that supposedly could exist on this property. And during this lengthy period, no credible evidence has been produced to support the conclusion that a functioning wetlands can feasibly be re-created on these parcels. Thomas W. Gwyn, tair • July 11, 1991 Page 2 Your staff has recommended approval of the zoning ordinances with proposed modifications. Your staff has further proposed a "conservation overlay" for the single seven-acre site, out of the entire 232 acres, on which development would otherwise be permitted. Mills urges this Commission to reject both proposals and to re-examine the LUP designations in the "White Hole area of deferred certification." LEGALITY OF "CONSERVATION" DESIGNATION Application of the restrictive "Coastal Conservation" (-CC) suffix can only be justified by a valid, factually- supported determination that:. (1) there exists a viable and functioning wetlands, or other environmentally sensitive and valuable ecosystem, that requires special protection, or (2) there exists a degraded wetlands which can feasibly be restored, as that term is defined in the ' Coastal Act [P.R.C. § 30108] .* Neither finding can be made on the record before this Commission. Both the City and the Commission have consistently relied upon a 1979 Department of Fish and Game ("DFG") .depiction of the area to identify "restorable wetlands". As early as 1982 this designation was questioned by an expert whose conclusions were submitted to this Commission in 1986. [T]he area is presently devoid of the essential functions of a viable coastal, salt-marsh ecosystem that formerly existed there. The biotic and physical features that characterize wetlands are either lackincx, are indicative of former wetlands and not present conditions, or have been misinterpreted by inexperienced observers or those who have failed to carefully examine the area. * Please refer to the October 7, 1986 submission of Mills Land and Water Company to the Commission, at page 3 , for a discussion of the provisions of Public Resources Code § 30108 defining the term "feasible." Thomas W. Gwyn, tir • July 11,. 1991 Page 3 Even those who advocate the designation of Mills' property as "wetlands" admit that the area is "degraded" and not a functioning wetland, the essential tidal flushing having been cut off for decades. Nor has DFG or the Commission conducted even an elementary study to determine whether re-creation of wetlands in the White Hole area would be "feasible" as that term is defined in the Coastal Act. DFG's unsupported conclusion that wetlands can "easily" be re-created by opening the culverts to the flood control channels has been challenged in theory and has been proven inaccurate. Five years ago, one of the Mills experts stated in a report submitted to the Commission that DFG's proposal for restoration of the salt marsh using runoff from the flood control channels "will be more destructive than constructive, not only to the biological systems but also to the adjacent man-made urban environment. " Dr. Vogl concluded: "Economic and engineering analyses of the [DFG) proposals should be conducted, and I suspect that they will also show that these proposals are not feasible. " At the nearby Huntington Beach wetlands site, a "wetlands restoration" project has met with uncertain results, even with its advantageous location at the mouth of the Santa Ana River and with a multi-million dollar, newly-constructed channel direct to the ocean. There are no plans to attempt to re-create tidal flushing in the White Hole area with another multi-million dollar channel to the ocean. The DFG depictions, which appear to be the sole basis for this Commission's designation of Mills' property as "wetlands, " are not based on credible data or methods, and have been soundly criticized by other experts. DFG's conclusion that wetlands can "easily" be "restored" in the White Hole area is unsupported by any data whatsoever. Indeed, DFG's simplistic suggestion that an adjacent flood-control channel might be used as a means to inundate the dry land designated as "wetlands" completely ignores the fact that the County has steadfastly refused to consider the use of its channel for such purpose. (Letter from C.R. Nelson, Public Works Dept. , April 23 [approx] 1982) DFG provides no analysis at all of the technological and economic feasibility. of a wetlands re-creation, pursuant to the standards set forth in the statute. Without apparent concern for the devastating impact on the property owners' rights, the protective "Conservation" Thomas W. Gwyn, V.air July 11, 1991 Page 4 designation has been placed on the Mills and other parcels based on insufficient evidence to support a conclusion that a wetlands restoration project would ever be economically, environmentally, . or technologically feasible. Until such time as it may be established that re-creation of a wetlands is feasible, within the meaning of the Coastal Act, the "conservation" designation of the White Hole area parcels is neither necessary nor appropriate. It is long past time for the Commission and the City to address this issue squarely, instead of indefinitely depriving the owners of the use of their land purely on the basis of unfounded environmental speculation. PROCEDURAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS Mills respectfully requests the Commission to consider as well the serious question of the unlawful abridgement of property. rights resulting from the Land Use Plan and the "conservation" zoning to implement it. City's . Response to the Problem of Unlawful Taking When the implementation zoning for the LCP was finally proposed, the City Attorney advised that the City could be liable for inverse condemnation damages if the properties were rezoned as proposed. The City hired outside counsel to provide a second opinion. In that opinion, the attorneys concluded the zone change did not constitute a taking on its face, but might result in liability as applied to certain properties. In order to reduce the City's potential exposure to that liability, counsel recommended that an administrative claims procedure be provided to allow applicants to challenge (a) the economic viability of the permitted uses and (b) the designation as wetlands. Counsel also recommended the adoption of. a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program which would allow property owners to transfer development rights on "conservation" properties to other parcels. Other planning concepts, such as a specific plan for the area were also suggested for consideration. (See, Huntington Beach Staff Report, 12/5/89, pp. 2-3) * None of these recommendations has been Rut into effect. To our knowledge, none are even under consideration. The City has spent four years trying to address the implementation zoning for the Land Use Plan (LUP) , and its Thomas W. Gwyn, Chair July 11, 1991 Page 5 confiscatory impacts on private property owners. In that time, it has only succeeded in adopting a confusing "hybrid" zone which purports to allow economically viable uses (such as Light Industrial) but at the same time prohibits any development, with 'the possible exception of nature trails, observation platforms, peripheral parking and similar uses. Such uses would not generate sufficient income even to carry tax and maintenance costs for the property. Your staff recognized that the City's "hybrid" zoning was the result of an attempt to address concerns about potential liability for inverse condemnation. A long and. contentious battle has been waged at the city level as to the legality and wisdom of (proposing a zoning which is inconsistent with the land use designation] . The main concern has been whether it may be considered a "taking" of land if the existing base zoning is changed to the more restrictive Coastal Conservation District zoning to reflect the existence of valuable sensitive habitat and the Conservation land use designation. . . . . The creation of the Coastal Conservation suffix was a compromise solution to the problem. Coastal Commission Staff Report, 6/21/91, at p. 14-. The staff analysis makes clear, however, that the -CC suffix is neither a "compromise" nor a "solution" to the taking problem: The -CC suffix is, in fact, "functionally equivalent" to the Coastal Conservation District by which "all permitted uses and protections to wetlands will be in force. " (Id. at p. 14) The City admits that its decision to overlay the -CC suffix onto a base zoning, instead of rezoning the property as "conservation, " does not reduce the impact of the LUP on the private property owners. (Huntington Beach Staff Report, 12/5/89, at p. 5) Therefore, the "overlay" mechanism provides no solution to the taking problem. * * An addendum to this letter relates a detailed history of the City's lengthy and anomalous process to bring about the proposed zoning. .•I • Thomas W. Gwyn, Chair . July 11, 1991 Page 6 The Coastal Commission's Failure 'to Address the Impact of Its Decisions on Property Rights. Throughout the LCP process, the Coastal Commission has never officially acknowledged its own potential liability for a taking. The Commission's and the City's proceedings and actions, however, clearly manifest the intention of both agencies to strive for an eventual re-creation of the historical "wetlands" identified in the Land Use Plan. (See, e.g. , Huntington Beach Staff Report, 12/5/89, p. 5) It is not at all clear, however, how this would be accomplished. Unless someone purchases the property expressly for wetland purposes, re-creation of the now defunct wetlands will never occur without a de facto or dejure condemnation action. As the Commission noted years ago during the White Hole area hearings, re-creation of the "wetlands" would necessarily involve flooding, which constitutes a physical invasion and thus a taking of the property. It is one thing to protect "potential" wetlands from development in principle. It is quite another to actually prohibit development of property, into the indefinite future, without any plan or proposal to create the wetlands intended to be protected, and without even knowing whether it is feasible to create them at all. Because the premises upon which the LUP is based are dubious at best, no legitimate state interest is advanced by the current restrictive LUP and proposed zoning. PROPOSAL TO FURTHER RESTRICT DEVELOPABLE LAND The meaning of staff's proposed addition to the zoning (§ 9422.2. 1) is not clear. The report purports. to "provide for development standards for a particular location" and to permit development where it would otherwise be prohibited. However, based on the original staff report and map (see attached) and on the apparent import of the language as a whole, the proposed modification appears to do something more: It appears to impose an additional (and invalid) condition of development on the single developable site in the area. If this interpretation is correct, the Commission should be made aware of its serious constitutional implications. As noted above, in 1986 the Commission certified the City's Land Use Plan that designated seven acres of frontage on the Pacific Coast Highway as "visitor-serving commercial." Your staff. now proposes that this small site, together with six Thomas W. Gwyn, Chair July 11, 1991 Page 7 other designated parcels, be impressed with a "conservation overlay. " As to these parcels only, development would be permitted "only pursuant to an application for a single overall development plan for the entire overlay area, or such portion thereof as may be at the time . . . geographically contiguous and under common ownership. " The plan must include "conservation easements, dedications or other identified similar mechanisms . . . over all wetland areas as a condition of development, to assure permanent protection. " Any development would be subject to DFG approval. CalTrans is the current owner of the site which is designated "visitor-serving commercial" and may well have comments of its own to present to the Commission. As to Mills, which holds an option on the property -- a fact well known both to the City and to this Commission -- the proposal constitutes an undisguised attempt at discriminatory spot-zoning. The parcel-specific designations make it crystal clear that the proposal is directed at Mills and will become effective only if ' Mills (the sole contiguous property owner) exercises its option to purchase the CalTrans parcel. The apparent rationale for this proposal is to ensure that if Mills purchases the CalTrans parcel and attempts to develop the seven acres as permitted by the LUP, it will be required to dedicate to public use all of its remaining undeveloped parcels to assure "permanent protection" of so-called wetland areas. This extremely onerous condition on development could not possibly pass the "nexus" test articulated by the United States Supreme Court in the Nollan case nor the standards set forth for exactions in Government , Code § 66005. The development of a seven-acre site along a heavily traveled state highway could not, under any definition, create the need for the dedication of 50+ acres of land valued at millions of dollars, for "wetlands" protection. Even if some justification existed for creation of a buffer zone to mitigate impacts on the so-called wetlands, that buffer could not legally be extended to the entire 50 acres. The proposal appears to be nothing more than a subterfuge to stave off a facial taking claim. The overlay is drafted as if to allow development in the "conservation" areas under certain conditions. In reality, it makes development of the only otherwise developable area of the 232 acres economically infeasible. It also places property owners at the mercy of DFG, whose flawed, superficial "studies" were a primary Thomas W. Gwyn, Chair July 11, 1991 Page 8 cause of the current dilemma. There is no reason to believe DFG would ever give favorable consideration to development in the areas it has (erroneously) designated as wetlands. In sum, the proposed modification for the seven acres of frontage is extremely ill-advised and should not be adopted. * MILLS' PROPOSAL The rapidly decreasing supply of wetlands in California and across the United States has resulted in a properly conservative approach to land use regulation wherever wetlands are affected. But in the case of the Huntington Beach White Hole area, this response is entirely unjustified. The historic wetlands which previously existed on the Mills property were lost in the 1940's when the State filled the Gamewell Estuary to create a public beach. From that point on, an irreversible transformation of the former wetlands began, and continues to this day, with the City's planned construction of a major hotel on acreage designated by DFG as "restorable wetlands. " Nearly 50 years have passed since these wetlands were lost, due to the actions of various governmental agencies. Meanwhile, between- the actions of CalTrans, the Coastal Commission and the City of Huntington Beach, Mills Land & Water Company has been in a legislative limbo for over 25 years. Mills has not even been allowed to process an application for development without first seeking a general plan amendment to remove the "conservation" designation from its property. Imposition of the "conservation" designation in the Land Use Plan, and application of the -CC suffix to Mills' property, constitute arbitrary and capricious acts. The acts are invalid because they are based on the theoretical notions that (a) the Mills property is a degraded "wetland, " (b) that it feasibly can be restored as a "wetland" despite the absence of a water source to do so, and (c) that someone will buy the land and attempt that restoration. None of these assumptions is supported by reliable evidence before the City or the Commission. * The proposal also violates the Commission's own procedures by attempting to effectuate a change in the LUP through implementation zoning. Thomas W. Gwyn, Chair. July 11, 1991 Page 9 Accordingly, Mills requests the Commission take the following actions: 1. Deny certification of the implementation zoning. 2 . Initiate and complete, within six months, a scientific study of the White Hole area to determine the feasibility of re-creating, in any part of the area, a functioning wetlands, applying the criteria for "feasibility" set forth in Public Resources Code § 30108. 3. If the study concludes that a wetlands re-creation is feasible, and if it is determined that these wetlands are necessary for the health and welfare of the State, initiate condemnation proceedings to accomplish this goal . 4 . If the study concludes that restoration of all or part of the area is not feasible, initiate amendments to the LUP to permit development in the areas where wetlands cannot be re-created. Mills is prepared to cooperate with and assist the Commission, the City and DFG in making an accurate determination of the feasibility of re-creating any part of the tidal marsh that once existed in this area. CONCLUSION Over the past 25 years, the Mills property has been carved up, condemned, landlocked, and overregulated by a variety of governmental agencies. Due to the actions of the Coastal Commission and the City, the remaining patchwork of parcels have been left with no economically viable use. The historic wetlands in this area were lost, not through Mills' activity, but through progressive improvements completed by the State and its agencies. It would be unconscionable, not to mention unconstitutional, for the Commission and the City to impose upon three families the entire burden of "protection" of the pathetic vestiges of a former coastal salt marsh on behalf of all the people of this State. Nor does it advance any legitimate state interest to preclude development where such preclusion does not result in the stated goal: creation and protection of a functional wetlands. i Thomas W. Gwyn, faidir July 11, 1991 Page 10 Mills Land and Water Company respectfully urges this Commission to examine its premises, to apply the standards of the Coastal Act, and to consider its constitutional obligations to private property owners. Very truly yours, Maria P. Rivera MPR:sjk/l 0749I cc: See attached list. o Thomas W. Gwyn, Chair July 11, 1991 Page 11 SERVICE LIST 16 copies to Mr. Charles Damm at the Coastal Commission for delivery to the Commissioners, ex-officio members, and the Executive Director. Peter Green, Mayor of Huntington Beach Council Persons: Jack Kelly Don MacAllister Linda Moulton-Patterson Earle Robitaille Jim Silva Grace Winchell Director of Community Development, Michael Adams City Administrator, Michael Uberuaga City Attorney, Gail Hutton ADDENDUM TO JULY 11 LETTER FROM MILLS LAND & WATER More- than two years after the LUP was certified, City staff proposed adoption of the implementation zoning. Apparently concerned about the confiscatory impacts of a rezoning, . City decided to attach the -CC suffix instead of removing or changing the base zoning. This was intended as an interim measure, pending the issuance of recommendations from a "wetlands coalition. " (HB Staff Report 12/5/89 at p. 7) The wetlands coalition (aka the "Pacific Coast Highway Coalition" ) , made up of "property owners, responsible agencies , the City, conservation, and interest group representatives, " was formed to study alternative land uses and other creative solutions for the area in accordance with legal counsel ' s opinion. The coalition was deputized to work with staff to $$prepare a land use plan and explore various land planning techniques such as specific plans and Transfer of Development Rights programs . " (HB Staff Report, 12/5/89 , p. 3) The coalition began meeting in January of 1990; their recommenda- tions were expected in three to four months . ( Id. at p. 7 ) More than fourteen months have passed since the formation of the "Pacific Coast Highway Coalition" yet no reports, proposals or ideas have emanated from that group. It is our understanding that after a few meetings many members simply stopped attending, funding for the group dried up, and the Coalition now exists on paper only. The City also failed to follow counsel 's advice; it did. not address private property rights in -the proposed ordinance itself . The City has stated that "the existence of a suffix removal process, as described in the Ordinance Code, provides the affected property owners with a mechanism to challenge this zone change. " (Huntington Beach Staff Report, 12/5/89 , p. 7) Specifically, staff describes the Code as providing "an administrative review procedure . . . to allow applicants to challenge the economic viability of the permitted uses and the designation as wetlands . " (Id. , at p. 6) But the staff report is incorrect; the Code does not provide any such procedures . The ordinance relied upon (Municipal Code § 9422 .3) provides for removal of the -CC suffix only upon findings that. the underlying district "conforms to the coastal element of the City' s Land Use Plan and is in accordance with the policies of the Coastal Act . " In other words, the suffix can be removed only after amendment to the underlying Land Use Plan, a monumental -- if not impossible -- undertaking. Essentially, it would require the landowner to process through both the City and the Coastal Commission _an application to reverse the twelve-year legislative process only now being completed. This does not constitute an "administrative procedure" to relieve property owners of the onerous affects of the new zoning, and, consequently, does not "reduce potential exposure to liability. " As noted in the letter, none of counsel ' s recommendations to reduce the City' s exposure to liability for a taking of property has been adopted. ' • ' • st•n a e•uraNA_r►� +�eiou�at Aowcr CALIFORNiA COASTAL COMMISSION WLMW to st AW Ul wtlf 0040wAY. SUM 7I0 lONO MAC?. CA "M a►s, ko-sari RhUE1VED DATE: April 8, 1991 APR 8 _ W1 TO: Commissioners and Interested Persons MUG FROM: South Coast Staff RE: Addendum to April 11 . 1991 Commissidn meeting item 5.5 b Changes to suggested modifications %,►hich will clarify the intent of the modifications and additional modification to provide for development stdndardi for a particular location in the area of deferred certification. Page 8 of the staff report for the Huntington Beach Implementing Ordinances for the PCH area of deferred certification between Beach Blvd. and the Santa An* River. substitute: j&)AnY environmentally a areas of -the kite. have been qr will ect d b n u cle 969,9.10, n n Qqen co servatj gn-.deed rejtri&ji!pDr easement, or other iogntitied mech over all ens iv Page 9 before 090 Add article to Coastal Conservation District: 9422.9.1 A2 it GDOIJO-Sto A els describedas A. a rgel N er 48-01 - 1 -A - 2 4- 14-1S0-5 11 - - 3 i14-15 - 114^1 - Coastal Con 'CC' suffix sballa Z n REYet jUr-18V Zgft# CUSSifiCA a- Davo-Innmentervise prQfiibi,ty4 by sggtion 212J.7 mav be oermitt 2n)y Rurs-gantin-appli ingla ove d f r thg antire overla% grea, rti hr t h i s lic erahic 1 IgaliguoUS Ang Ungjr ation he a luljo vege%alion, and informationi pripitgd by a ggalifigd or-ofussional ind royiewed bg 1he Den�tit_Q�1sh ¢Games high identiflel jb6 e_ t„of any existing Conservaljgn easement%, ions or o her i d_&_JMj1Ar machanifffiAi bo- reggired ov r 01 wellarA areas as on gn- of g1vallaggol.- toss i bl vehic$jlar traffic r &Etas Sgyerned by a Sonservation elsomente and eroijon conlrol regulremgUs. hail be inggrRorated jnlgect d ign re MMAdyltlely affeclebir her iyizign of gny pDrcal IhAll be ermit ed--whigh. would have . t of divi 1 ff onvirwAnIfIlY sensititg mbitatfroM gthlarr Dortions ofEh parcelsn i ii a ci oastal gilment until h time as the Re t protectin on a -land ured. Within -AteaS i4funjifj1d ai arMs go tho 19 ifict es of the Co al Conservation; Oistrict ' as Atiant4fiad i .S d 422.6 Su rcedLi e t feAt AS the and MI— 9 strHAC s. Consistent with _a2122 of the CObstal Att tor—atry.Us te, ea I jh I fAtilitips hAve priority gyCL~ in ment but ove agriculture verl e Page 10 Insert after "and the issue would be moot." in the Findings for Approval if Modified of the Coastal Conservation suffix removal : . The addition of the article to provide for the development standards of a large block of contiguous parcels in common ownership, at the corner of PCH and Beach Boulevard, will assure that the parcels are developed in a manner most consistent with the mandate to protect environmentally sensitive areas. This type of conservation overlay zone classification is found on a site across the street from the Subject Site on beach Blvd. 0051E • �-. ' V 1 •�� �,• ,mac, i• • Lip. � , Aq OL was mom OVA La 11 • so rjLwI IA I � r MCCUTCHEN, DOYLE, BROWN b. ENERSEN COUNSELORS AT LAW SAN FRAw DISCO 1331 NORTH CALIFORNIA BOULEVARD WASHINGTON.D.C. LOS AN"LES POST OFFICE BOX V SHANGHAI SAN JOSE WALNUT CREEK. CALIFORNIA 94596 TAIPEI WALNUT CREEK TELEPHONE (415) 937-8000 COSTA MESA FACSIMILE (415) 975-5390 AFFILIATED OFFICE BANGKOK July 11, 1991 DIRECT DIAL NUMBER Thomas W. Gwyn, Chair California Coastal Commission South Coast Area 245 W. Broadway, Suite 380 Long Beach, CA 90802 Mills Land & Water Company Our File No. 72484-001 Dear Mr. Gwyn:. This letter is submitted in connection with the Coastal Commission's review of the proposed zoning for approximately 232 acres along the Pacific Coast Highway between Beach Boulevard and the Santa Ana River (the "White Hole area of deferred certification"] . The proposed zoning is before the Commission to determine its conformance to the Land Use Plan certified in October 1986. This firm represents the Mills Land & Water Company, which owns property affected by the Land Use Plan and proposed zoning. Mills is a small, family-owned company; it has held this property for more than 90 years. The Huntington Beach Local Coastal Plan (LCP) process has taken over twelve years to date, and has yet to be completed. During that time all productive use and development of the Mills property has been precluded, yet no action whatsoever has been taken to acquire or "restore" the wetlands that supposedly could exist on this property. And during this lengthy period, no credible evidence has been produced to support the conclusion that a functioning wetlands can feasibly be re-created on these parcels. i Thomas W. Gwyn, Chair July 11, 1991 Page 2 Your staff has recommended approval of the zoning ordinances with proposed modifications. Your staff has further proposed a "conservation overlay" for the single seven-acre site, out of the entire 232 acres, on. which development would otherwise be permitted. Mills urges this Commission to reject both proposals and to re-examine the LUP designations in the "White Hole area of deferred certification. " LEGALITY OF "CONSERVATION" DESIGNATION Application of the restrictive "Coastal Conservation" (-CC) suffix can only be justified by a valid, factually- supported determination that: (1) there exists a viable and functioning wetlands, or other environmentally sensitive and valuable ecosystem, that requires special protection, or (2) there exists a degraded wetlands which can feasibly be restored, as that term is defined in the Coastal Act (P.R.C. § 30108) .* Neither finding can be made on the record before this Commission. Both the City and the Commission have consistently relied upon a 1979 Department of Fish and Game ("DFG") depiction of the area to identify "restorable wetlands" . As early as 1982 this designation was questioned by an expert whose conclusions were submitted to this Commission in 1986. [T)he area is presently devoid of the essential functions of a .viable coastal, salt-marsh ecosystem that formerly existed there. The biotic and physical features that characterize wetlands are either lacking, are indicative of former wetlands and not present conditions, or have been misinterpreted by inexperienced observers or those who .have failed to carefully examine the area. * Please refer to the October 7, 1986 submission of Mills Land and Water Company to the Commission, at page 3 , 'for a discussion of the provisions of Public Resources Code § 30108 defining the term "feasible. " . • Thomas W. Gwyn, Chair July 11, 1991 Page 3 Even those who advocate the designation of Mills' property as "wetlands" admit that the area is "degraded" and not a functioning wetland, the essential tidal flushing having been cut off for decades. Nor has DFG or the Commission conducted even an elementary study to determine whether re-creation of wetlands in the White Hole area would be "feasible" as that term is defined in the Coastal Act. DFG's unsupported conclusion that wetlands can "easily" be re-created by opening the culverts to the flood control channels has been challenged in theory and has been proven inaccurate. Five years ago, one of the Mills experts stated in a report submitted to the Commission that DFG's proposal for restoration of the salt marsh using runoff from the flood control channels "will be more destructive than constructive, not only to the biological systems but also to the adjacent man-made urban environment. " Dr. Vogl concluded: "Economic and engineering analyses of the [DFG] proposals should be conducted, and I suspect that they will also show that these proposals are not feasible. " At the nearby Huntington Beach wetlands site, a "wetlands restoration" project has met with uncertain results, even with its advantageous location at the mouth of the Santa Ana River and with a multi-million dollar, newly-constructed channel direct to the ocean. There are no plans to attempt to re-create tidal flushing in the White Hole area with another multi-million dollar channel to the ocean. The DFG depictions, which appear to be the sole basis for this Commission's designation of Mills' property as "wetlands, " are not based on credible data or methods, and have been soundly criticized by other experts. DFG's conclusion that wetlands can "easily" be "restored" in the White Hole area is unsupported by any data whatsoever. Indeed, DFG's simplistic suggestion that an adjacent flood-control channel might be used as a means to inundate the dry land designated as "wetlands" completely ignores the fact that the County has steadfastly refused to consider the use of its channel for such purpose. (Letter from C.R. Nelson, Public Works Dept. , April 23 (approx) 1982) DFG provides no analysis at all of the technological and economic feasibility of a wetlands re-creation, pursuant to the standards set forth in the statute. Without apparent concern for the devastating impact on the property owners' rights, the protective "Conservation" Thomas W. Gwyn, Chair July 11, 1991 Page 4 designation has been placed on the Mills and other parcels based on insufficient evidence to support a conclusion that a wetlands restoration project would ever be economically, environmentally, -or technologically feasible. Until such time as it may be established that re-creation of a wetlands is feasible, within the meaning of the Coastal Act, the "conservation" designation of the White Hole area parcels is neither necessary nor appropriate. It is long past time for the Commission and the City to address this issue squarely, instead of indefinitely depriving the owners of the use of their land purely on the basis of unfounded environmental speculation. PROCEDURAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS Mills respectfully requests the Commission to consider as well the serious question of the unlawful abridgement of property rights resulting from the Land Use Plan and the "conservation" zoning to implement it. City's Response to the Problem of Unlawful Taking When the implementation zoning for the LCP was finally proposed, the City Attorney advised that the City could be liable for inverse condemnation damages if the properties were rezoned as proposed. The City hired outside counsel to provide a. second opinion. In that opinion, the attorneys concluded the zone change did not constitute a taking on its face, but might result in liability as applied to certain properties. In order to reduce the City's potential exposure to that liability, counsel recommended that an administrative claims procedure be provided to allow applicants to challenge (a) the economic viability of the permitted uses and (b) the designation as wetlands. Counsel also recommended the adoption of a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program which would allow property owners to transfer development rights on "conservation" properties to other parcels. Other planning concepts, such as a specific plan for the area were also suggested for consideration. (See, Huntington Beach Staff Report, 12/5/89, pp. 2-3) * None of these recommendations has been put into effect. To our knowledge, none are even under .consideration. The City has spent four years trying to address the implementation zoning for the Land Use Plan (LUP) , and its • • Thomas W. Gwyn, Chair July 11, 1991 Page 5 confiscatory impacts on private property owners. In that time, it has only succeeded in adopting a confusing "hybrid" zone which purports to allow economically viable uses (such as Light Industrial) but at the same time prohibits any development, with the possible exception of nature trails, observation platforms, peripheral parking and similar uses. Such uses would not generate sufficient income even to carry tax and maintenance costs for the property. Your staff recognized that the City's "hybrid" zoning was the result of an attempt to address concerns about potential liability for inverse condemnation. A long and contentious battle has been waged at the city level as to the legality and wisdom of [proposing a zoning which is inconsistent with the land use designation] . The main concern has been whether it may be considered a "taking" of land if the existing base zoning is changed to the more restrictive Coastal Conservation District zoning to reflect the existence of valuable sensitive habitat and the Conservation land use designation. . . . . The creation of the Coastal Conservation- suffix was a compromise solution to the problem. Coastal Commission Staff Report, 6/21/91, at p. 14 . The staff analysis makes clear, however, that the -CC suffix is neither a "compromise" nor a "solution" to the taking problem: The -CC suffix is, in fact, "functionally equivalent" to the Coastal Conservation District by which "all permitted uses and protections to wetlands will be in force. " (Id. at p. 14) The City admits that its decision to overlay the -CC suffix onto a base zoning, instead of rezoning the property as "conservation, " does not reduce the impact of the LUP on the private property owners. (Huntington Beach Staff Report, 12/5/89, at p. 5) Therefore, the "overlay" mechanism provides no solution to the taking problem. * * An addendum to this letter relates a detailed history of the City's lengthy and anomalous process to bring about the proposed zoning. Thomas W. Gwyn, Chair July 11, 1991 Page 6 The Coastal Commission's Failure to Address the Impact . of Its Decisions on Property Rights. Throughout the LCP process, the Coastal Commission has never officially acknowledged its own potential liability for a taking. The Commission's and the City's proceedings and actions, however, clearly manifest the intention of both agencies to strive for an eventual re-creation of the historical "wetlands" identified in the Land Use Plan. (See, e.g. , Huntington Beach Staff Report, 12/5/89, p. 5) It is not at all clear, however, how this would be accomplished. Unless someone purchases the property expressly for wetland purposes, re-creation of the now defunct wetlands will never occur without a de facto or de 'ure condemnation action. As the Commission noted years ago during the White Hole area hearings, re-creation of the "wetlands" would necessarily involve flooding, which constitutes a physical invasion and thus a taking of the property. It is one thing to protect "potential" wetlands from development in principle. It is quite another to actually. prohibit development of property, into the indefinite future, without any plan or proposal to create the wetlands intended to be protected, and without even knowing whether it is feasible to create them at all. Because the premises upon which the LUP is based are dubious at best, no legitimate state interest is advanced by the current restrictive LUP and proposed zoning. PROPOSAL TO FURTHER RESTRICT DEVELOPABLE LAND The meaning of staff's proposed addition to the zoning (§ 9422 .2 . 1) is not clear. The report purports to "provide for development standards for a particular location" and to permit development where it would otherwise be prohibited. However, based on the original staff report and map (see attached) and on the apparent import of the language as a whole, the proposed modification appears to do something more: It appears to impose an additional (and invalid) condition of development on the single developable site in the area. If this. interpretation is correct, the Commission should .be made aware of its serious constitutional implications. As noted above, in 1986 the Commission certified the City's Land Use Plan that designated seven acres of frontage on the Pacific Coast Highway as "visitor-serving commercial. " Your staff now proposes that this small site, together with six • Thomas W. Gwyn, Chair July 11, 1991 Page 7 other designated parcels, be impressed with a "conservation overlay. " As to these parcels only, development would be permitted "only pursuant to an application for a single overall development plan for the entire overlay area, or such portion thereof as may be at the time . . geographically contiguous and under common ownership. " The plan must include "conservation easements, dedications or other identified similar mechanisms . . . over all wetland areas as a condition of development, to assure permanent protection. " Any development would be subject to DFG approval. CalTrans is the current owner of the site which is designated "visitor-serving commercial" and may well have comments of its own to present to the Commission. As to Mills, which holds an option on the property -- a fact well known both to the City and to this Commission -- the proposal constitutes an undisguised attempt at discriminatory spot-zoning. The parcel-specific designations make it crystal clear that the proposal is directed. at Mills and will become effective only. if Mills (the sole contiguous property owner) exercises its option to purchase the CalTrans parcel. The apparent rationale for this proposal is to ensure that if Mills purchases the CalTrans parcel and attempts to develop the seven acres as permitted by the LUP, it will be required to dedicate to public use all of its remaining undeveloped parcels to assure "permanent protection" of so-called wetland areas. This extremely onerous condition on development could not possibly pass the "nexus" test articulated by the United States Supreme Court in the Nollan case nor the standards set forth for exactions in Government Code § 66005. The development of a seven-acre site along a heavily traveled state highway could not, under any definition, create the need for the dedication of 50+ acres of land valued at millions of dollars, for "wetlands" protection. Even if some justification existed for creation of a buffer zone to mitigate impacts on the so-called wetlands, that buffer could not legally be extended to the entire 50 acres. The proposal appears to be nothing more than a subterfuge to stave off a facial taking claim. The overlay is drafted as if to allow development in the "conservation" areas under certain conditions. In reality, it makes development of the only otherwise developable area of the 232 acres economically infeasible. It also places property owners at the mercy of DFG, whose flawed, superficial "studies" were a primary • ' • Thomas W. Gwyn, Chair July 11, 1991 Page 8 cause of the current dilemma. There is no reason to believe DFG would ever give favorable consideration to development in the areas it has (erroneously) designated as wetlands. In sum, the proposed modification for the seven acres of frontage is extremely ill-advised and should not be adopted. * MILLS' PROPOSAL The rapidly decreasing supply of wetlands in 'California and across the United States has resulted in a properly conservative approach to land use regulation wherever wetlands are affected. But in the case of the Huntington Beach White Hole area, this response is entirely unjustified. The historic wetlands which previously existed on the Mills property were lost in the 1940's when the State filled the Gamewell Estuary to create a public beach. From that point on, an irreversible transformation of the former wetlands began, and continues to this day, with the City's planned construction of a major hotel on acreage designated by DFG as "restorable wetlands. " Nearly 50 years have- passed since these wetlands were lost, due to the actions of various governmental agencies. Meanwhile, between the actions of CalTrans, the Coastal Commission and the City of Huntington Beach, Mills Land & Water Company has been in a legislative, limbo for over 25 years. Mills has not even been allowed to process an application for development without first seeking a general plan amendment to remove the "conservation" designation from its property. Imposition of the "conservation" designation in the Land Use Plan, and application of the -CC suffix to Mills' property, constitute arbitrary and capricious acts. The acts are invalid because they are based on the theoretical notions that (a) the Mills property is a degraded "wetland, " (b) that it feasibly can be restored as a "wetland" despite the absence of a water source to do so, and (c) that someone will buy the land and attempt that restoration. None of these assumptions is supported by reliable evidence before the City or the Commission. * The proposal also violates the Commission's own procedures by attempting to effectuate a change in the LUP through implementation zoning. Thomas W. Gwyn, Chair July 11, 1991 Page 9 Accordingly, Mills requests the Commission take the following actions: 1. Deny certification of the implementation zoning. 2 . Initiate and complete, within six months, a scientific study of the White Hole area to determine the feasibility of re-creating, in any part of the area, a functioning wetlands, applying the criteria for "feasibility" set forth in Public Resources Code § 30108. 3. If the study concludes that a wetlands re-creation is feasible, and if it is determined that these wetlands are necessary for the health and welfare of the State, initiate condemnation proceedings to accomplish this goal. 4 . If the study concludes that restoration of all or part of the area is not feasible, initiate amendments to the LUP to permit development in the areas where wetlands cannot be re-created. Mills is prepared to cooperate with and assist the Commission, the City and DFG in making an accurate determination of the feasibility of re-creating any part of the tidal marsh that once existed in this area. CONCLUSION Over the past 25 years, the Mills property has been carved up, condemned, landlocked, and overregulated by a variety of governmental agencies. Due to the actions of the Coastal Commission and the City, the remaining patchwork of parcels have been left with no economically viable use. The historic wetlands in this area were lost, not through Mills' activity, but through progressive improvements completed by the State and its agencies. It would be unconscionable, not to mention unconstitutional, for the Commission and the City to impose upon three families the entire burden of "protection" of the pathetic vestiges of a former coastal salt marsh on behalf of all the people of this State. Nor does it advance any legitimate state interest to preclude development where such preclusion does not result in the stated goal: creation and protection of a functional wetlands. Thomas W. Gwyn, Chair July 11, 1991 Page 10 Mills Land and Water Company respectfully urges thin Commission to examine its premises, to apply the standards of the Coastal Act, and to consider its constitutional obligations to private property owners. Very truly yours, Maria P. Rivera MPR:sjk/l 0749I cc: See attached list. Thomas W. Gwyn, Chair July 11, 1991 Page 11 SERVICE LIST 16 copies to Mr. Charles Damm at the Coastal Commission for delivery to the Commissioners, ex-officio members, and the Executive Director. Peter Green, Mayor of Huntington Beach Council Persons: Jack Kelly Don MacAllister Linda Moulton-Patterson Earle Robitaille Jim Silva Grace Winchell Director of Community Development, Michael Adams City Administrator, Michael Uberuaga City Attorney, Gail Hutton ADDENDUM TO JULY 11 LETTER FROM MILLS LAND & WATER More than two years after the LUP was certified, City staff proposed adoption of the implementation zoning. Apparently concerned about the confiscatory impacts of a rezoning, City decided to attach the -CC suffix instead of removing or changing the base zoning. This was intended as an interim measure, pending the issuance of recommendations from a "wetlands coalition. " (HB Staff Report 12/5/89 at p. 7) The wetlands coalition (aka the "Pacific Coast Highway Coalition" ) , made up of "property owners, responsible agencies , the City, conservation, and interest group representatives , " was formed to study alternative land uses and other creative solutions for the area in accordance with legal counsel ' s opinion. The coalition was deputized to work with staff to "prepare a land use plan and explore various land planning techniques such as specific plans and Transfer of Development Rights programs . " (HB Staff Report, 12/5/89 , p. 3) The coalition began meeting in January of 1990; their recommenda- tions were expected in three to four months . ( Id. at p. 7 ) More than fourteen months have passed since the formation of the "Pacific Coast Highway Coalition" yet no reports, proposals or ideas have emanated from that group. It is our understanding that after a few meetings many members simply stopped attending, funding for the group dried up, and the Coalition now exists on paper only. The City also failed to follow counsel ' s advice; it did not address private property rights in the proposed ordinance itself . i The City has stated that "the existence of a suffix removal process , as described in the Ordinance Code, provides the affected property owners with a mechanism to challenge this zone .change. (Huntington Beach Staff Report, 12/5/89 , p. 7) Specifically, staff describes the Code as providing "an administrative review procedure . . . to allow applicants to challenge the economic viability of the permitted uses and the designation as wetlands . " ( Id. , at p. 6) But the staff report is incorrect; the Code does not provide any such procedures . The ordinance relied upon (Municipal Code § 9422 .3 ) provides for removal of the -CC suffix only upon findings that the underlying district "conforms to the coastal element of the City' s Land Use Plan and is in accordance with .the policies of the Coastal Act . " In other words , the suffix can be removed only after amendment to the underlying Land Use Plan, a monumental -- if not impossible -- undertaking. Essentially, it would require the landowner to process through both the City and the Coastal Commission an application to reverse the twelve-year legislative process only now being completed. This does not constitute an "administrative procedure" to relieve property owners of the onerous affects of the new zoning, and, consequently, does not "reduce potential exposure to liability. " As noted in the letter, none of counsel ' s recommendations to reduce the City' s exposure to liability for a taking of property has been adopted. • S1Att Qr �A(11QRNA—fME RlbOUlC7b AOINC`f CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION *W N e6A1t ANIA AMI 241 V411 NOADWAY, SUM UO IONO HACK. CA $6609 0131 Ib3471 REt; EIVED DATE: April 8, 1991 APR 9 - 1991 TO: Commissioners and Interested Persons 4UU4 nnu FROM: South Coast Staff RE: Addendum to April 11 , 1991 Commission meeting item 5,5 b Changes to suggested modifications Which Will clarify the intent of the modifications and additional modification to provide for development standards for a particular location in the area of deferred certification. Page 8 of the staff report for the Huntington Beach Implementing Ordinances for the PCH area of deferred certification between Seach 81vd. and the Santa Ana River. substitute: la)Any environmentl -sensitive areas of-the to have_ been qr wdh�g .glact d b mean u c� 9 9.10,E and nAgen cons v de tri r easement, r other iglnti jiMilgr mech ovst I f -joy1ronmgntally sensitive Page 9 before 080 Add article to Coastal Conservation District: 9422. 1 As ij toolitsto Da ibedas A. a n_qe1_N_Yr&srii 148148-all-Q-Q1 4 - - 2 4, 14-1S0-S 11 - 3 114-15 - 114-1 -55, th#_ ;9astal Con 1 "CC" suffixa 4 c n ,ervat ov r e le i eveloprnent 21hory1se prQfiibityj by section 7 me i pursuantlising-le ova de n f r e overlayre rti th r t h i a lic a ra hic 1 a er Al part--of anx—Uft-Applic ation the e 1 e vegfjta.%JID, and informgtion. PropaCedb A 99alifJod professigr iewed by. tba Deaartmeht_of_fish Q Gamg.8 41gh _identifial Ibb extend of ,aaay a i tine C1+1Ar%#1 Ark ha grpD#j3X,, ory asements ions or o her idontjfied_si ila -mechanism& shall be--reggired over all wet)a d areas as "ondl_t14n_ of jgvel' ul- 12 assure R*man ent orotottion. Public AtiCsdar traffic shy 1 a p�h��.ed in wetland areas governed by a conservatign elsemint. SReSific dralmgt and er l r Lremlajj shall be Ini2rpo uted in o ect d i re pre n t adyerselyjffocted, --No fgrther 300iyisign of e ermit e u h ve t f vi 1 ff eaviromen1#11Y sensitivg hAbilat frog o Qr..RoC�.�4IIs of such parcels f2r whicb urban uses_ s I it he City' oastal ment until- h time Qmanant .yrotect Qn on any 11landAs-assured. -Wilhin areas i-dentitied s Wands 20 tho 1u§Jtct rjyj the Usas of the Coasta1 Co rvat Dillrict, as i4jentified i on JRZ.5 jnd 9422.6 suDercede Ahi f the VSC. 6 and M1- Consistent with 30222 of the coastal hct tor— •rying o f ci1 ve e� in ment bu ove i ltur verl1118, Pape 10 Insert after "and the issue would be moot. 0 in the Findings for Approval if Modified of the Coastal Conservation Suffix removal ; The addition of the article to rovide for the development standards of a large block of contiguous pa rce% in common ownership, at the corner of PCH and Beach Boulevard, will assure that the parcels are developed in a mcnner most consistent with the mandate to protect environmentally sensitive areas , This type of conservation overlay zone classification is found on a sit# across the street from the subject site on Beach Blvd. 0051E 'i I a ' e, y � fl ' , • 'r/� �• � ` �r �. .�'I. I]a1 ��' �' �r �. ` �: �i ,• %: '�'_ 'tom. t� � ` � � , !��►,�.'�!'!' -- __ �. ': �-J,z �� . \ �1 � �, � ,. �����. M -��ia.+ •I �• ,„ • / , I � • 1, � � � . � . � .• • OrMELVENY & MYERS • 400 SOUTH HOPE STREET SUITE 1700 EMBARCADERO CENTER WEST LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90071-2699 275 BATTERY STREET T TELEPHONE(213` 669-6000 610 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA 941 11-33 0 5 FA-SIMILE(213)669-6407 TELEPHONE(41S)964-8700 — NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660-6429 FACSIMILE(415)964-6701 1999 AVENUE OF THE STARS - LOS ANGELES, CALIFORP-:90067-603S TELEPHONE (714) 760-9600 10 FINSBURY SOUARE TELEPHONE(310)553-6700 LONDON EC2A ILA FACSIMILE(310)246-6779 TELEX 4722088• FACSIMILE(714) 669-6994 TELEPHONE(071)256-84SI r FACSIMILE(071)638-820S 555 13T.STREET, N.W. WASHINGTON, D. C. 2 0 0 04-110 9 SANBANCHO KB-6 BUILDING TELEPHONE(202)383-5300 September 6 SANBANCHO,CHIYODA-KU FACSIMILE(202)383-5414 6th TOKYO 102 TELEPHONE CITICORP CENTER 1 9 9 4 FACSIMILE 103)3239-2432 153 EAST S3a0 STREET NEW YORK. NEW YORK 10022-4611 TELEPHONE(212)326-2000 FACSIMILE(212)326-2061 WRITERS DIRECT DIAL NUMBERB94RECEIVED FROM OUR FILE NUMBER (714) 6 69-7 9 3 6 AND MADE A PART OF THE RE OR�fyT THE COUNCIL MEETING OF l! 161,577-001 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLEFTK / 196901 CONNIE BROOKWAY,CITY CLERK Via Messenger Mayor Linda Moulton-Patterson Huntington Beach City Council c/o Connie Brockway Huntington Beach City Clerk 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 Re: Proposed Code Amendment No. 93-8 Hearing Date/Time: September 6, 1994 7:00 p.m. Dear Mayor Moulton-Patterson and City Council Members: We represent Coastal Magnolia Group and Pacific Enviro Design (collectively, "Coastal Magnolia") , property owners who will be affected by the City Council's action on the proposed code amendment referenced above. Unfortunately, we just received notice of tonight's hearing, and for that reason have not been able to review the actual code amendment as proposed. However, we assume the proposed amendment is identical or substantially similar to that approved by the City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission on February 15, 1994 . Assuming this to be the case, Coastal Magnolia opposes adoption of the proposed code amendment. The proposed code amendment suffers from many of the same defects of prior implementation zoning proposals considered by the City Council which would have unfairly and unconstitutionally impacted Coastal Magnolia's property, including proposed resolution Nos. 6437-A and 6437-B heard by the City Council on July 6, 1992 . Coastal Magnolia previously asserted objections to proposed resolution Nos. 6437-A and 6437-B in prior letters from its former counsel, Pettis, Tester, Kruse & Krinsky ("PTKK") , including PTKK's letter dated June 15, 1992 to Page 2 - Mayor Linda Moulton-Patterson - September 6, 1994 the City Council (a copy of this letter is attached hereto as Exhibit 1) . Coastal Magnolia would again like to draw the Council Members' attention to its concerns, including those raised in Exhibit 1, which is incorporated herein by reference. Coastal Magnolia remains opposed to the Coastal Commission's May 12, 1992 action and any agreement on the part of the City of Huntington Beach to accept that action. Further, Coastal Magnolia objects to the proposed code amendment for the reasons set forth in the January 31, 1994 letter of Martha P. Rivera of McCutchen, Doyle, Brown & Enersen, submitted on behalf of nearby landowner Mills Land & Water Company (a copy of this letter is attached hereto as Exhibit 2) . The objections raised by Mills Land & Water Company apply with equal force to Coastal Magnolia. Coastal Magnolia, therefore, urges the City Council to reject the proposed code amendment. Adoption of the proposed code amendment not only would be procedurally flawed, it would further the continuing violations of Coastal Magnolia's constitutional rights by .depriving .it. of any economically viable use of its property. Ver truly yours, rl - A( Reed N. Archambault of O'MELVENY & MYERS RNA/lrp Enclosures Page 3 - Mayor Linda Moulton-Patterson - September 6, 1994 cc: Dr. Jack Terner Mr. Ted Dutton Mr. Robert Nastase Mr. William Curtis I * McCUTCHEN, DOY-L-E;BROWN & ENERSEN SAN FRANCISCO COUNSELORS AT LAW WASHINGTON. D.C. LOS ANGELES 1331 NORTH CALIFORNIA BOULEVARD TAIPEI SAN J05E POST OFFICE BOX V WALNUT CREEK WALNUT CREEK,CALIFORNIA 94596-4502 AFFILIATED OFFICE TELEPHONE(510)937-8000 BANGKOK FACSIMILE(510)975-5390 September 2, 1994 DIRECT DIAL NUMBER RECEIVED FROM AND MADE A PART OF THERERG � HAND DELIVERY THE COUNCIL MEETING OF Dl_OFFICE OF Sy CONNIE BRO&THE y CIn,CLERK S Mayor Linda Moulton-Patterson and City Council Members City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach LCP Proposed "White Hole" Rezoning Amendment 93-8 September 6, 1994 City Council Meeting-Agenda Item D-5 Dear Mayor Moulton-Patterson and City Council Members: This letter is submitted for your review and consideration in connection with the proposed Zoning code Amendment designated 93-8, and previously proposed Code Amendment 93-3 (formerly Zone Change 88-18). At the request of Council Member Victor Leipzig, direction has been given by the City Council to the Huntington Beach planning staff to prepare for resubmittal to the California Coastal Commission a proposed rezoning for properties located on the inland side of Pacific Coast Highway between Beach Boulevard and the Santa Ana River. This action was taken at the City Council meeting on June 21, 1993, and is in reference to the area of deferred certification of the City's Local Coastal Program (LCP) commonly known as the "White Hole". This firm represents the Mills Land& Water Company, which is one of only two or three private property owners who will be impacted by the proposed changes to the existing zoning. As most of you are aware, Mills is a small, family-owned company which has held the property in this area for more than 90 years. History of LCP Proceedings The proceedings for adoption of the City's LCP began sixteen years ago. The record of these proceedings is replete with letters, documents and testimony by and on behalf of Mills, objecting to a host of procedural and substantive errors in connection with the V' 1 � 1 Mayor Linda Moulton-Patton and City Council Members September 2, 1994 Page 2 conditionally adopted LCP and its proposed implementation zoning. For example, even the most fundamental premise upon which the LCP designations are based--the depiction of Mills land as "restorable wetlands" -- has never been the subject of a proper determination by the City or the Coastal Commission that any wetlands restoration project on the site would be economically, environmentally or technologically feasible, as required by Public Resources Code § 30108. It would be impossible at this point to attempt to summarize,much less restate all of the previous comments and points raised by Mills in the course of these lengthy proceedings. A copy of the most recent letter submitted to the Huntington Beach Planning Commission in connection with the Commission's February 1, 1994 consideration of the proposed "Conservation" zoning was included in your packet as Attachment 16 to the staff report. We have also enclosed as "Exhibit A" letters submitted to the Coastal Commission which raise other serious legal concerns that should be considered before the Council takes action. All of those letters, along with all previous statements, both written and oral,presented to the Planning Commission and City Council on behalf of Mills with respect to the City's Local Coastal Plan and all of the resolutions and ordinances intended to implement it, are hereby incorporated by reference. Recent Developments Since our February submittal to the Planning Commission, the U. S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Dolan v. City of Tigard.I In Dolan, the court held that local governments have the burden of showing that any exactions or dedications imposed in connection with the proposed development of private property bear a reasonable relationship to the impacts of the proposed development. As the Supreme Court stated: One of the principal purposes of the Takings Clause is "to bar Government from forcing some people alone to bear public burdens which, in all fairness and justice, should be borne by the public as a whole." In the LCP proceedings to date, City has made no effort to measure the prospective impacts of Mills' proposed light-industrial project(which City has refused to process without an amendment to the LCP removing the "Conservation" designation), or the impacts of any other development, to determine whether the forced dedication to the public of virtually all the Mills property designated for "Conservation" is roughly proportional to the impacts of any proposed development. The City's perceived need to preserve the property in its undeveloped state is essentially an exaction unrelated to any specific development impacts. Therefore, the City cannot possibly meet the requirement established by the Supreme court in the Dolan case I Dolan v. City of Tigard,U. S. Supreme Court Case No. 93-518,decided June 24, 1994. Mayor Linda Moulton-Patt son and City Council Members September 2, 1994 Page 3 that the local government "make some sort of individualized determination that the required dedication is related both in nature and extent to the impact of proposed development." The inescapable conclusion at this point in the long-running "White Hole" saga is that the City intends to preclude development of the Mills property so as to assure the possibility of retaining it for open space, and to see that it remains available for possible restoration as wetlands. It is thus clear that the restrictions proposed in the zoning ordinance bear no relation whatsoever to the impacts of development, but are intended to preserve the ecological benefits of the property in its existing state (such as they are) for the benefit of all of the people of California. The City cannot require the family of owners of Mills Land& Water Company to bear the burden of"protecting" the vestigial remnant of a former coastal salt marsh for the benefit of the public in general. Such a requirement would be an unconstitutional exercise of the power of eminent domain and a confiscation of private property under the guise of zoning regulations. In the recent decision in Loveladies Harbor, Inc. v. United States,2 the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit addressed the question whether denial of a permit to develop privately owned wetlands constituted a taking. The 12.5 acres at issue was part of a larger 250 acre holding, most of which had been developed prior to the adoption of the federal wetlands regulations. The question before the court was whether the cost of preserving and protecting the remaining 12.5 acres, designated as wetlands, should fall solely upon the affected property owner, or must it be shared by the public at large, to whom the benefit inures? Applying the principles enunciated in Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council,3 the court concluded that the owner had purchased and partially developed its property "with the intent to develop it long before [the wetlands] regulatory programs came into effect" and that the denial of owner's development application constituted a "denial of economically viable use of the property as a result of the regulatory imposition." The court ruled that Loveladies was entitled to two-and-a-half million dollars in damages, plus interest, for a "regulatory taking" of the 12.5 acres. Mills' situation is virtually identical. It held the property with the intent to develop it long before the LCP was conditionally approved. Loveladies has made it clear that earlier development of portions of the property does not insulate the City or the Coastal Commission from liability for inverse condemnation, as has been suggested by City's outside Loveladies Harbor, Inc. and Loveladies Harbor, Unit D, Inc. v. United States, 1994 WL 259489(Fed Cir.). 3 Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 120 L.Ed.2d 798(1992). Mayor Linda Moulton-Pa V and City Council Members September 2, 1994 Page 4 legal counsel4. In short, City's attempt to adopt a zoning ordinance which requires a conservation easement for the benefit of the public on virtually all of Mills remaining undeveloped land, irrespective of the size, character or impacts of any present or future proposed development on any portion of the Mills or neighboring property, would constitute a taking requiring compensation. Additionally, the imposition of special regulations on only a handful of parcels identified by parcel number, as proposed in Code Amendment 93-8, would constitute unlawful "spot zoning" in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. See, Exhibit A,p. 3, ¶3. Finally, we would note without extensive discussion three other legal issues that should be seriously considered before the Council takes action: First, under the Supreme Court decision handed down in First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v. County of Los Angeles, 96 L. Ed. 2d 250 (1987), due to the City's extended and unconscionable delays in preparing and processing the LCP and zoning, and due to the City's refusal to process Mills'proposed application, or any development application for the White Hole Area pending final adoption and approval of the implementation zoning and the LCP, the City is already potentially liable for damages for a temporary taking of Mills' property. Second,the agenda for the September 6 meeting reflects that the Council's action will include the adoption of Zone Change 88-18, as is required by state regulations. However, the Public Notice for the September 6 hearing did not include that action, but noticed only a hearing for Amendment 93-8. This is in violation of the property owners' and public's procedural due process rights. Third, the staff report appears to contain a fairly serious error in describing the proposed Code Amendment. The report states that the Amendment "includes a detailed removal procedure that allows applicants to challenge the economic viability of the permitted uses and the designation as wetlands, as suggested in the [outside] legal opinion." First, we have been unable to locate in the Amendment any provision for removal of the "-CC" suffix based on a challenge to the economic viability of the permitted uses. Second, it is obvious that any removal procedure based on a challenge to the wetlands designation would be utterly futile. The "Conservation" designation and the "CC" suffix are predicated entirely on the Coastal Commission's and City's "findings" that the properties are "viable or restorable" wetlands, and the property owners' sixteen-year attempt to influence or reverse that "finding" has been in vain. The Code Amendment's removal procedure does nothing more than to require the useless exercise of repeating that process. See, also, McCutchen letter to Planning Commission at pages 3-4. 4 "Legal Opinion on Coastal Conservation Zoning"prepared for the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach by Katherine E. Stone,Margaret A. Sohagi and Richard R.Terzian. 4 . • • Mayor Linda Moulton-Patte son and City Council Members September 2, 1994 Page 5 Conclusion Mills does not claim an absolute entitlement to develop its property. Rather, Mills has repeatedly urged the City and the Coastal Commission to initiate and complete, within six months, a valid, scientific study of the "White Hole" area to determine the feasibility of re- creating anywhere in the area a functioning wetlands.5 In making this determination,the statutory criteria for "feasibility" set forth in Public Resources Code § 30108 should be followed. If the study shows a wetlands can be feasibly re-established, and if the City and/or State continue to assert that these wetlands must be protected for the benefit, health and welfare of the people of California, then condemnation proceedings should be initiated without further delay to acquire the property from Mills for the public use and benefit. If, on the other hand,the study shows that a restoration project would not be feasible, the LCP conditional approval should be set aside and an appropriate land use designation, allowing reasonable development, should be adopted. Mills Land & Water Company respectfully urges each of you carefully to consider the social, economic and legal implications to the City of Huntington Beach of the proposed "Conservation" zoning -- as well as the constitutional obligation to private property owners. If this zoning is adopted the City could be faced with the prospect of paying millions of dollars in compensation to the landowners whose property is effectively "taken" by the ordinance. If condemnation of these properties is to occur, it makes much more sense to determine first, whether the property has the "wetlands" value ascribed to it, and second, to secure funding from appropriate sources to offset the costs, rather than having a court simply require the City to pay the fare. Very truly yo , Maria P. Rivera 5 See,e.g., "A Modest Proposal"discussed in Attachment 16 to the staff report["Request for City Council Action", dated September 6, 1994 regarding Code Amendment No.93-8]. THENV/ATERFRONT September 2, 1994 The Honorable Mayor Linda Moulton Patterson �IiY CF HUNT;NGTON BEAC.: City of Huntington Beach :.�'!IN,STRAW E OFFICE 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 Re: Code Amendment 93-8, Public Hearing September 6, 1994 "White Hole Area" Beach Boulevard to Santa Ana River Objection to Language Permitting the Extension of Hamilton Ave. Across Wetlands Dear Madame Mayor: The purpose of this letter is to detail our opposition to a portion of the proposed code amendment which appears to promote the proposed extension of Hamilton Avenue from Newland Street to Beach Boulevard through an existing wetland habitat. I. Introduction: As you know,we have recently introduced our plan for the deletion of the segment of Pacific View Drive from Beach Boulevard to Twin Dolphin Drive, and the proposed future extension of Hamilton Avenue (and the ultimate connection via Pacific View Drive through to Main Street) has been offered by some as a basis for objecting to our plan. Therefore, we asked an environmental consulting firm, LSA Associates, Inc.', to review the status of plans for the extension of Hamilton Avenue to determine the feasibility and probability of its extension through the wetland. Their findings are summarized herein and in the attached document prepared by them entitled, "Environmental And Coastal Act Issues Associated with the Extension of Hamilton Avenue in the City of Huntington Beach." Additionally, we have reviewed the City's 1986 Analysis of Land Use Alternatives for the White Hole Area which studied alternatives routes through the wetland, and the Coastal Commission's April 1987 Findings for approval of the City's Land Use Plan for that area, which contained an extensive discussion of the legal questions and wetland mitigation requirements for the proposed extension of Hamilton Avenue. ' LSA Associates,Inc.is an environmental consulting firm with considerable experience in Huntington Beach; they have performed all the environmental analysis for the City on The Waterfront project and the traffic analysis for the Holly Seacliff project. Additionally, they have been responsible for the wetland analysis, permitting and mitigation efforts for the Foothill Transportation Corridor. J The Robert Mayer Corporation 660 Newport Center Drive, Suite 1050, P.O. Box 8680, Newport Beach, CA 92658-8680•Telephone (714)759-8091 ,J The Honorable Mayor Linda Moulton Patterson Re: Extension of Hamilton Avenue Across Wetland September 2, 1994,Page 2 H. Summaxy of Anabijis: Based on the enclosed study by LSA Associates, Inc. we are convinced that the extension of Hamilton Avenue across a portion of existing wetlands in the "White Hole Area" is infeasible for several reasons, including: • Extreme difficulty in mitigating the adverse environmental impacts upon the wetlands. The LSA report states in part, "Given the site conditions and the difficulty, if not impossibility,of designing and implementing a project that could meet the guarantees stated above, (referring to conditions imposed by the Coastal Commission] the inclusion of the Hamilton Avenue extension on the LUP is a false representation of what could actually be built.". • Extreme difficulty in obtaining the necessary CEQA clearances, Department of Fish and Game concurrence and a 404 Permit from the Army Corps of Engineers. Not only does the report conclude that it will be difficult to obtain Department of Fish and Game concurrence because of the value they place on this wetland, the LSA report finds that under the guidelines likely to be applied by the Army Corps of Engineers, "...it would be difficult, if not impossible, to demonstrate that the avoidance alternative is not feasible." • The probable requirement to build an elevated bridge-type structure,with a very high cost, expected to exceed $4.7 million'. The USA report also notes that the visual/aesthetic impacts within the coastal zone of such a structure would be of concern. • Other technical difficulties exist including severe geotechnical constraints (the elevated road would cross an area designated by the City as "Highest Seismic Risk"), the need to span the Huntington Beach Channel flood control facility which is likely to be enlarged in the future, and probable interference with existing oil production operations. • Roadways have been permitted to cross wetlands when there is no other alternative, i.e., it must cross the wetland and some location no matter where it is relocated. Sine alternate routes exist at both Pacific Coast Highway and Atlanta Avenue, the LSA report concluded, "...it will be difficult, if not impossible,to prevail with the argument of public necessity." ' As estimated by the City of Huntington Beach in the 1986 Analysis of Land Use Alternatives for the White Hole Area. The Honorable Mayor Linda Moulton Patterson Re: Extension of Hamilton Avenue Across Wetland September 2, 1994, Page 3 Please see the enclosed report by LSA Associates, Inc. for a more complete discussion of these issues. Additionally, we believe that additional considerations will prevent the City from ever completing this road extension, including: • The Coastal Commission was misled and erred in approving the Land Use Plan for the White Hole Area which showed Hamilton Avenue crossing the wetland 3 It is likely the Commission would find deny a Coastal Development Permit application to extend Hamilton Avenue through the wetland after more extensive review. • Significant political ramifications would result if the City were to attempt a major public works project within a wetland habitat, particularly when such a marginal benefit is derived. • Legal risk--it is likely that the City could find itself in a protracted and expensive legal battle against public interest lawyers and/or environmental groups who would have good legal grounds to challenge this proposed road extension. III. Objections to Language of Draft Ordinance—Last Paragraph of Section 2: The last paragraph of Section 2 of the draft ordinance reads as follows: "Public vehicular traffic (the extension of Hamilton Avenue) shall be permitted in wetland areas governed by a conservation easement provided the road is constructed in a manner consistent with Section 9.45; Area 1 (Beach Blvd. to Newland Street) and Section 6, Environmentally Sensitive Habitat of the certified Land Use Plan." We object to this language because: • This provision creates the appearance that the extension of Hamilton Avenue from Newland Street to Beach Boulevard across a wetlands is necessary, legal and/or feasible when in fact it is none of these for all the reasons discussed .previously herein. • This provision requires construction of the road in a manner consistent with Section 3 The Commission based its conditional approval in part on the information submitted by the City that indicated that no other alternate route (besides Pacific Coast Highway) existed between the downtown area and the southeastern portion of the City. The Commission was not informed by the City that an alternate route connecting these two areas of the City, Atlanta Avenue, already existed. The Honorable Mayor Linda Moulton Patterson Re: Extension of Hamilton Avenue Across Wetland September 2, 1994, Page 4 6 of the Land Use Plan, which consists primarily of a discussion of the various state and federal agencies involved in wetland issues and the definition of wetlands. There is no reference in Section 6 to roadway construction, nor does it establish any objective standards by which one could judge whether the consistency called for in the code amendment could be achieved. We do not believe it is prudent to enact an ordinance which contains language that in practice is so vague it is meaningless. IV. Conclusion: When exposed to the harsh light of honesty and reality, the proposed extension of Hamilton Avenue through the wetland is ridiculously costly and impractical. It is fraught with financial, technical and legal risk, with little or no real benefit to the City in any event. We urge the City to abandon any plans to extend Hamilton Avenue across the wetlands to Beach Boulevard, and we strenuously urge the Council to modify the proposed language of Code Amendment 93-8 to state that the extension of Hamilton Avenue through the wetland shall not be permitted. Sincerely, Stephen K. Bone President The Waterfront, Inc. cc: Members of the City Council Mr. Michael Uberuaga, City Administrator Mr. Ray Silver, Assistant City Administrator Ms. Melanie Fallon, Director of Community Development Ms. Barbara Kaiser, Deputy City Administrator ° Section 6 concludes with the statement that the principal objectives of the land use plan includes "Improvement of the aesthetic and biological quality of wetland areas" --a laudable goal. It is inconceivable that the construction of a four lane highway through a functioning wetland could be characterized as "consistent"with this objective. ENVIRONMENTAL AND COASTAL ACT ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH THE EXTENSION OF HAMILTON AVENUE IN THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH September 1, 1994 Prepared for: The Waterfront, Inc 660 Newport Center Drive, Suite 1050 Newport Beacb, CA 92658-"0 Prepared by: LSA Associates, Inc. 1 Park Plaza, Suite 500 Irvine, California 92714 (714) 553-0666 LSA Project #WIR402 • • LSA Associate;Inc TABLE OF CONTENTS _ PAGE INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 ENVIRONMENTAL FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 WETLANDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 HUNTINGTON BEACH CHANNEL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 GEOTECHNICAUISEISMIC CONSTRAINTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 OIL PRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 CEQA CLEARANCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 COASTAL ACT POLICIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 I 09/'01/94(I:•••WM402••.ENVIRON.RP'I) ij • • LSA Amodates,Inc INTRODUCTION This report has been prepared to examine the extension of Hamilton Avenue, as shown on the Certified Land Use Plan. The feasibility of the extension, and the likelihood of the extension being built in accordance with the Coast- . al Commission findings are analyzed in the report. BACKGROUND When the Coastal Commission certified the Huntington Beach Coastal Ele- ment Land Use Plan (LUP) in 1982, it left blank an area between Beach Bou- levard and the Santa Ana River, an area now referred to as a "white hole." No land uses or infrastructure was shown on the LUP in the "white hole" area. The City's proposed extension of Hamilton Avenue would be within this "white hole" area. On April 13, 1987, the Commission certified the Land Use Plan for the area of deferred certification, as proposed by the City of Hun- tington Beach, including the extension of Hamilton Avenue east of Beach Boulevard. The California Coastal Commission Recommended Findings dated April 13, 1987, contains eight pages of analysis and findings on the Hamilton Avenue extension including the LUP. The report summarizes previous Commission concerns that: 1) the extension of Hamilton Avenue would result in the filling of wetlands, 2) roads are not a permitted use for filling in wetlands under Section 30233 of the Coastal Act, and 3) there are inconsistencies with other Coastal Act policies. The findings made by the Commission are excerpted as follows: "The Commissions finds that the precise alignment of Hamilton Ave. can not be approved without the necessary environmental documen- tation showing the least environmentally damaging feasible alternative is the chosen alternative. "The Commission further finds that such minimization of impacts shall include, at a minimum; (1) placing of the roadway in an align- ment which is most protective of wetlands habitats, which may re- quire the entire road to be constructed on pilings or other road de- signs such as bridging over the wetlands, (2) limiting the width of roadway by narrowing lanes and eliminating shoulders, and (3) re- quiring full mitigation for any impacted wetlands. The Commission also finds that the EIR, which will need to be done before this project could occur, will need to adequately address the alternative align- ments for Hamilton Ave. and will need to address the mitigation needs generated from each alternative. "The Commission further finds that the feasible mitigation measures must be provided for permitted wetland fill projects in order to mini- 09/01/94(I:•.WM402-,ENVIRON.RPT) ` • • M Assadates;Inc mite adverse environmental effects of the project. The Land Use Plan resubmittal provides, as noted above, that the Hamilton Avenue exten- sion will minimize impacts on the wetlands. The LUP also states that the minimization of impacts on the wetlands includes raising the entire structure on pilings, if necessary, and that appropriate mitiga- tion shall be provided. The LUP concludes that: 'It is the City's intent that no net loss of wetland occur. Any wetland which is filled or reduced in productivity by the pro- ject will be replaced by restoring otherwise degraded or non- functioning wetland as close as feasible to the project site.' "The Commission finds that it is only with this guarantee by the City that no net loss of wetlands will occur as a result of this project, that the project will maintain or enhance the functional capacity of the wetlands and that mitigation measures will be provided to minimize the adverse impacts of the project that the Commission can find the proposed Hamilton Avenue extension consistent with the provisions of Section 30233 of the Coastal Act." The Commission recognized the need for an alternate route paralleling Hwy. I for public safety needs; however, it does not appear that the Commission considered Atlanta Avenue as an alternate parallel route that already exists. ENVIRONMENTAL FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS In June of 1986, the City of Huntington Beach adopted Coastal Element Amendment No. 86-1, which provided the Land Use Plan for the uncertified "white hole" area. The analysis of the plan was contained in the May, 1986 report Non Certified Coastal Areas Analysis of Land Use Alternatives for the Wbite Hole'Areas. Based on the information in that report and our know- ledge of the regulatory process, the following analysis addresses the environ- mental issues and feasibility of constructing Hamilton Avenue as shown on the LUP. WETLANDS There is extensive documentation of the wetland issues on the site of the Hamilton Avenue extension; therefore, this section provides a summary of the pertinent points that affect the ability to obtain all the resource agency entitlements to build the road. • The roadway extension would pass through an area designated as degraded wetlands; at the same time, the Department of Fish and Game (DFG) has found that some of the area has a high level of use by wetland associated birds and some of the area has a moderate use by these birds. DFG has also stated that, although much of the area 09/01/94(I:-%NM402--.ENVIRON.PJq) 2 • • LSA ASWdW*s,Inc is degraded, it functions well enough and maintains enough habitat value so that restoration is not required or may not even be allowed on some of the area (i.e., credit will not be given for restoration of an area that is currently functioning as valuable wetlands habitat, even if it is degraded). • Given the value placed on the area by DFG, it will be diff!'cult to ob- tain California Department of Fisb and Game concurrence with issu- ance of the Coastal Development Permit, wbicb will be requested by the Commission before any fill in the wetlands area occurs. • If DFG were to agree on allowing some fill, the mitigation require- ment would likely exceed a 3:1 wetland replacement ratio. As noted in the documentation on the LUP, finding additional area to imple- ment mitigation will be difficult. • A Corps 404 Permit may also be difficult to obtain. The impacted/ filled area would likely exceed the area allowed under potential Na- tionwide Permits. Nationwide Permit No. 14, for road crossings, allows maximums of one-third acre of fill in waters of the U.S. and 200 linear feet of fill for the roadway in wetlands. Nationwide Permit No. 25 allows structural discharge, e.g., for pilings, which might be applicable if the entire roadway is built on some type of structure. • Even if the project is eligible for a Nationwide Permit, the Corps has the discretion to require an Individual Permit. This discretion is most frequently exercised when other agency objections to the project are strenuous, or there is significant public opposition to the project. The Individual Permit process is lengthy, typically taking six months to a year. It includes a requirement for a detailed alternatives analysis according to specific guidelines. Under these guidelines, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to demonstrate that the avoidance alter- native is not feasible. HUNTINGTON BEACH CHANNEL The Hamilton Avenue extension as shown on the LUP would have to cross the Huntington Beach Channel (1301) flood control facility. Any design of a road would have to address the following: 1) design to cross the channel such that there is no increase in the 100 year floodplain, and 2) compatibility with the ultimate design of the flood control system in that area to increase capacity (the current system was designed to accommodate 65 percent of a 25 year storm). The ultimate design is not known at this time; therefore, it would be difficult if not impossible to provide a new roadway crossing of the channel without substantial engineering, design and entitlement of the future flood control system. There would also be increased costs from the extent of physical improvements necessary to safely cross the channel. 09/01/94(I:,-V/R402••.ENVMON.RM 3 • • LSA Aw0dates,Inc GEOTECIINICAL/SErSMIC CONSTRAINTS The Hamilton Avenue roadway extension as shown in the LUP would en- counter a number of geotechnical and seismic constraints which would in- crease engineering, design and construction costs of the road. These con- straints include: • Unconsolidated channel deposits • Peat deposits that are compressible under moderate static loads • Shallow groundwater from highway runoff and sea water • Crossing the area designated as "Highest Seismic Risk" (Greatest Sur- face Rupture Potential Within City) as shown on Figure 4.4 of the Non Certified Coastal Areas Analysis of Land Use Alternatives for the White Hole'Areas, (City of Huntington Beach, 1986). • Probability of liquefaction during an earthquake due to the conditions listed above. The City has previously determined that a variety of development could occur in the white hole area as long as proper mitigation measures are taken to reduce seismic related risks. Further geotechnical study would be needed to determine the specific mitigation measures to safely build the road extension; this represents an area of unknown feasibility and cost to implement the road extension. OIL PRODUCTION There is an abandoned oil well just west of where existing Hamilton Avenue ends, in the area where the road extension would occur. This abandoned well, like the others in the area, would need to be re-abandoned to current standards (City of Huntington Beach, 1986). In addition to the placement of new cement plugs per current Division of Oil and Gas standards, any pilings or footings would need to be sited to avoid the abandoned well. CEQA CLE4RANCE The roadway extension is not addressed in any existing environmental docu- ments; therefore, a clearance under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) would be required. If adequate mitigation can be developed, such that all impacts can be mitigated to below a level of significance, it is possible that a Negative Declaration (ND) could be processed. The likelihood of an ND for this project is questionable. It seems more likely that an Environmen- tal Impact Report (EIR) would be required. The Coastal Commission has already stated in their findings (approved April 23, 1987) that an EIR will be 09ro1/'94(r:%WM402••.EIW[R0N.RM 4 • LSA Associate;Ina needed. The Coastal Commission reference to an EIR appears to be based on the need to address alternative alignments for Hamilton Avenue and the mitigation needs for each alternative. The CEQA clearance represents an analysis and process with which the pro- ject must comply prior to any grading permits being issued. CEQA contains a number of requirements to minimize the impacts of a project and a number of findings that must be made about any significant effects of the project. Pertinent requirements of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines are provided below to illustrate this point. • CEQA establishes a duty for public agencies to avoid or minimize environmental damage where feasible (Guidelines Section 15021). • A public agency should not approve a project as proposed if there are feasible changes, alternatives or mitigation measures available that would substantially lessen any significant effect that the project would have on the environment (Guideline Section 15021). • CEQA requires the decision maker to balance the benefits of a pro- posed project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determin- ing whether to approve the project. If the benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered "acceptable" (Guidelines Section 15093): • If significant effects are not at least substantially mitigated, the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the Final EIR and/or other information in the record (Guidelines Section 15093). • The discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives capable of eliminating any significant adverse environmental effects or reducing them to a level of insignificance, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives, or would be more costly (Guidelines Section 5126[d]). The requirements described above dovetail to some extent with other entitle- ments and permits needed to build a project. The minimization of impacts, mitigation,and alternatives analysis that the Coastal Commission identified in their findings would need to be addressed in the EIR. It would be difficult for the City to make the findings necessary under CEQA given 1) the environmental resources that would be affected by the roadway extension and thus the significant adverse impacts that would likely occur; 2) the existence of an alternate route (Atlanta Avenue) parallel to Pacific Coast Highway that does not entail a wetlands impact; and 3) a lack of overriding considerations to outweigh the impacts of the roadway. 09)01/94(1:�WTR402•,ENVIRON.PYD 5 LSA Assodate;Inc- r COASTAL ACT POLICIES As described at length in the Findings for the Deferred Certification Area (adopted April 23, 1987 by the Coastal Commission), the Hamilton Avenue extension is not consistent with a number of Coastal Act policies. Much of the focus of past analysis has been on Section 30233 relative to a road fill not being an allowed use in wetlands and Section 30240 relative to protection of sensitive habitat areas. This report will not repeat all of the previous analy- sis. Rather, this report focuses on the practicability of constructing the road given the extensive conditions the Coastal Commission adopted when the road extension was placed on the LUP. As listed earlier in the report, the conditions the Commission established for the road extension include the following: • Environmental documentation showing the least environmentally damaging feasible alternative is the chosen alternative, • Minimization of impacts to include, at a minimum 1) alignment to protect wetland habitats, which might require construction on pilings or other road designs such as bridging over wetlands, 2) limiting road width, and 3) full mitigation for any impacted wetland. • An EIR addressing alternative alignments and the mitigation needs generated from each alternative. • No net loss of wetlands. • Maintenance or enhancement of the functional capacity of the wet- lands. • Mitigation measures to be provided to minimize the adverse impacts of the project. Based on the guarantees above, the Commission found the Hamilton Avenue extension consistent with the provisions of Section 30233 of the Coastal Act. Although the adopted LUP now illustrates the extension, and thus it might be viewed as an "allowed" use, in fact, prior to the roadway being allowed, it would have to comply with all the conditions listed above. Given the site conditions and the df,J`tculty, if not impossibility, of designing and implementing a project that could meet the guarantees stated above, the inclusion of the Hamilton Avenue extension on the LUP is a false repre- sentation of wbat could actually be built. If the City pursues a roadway crossing the wetlands, it will be difficult to obtain the regulatory approvals needed to build the road. If the City alters the project in order to make the finding that the roadway is the least envi- ronmentally damaging feasible alternative, the design features and mitigation 09N1/'94(I:=.WM402--.ENVIRON.P.M L44 Amdxe4 Inc- required would result in a project that the City could not build or that does not meet the current gbjectives of the road. CONCLUSIONS • The extension of Hamilton Avenue has the potential to entail signifi- cant environmental impacts. • Virtually the entire alignment of Hamilton Avenue extension from its current terminus to Beach Boulevard, as shown on the LUP,would be in designated wetlands area with significant value according to DFG. • In addition to the CEQA clearance for impacts in wetlands, the pro- ject would also need DFG concurrence with issuance of the Coastal Development Permit and a 404 Permit from the Army Corps of Engi- neers. • As part of the 404 Permit process, if there is significant public opposi- tion, or another agency objects to the project, the Corps of Engineers has the discretion to require an Individual Permit, a lengthy process requiring detailed alternatives analysis. There is no certainty in the outcome of this process. • With the currently shown alignment, it would be impossible to com- pletely avoid impacts to wetlands. The wetland replacement require- ments for the wetlands impacted would likely be at a fairly high ratio, given the high use designation given by DFG. A significant impedi- ment to such replacement program is the shortage of available mitiga- tion sites in the area. • The conditions that have allowed other roadway projects to obtain these resource agency approvals do not exist in the case of the Hamil- ton Avenue extension. For example, the road is not a widening of an existing facility. Many other roadways have involved a perpendicular crossing of a wetlands, such that a rase could be made that the road would have to cross the wetlands at some location, and moving the roadway does not eliminate that need. Such is not the case with the Hamilton Avenue extension. Further, alternate parallel routes on both Pacific Coast Highway and Atlanta Avenue already exist and, therefore, it will be difficult, if not impossible, to prevail with the argument of public necessity. • Other constraints (flood control, geotechnical/seismic, oil wells) must be addressed in both siting and design, and consideration of impacts. A design incorporating pilings or bridging, which would be needed to minimize wetland impacts, would at the same time have visual/ aesthetic effects in the coastal zone and be of extremely high cost to the City. 09/01/94(1;•••WM402-,ENVI1R0N.RP1) 7 ., - -- -V _ ,�...� .. GE . .w -- PA 62 �109Tf'�6/'1994 12:21 5467716` ;I Lti2 GALLUCCIO � - FRED J. GALEUCCIO, M.D., F.A.A.F.P. Newport Superior Medical Pleza 1501 Superior Avenue. Suite 112 Newport Beach, California 92663 Telephone: (714) 646 4865 916/94 Dear Members of the City Council: I received an announcement re: Code Amendment No. 93-8 last week. I have not as yet been able to acquire a copy of it. . Howc-.vi:�r I spoke to Mr. Scott Hess (Senior Planner)who informed me that this Amendment was to "tighten up" the wording, etc. of the present law to conform to costal commission rulings, thus supporting prese:rvinq the "White as a wetland and ultimately working and restoring to such. I live near the "White Hole" but more importantly I see the need for the Citizens of Huntington Beach and our nation to preserve any of these few last wetlands . . , not only for ourselves and our childrens children but for the enf7ironment. Therefore, I support any effort towards this goal . I cannot make tonights meeting because of a medical meeting that -1 will be attending , and therefore -1 am sending this ' letter instearl. E r ' / � 4 f'red J. a1i cio, H1,L. , F.A.R.1 .P. 11 Assooiate C]-inical. Professor/ U .C.-T . I d9s i jt' ;ilk �ItHl1H / AIW �31i3a3L+ '. •a MCCUTCHEN DOYLE, BROWN & ENERSEN �. COUNSELORS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO 1331 NORTH CALIFORNIA BOULEVARD WASHINGTON.D.C. LOS ANGELES POST OFFICE BOX V SHANGHAI SAN JOSE WALNUT CREEK,CALIFORNIA 04506 TAIPEI WALNUT CREEK TELEPHONE(415)937-6000 COSTA MESA FACSIMILE (415).975-5390 - AFFILIATED OFFICE BANGKOK July 11, 1991 DIRECT DIAL NUMBER Thomas W. Gwyn, Chair California Coastal Commission South Coast Area 245 W. Broadway, Suite 380 Long Beach, CA 90802 Mills Land & Water Company Our File No. 72484-001 Dear Mr. Gwyn: This letter is submitted in connection with the Coastal Commission's review of. the proposed zoning for approximately 232 acres along the Pacific Coast Highway between Beach Boulevard and the Santa Ana River (the "White Hole area of deferred certification"] . The proposed zoning is before the Commission to determine its conformance to the Land Use Plan certified in October 1986. This firm represents the Mills Land & Water Company, which owns property affected by the Land Use Plan and proposed zoning. Mills is a small, family-owned company; it has held this property for more than 90 years. The Huntington Beach Local Coastal Plan (LCP) process has taken over twelve years to date, and has yet to be completed. During that time all productive use and development of the Mills property has been precluded, yet no action whatsoever has been taken to acquire or "restore" the wetlands that supposedly could exist on this property. And during this lengthy period, no credible evidence has been produced to support the conclusion that a functioning wetlands can feasibly be re-created on these parcels. Thomas W. Gwyn, Chair July 11, 1991 ' Page 2 Your staff has recommended approval of the zoning ordinances with proposed modifications. Your staff has further proposed a "conservation overlay" for the single seven-acre site, out of the entire 232 acres, on which development would otherwise be permitted. Mills urges this Commission to reject both proposals and to re-examine the LUP designations in the "White Hole area of deferred certification." LEGALITY OF "CONSERVATION" DESIGNATION Application of the restrictive "Coastal Conservation". (-CC) suffix can only be justified by a valid, factually- supported determination that: (1) there exists a viable and functioning wetlands, or other environmentally sensitive and valuable ecosystem, that requires special protection, or (2) there exists a degraded wetlands which can feasibly be restored, as that term is defined in the Coastal Act [P.R.C. § 30108] .* Neither finding can be made on the record before this Commission. Both the City and the Commission have consistently relied upon a 1979 Department of Fish and Game ("DFG") depiction of the area to identify "restorable wetlands". As early as 1982 this designation was questioned by an expert whose conclusions were submitted to this Commission in 1986. [T]'he area is presently devoid of the essential functions of a viable coastal, salt-marsh ecosystem that formerly existed there. The biotic and physical features that characterize wetlands are either lacking, are indicative of former wetlands and not present conditions, or have been misinterpreted by inexperienced observers or those who have failed to carefully examine the area. * Please refer to the October 7, 1986 submission of Mills Land and Water Company to the Commission, at page 3, for a discussion of the provisions of Public Resources Code § 30108 defining the term "feasible. " Thomas W. Gwyn, Chair July 11, 1991 Page 3 Even those who advocate the designation of Mills' property as "wetlands" admit that the area is "degraded" and not a functioning wetland, the essential tidal flushing having been cut off for decades. Nor has DFG or the Commission conducted even an elementary study to determine whether re-creation of wetlands in the White Hole area would be "feasible" as that term is defined in the Coastal Act. DFG's unsupported conclusion that wetlands can "easily" be re-created by opening the culverts to the flood control channels has been challenged in theory and has been proven inaccurate. Five years ago, one of the Mills experts stated in a report submitted to the Commission that DFG's proposal for restoration of the salt marsh using runoff from the flood control channels "will be more destructive than constructive, not only to the biological systems but also to the adjacent man-made urban environment. " Dr. Vogl concluded: "Economic and engineering analyses of the [DFG]. proposals should be conducted, and I suspect that they will also show that these proposals are not feasible. " At the nearby Huntington Beach wetlands site, a "wetlands restoration" project has met with uncertain results, even with its advantageous location at the mouth of the Santa Ana River and with a multi-million dollar, newly-constructed channel direct to the ocean. There are no plans to attempt to re-create tidal flushing in the White Hole area with another multi-million dollar channel to the ocean. The DFG depictions, which appear to be the sole basis for this Commission's designation of Mills' property as "wetlands, " are not based on credible data or methods, and have been soundly criticized by other experts. DFG's conclusion that wetlands can "easily" be "restored" in the White Hole area is unsupported by any data whatsoever. Indeed, DFG's simplistic suggestion that an adjacent flood-control channel might be used as a means to inundate the dry land designated as "wetlands" completely ignores the fact that the County has steadfastly refused to consider the use of its channel for such purpose. (Letter from C.R. Nelson, Public Works Dept. , April 23 (approx] 1982) DFG provides no analysis at all of the technological and economic feasibility of a wetlands re-creation, pursuant to the standards set forth in the statute. Without apparent concern for the devastating impact on the property owners' rights, the protective "Conservation" Thomas W. Gwyn, Chair July 11, 1991 Page 4 designation has been placed on the Mills and other parcels _ based on insufficient evidence to support a conclusion that a wetlands restoration project would ever be economically, ' environmentally, or technologically feasible. Until such time as At may be established that re-creation of a wetlands is feasible, within the meaning of the Coastal Act, the "conservation" designation of the White Hole area parcels is neither necessary nor appropriate. It is long past time for the Commission and the City to address this issue squarely, instead of indefinitely depriving the owners of the use of their land purely on the basis of unfounded environmental speculation. PROCEDURAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS Mills respectfully requests the Commission to consider as well the serious question of the unlawful abridgement of property rights resulting from the Land Use Plan and the "conservation" zoning to implement it. City's Response to the Problem of Unlawful Taking When the implementation zoning for the LCP was finally proposed, the City Attorney advised that the City could be liable for inverse condemnation damages if the .properties were rezoned as proposed. The City hired outside counsel to provide a second opinion. In that opinion, the attorneys concluded the zone change did not constitute a taking on its face, but might result in liability as applied to certain properties. In order to reduce the City's potential exposure to that liability, counsel recommended that an administrative claims procedure be provided to allow applicants to challenge (a) the economic viability of the permitted uses and (b) the designation as wetlands. Counsel also recommended the adoption of a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program which would allow property owners to transfer development rights on "conservation" properties to other parcels. Other planning concepts, such as a specific plan for the area were also suggested for consideration. (See, Huntington Beach Staff Report, 12/5/89 , pp. 2-3) * None of these recommendations has been put into effect. - To our knowledge, none are even under consideration. The City has spent four years trying to address the implementation zoning for the Land Use Plan (LUP) , and its • Thomas W. Gwyn, Chair July 11, 1991 Page 5 confiscatory impacts on private property owners. In that time, it has only succeeded in adopting a confusing "hybrid" zone which purports to allow economically viable .uses (such as Light Industrial) but at the same time prohibits any development, with the possible exception of nature trails, observation platforms, peripheral parking and similar uses. Such uses would not generate sufficient income even to carry tax and maintenance costs for the property. Your staff recognized that the City's "hybrid"- zoning was the result of an attempt to address concerns about potential liability for inverse condemnation. A long and contentious battle has been waged at the city level as to the legality and wisdom of (proposing a zoning which is inconsistent with the land use designation . The main concern has been whether it may be considered a "taking" of land if the existing base zoning is changed to the more restrictive Coastal Conservation District zoning to reflect the existence of valuable sensitive habitat and the Conservation land use designation. . . . . The creation of the Coastal Conservation suffix was a compromise solution to the problem. Coastal Commission Staff Report, 6/21/91, at p. 14 . The staff analysis makes clear, however, that the -CC suffix is neither a "compromise" nor a "solution" to the taking problem: The -CC suffix is, in fact, "functionally equivalent" to the Coastal Conservation District by which "all permitted uses and protections to wetlands will be in force. " (Id. at p. 14) The City admits that it, decision to overlay the -CC suffix onto a base zoning, instead of rezoning the property as "conservation, " does not reduce the impact of the LUP on the private property owners. (Huntington Beach Staff Report, 12/5/89, at p. 5) Therefore, the "overlay" mechanism provides no solution to the taking problem. * * An addendum to this letter relates a detailed history of the City's lengthy and anomalous process to bring about the proposed zoning. 0 • Thomas W. Gwyn, Chair July 11, 1991 Page 6 The Coastal Commission's Failure to Address the Impact of Its Decisions on Property Rights. Throughout the LCP process, the Coastal Commission has never officially acknowledged its own .potential liability for a taking. The Commission's and the City's proceedings and actions, however, clearly manifest the intention of both agencies to strive for an eventual re-creation of the historical "wetlands" identified in the Land Use Plan. (See, e.g. , Huntington Beach Staff Report, 12/5/89, p. 5) It is not at all clear, however, how this would be accomplished. Unless someone purchases the property expressly for wetland purposes, re-creation of the now defunct wetlands will never occur without a de facto or dejure condemnation action. As the Commission noted years ago during the White Hole area hearings, re-creation of the "wetlands" would necessarily involve flooding, which constitutes a physical invasion and thus a taking of the property. ' It is one thing to protect "potential" wetlands from development in principle. It is quite another to actually prohibit development of property, into the indefinite future, without any plan or proposal to create the wetlands intended to be protected, and without even knowing whether it is feasible to create them at all. Because the premises upon which the LUP is based are dubious at best, no legitimate state interest is advanced by the current restrictive LUP and proposed zoning. PROPOSAL TO FURTHER RESTRICT DEVELOPABLE LAND The meaning of staff's proposed addition to the zoning (§ 9422 .2. 1) is not clear. The report purports to "provide for development standards for a particular location" and to permit development where it would otherwise be prohibited. However, based on the original staff report and map (see attached) and on the apparent import of the language as a whole, the proposed modification appears to do something more: It appears to impose an additional (and invalid) condition of development on the single developable site in the area. If this interpretation is correct, the Commission should be made aware of its serious constitutional implications. As noted above, in 1986 the Commission certified the City's Land .Use Plan that designated seven acres of frontage on the Pacific Coast Highway as "visitor-serving commercial. " Your staff now proposes that this small site, together with six Thomas W. Gwyn, Chair July 11, 1991 Page 7 other designated parcels, be impressed with a "conservation overlay. " As to these parcels only, development would be permitted "only. pursuant to an application for a single overall development plan for the entire overlay area, or such portion thereof as may be at the time . . . geographically contiguous and under common ownership. " The plan must include "conservation easements, dedications or other identified similar mechanisms . . . over all wetland areas as a condition. of development, to assure permanent protection. " Any development would be subject to DFG approval. CalTrans is the current owner of the site which is designated "visitor-serving commercial" and may well have comments of its own to present to the Commission. As to Mills, which holds an option on the property -- a fact well . known both to the City and to this Commission -- the proposal constitutes an undisguised attempt at discriminatory spot-zoning. The parcel-specific designations make it crystal clear that the proposal is directed at Mills and will become effective only if Mills (the sole contiguous property owner) exercises its option to purchase the CalTrans parcel. The apparent rationale for this proposal is to ensure that if Mills purchases the CalTrans parcel and attempts to develop the seven acres as permitted by the LUP, it will be required to dedicate to public use all of its remaining undeveloped parcels to assure "permanent protection" of so-called wetland areas. This extremely onerous condition on development could not possibly pass the "nexus" test articulated by the United States Supreme Court in the Nollan case nor thq standards set forth for exactions in Government Code § 66005. The development of a seven-acre site along a heavily . traveled state highway could not, under any definition, create the need for the dedication of 50+ acres of land valued at millions of dollars, for "wetlands" protection. Even if- some justification existed for creation of a buffer zone to mitigate impacts on the so-called wetlands, that buffer could not legally be extended to the entire 50 acres. The proposal appears to be nothing more than a subterfuge to stave off a facial taking claim. The overlay is drafted as if to allow development in the "conservation" areas under certain conditions. In reality, it makes development of the only otherwise developable area of the 232 acres economically infeasible. It also places property owners at the mercy of DFG, whose flawed, superficial "studies" were a primary Thomas W. Gwyn, Chair July 11, 1991 Page 8 cause of the current dilemma. There is no reason to believe DFG would ever give favorable consideration to development in the areas it has (erroneously) designated as wetlands. In sum, the proposed modification for .the seven acres of frontage is extremely ill-advised and should not .be adopted. * MILLS' PROPOSAL The rapidly .decreasing supply of wetlands in California and across the United States has resulted in a properly conservative approach to land use regulation wherever wetlands are affected. But in the case of the Huntington Beach White Hole area, this response is entirely unjustified. The historic wetlands which previously existed on the Mills property were lost in the 1940's when the State filled the Gamewell Estuary to create a public beach. From that point on, an irreversible transformation of the former wetlands began, and continues to this day, with the City.'s planned construction of a major hotel on acreage designated by DFG as "restorable wetlands. " Nearly 50 years have passed since these wetlands were lost, due to the actions of various governmental agencies. Meanwhile, between the actions of CalTrans, the Coastal Commission and the City of Huntington Beach, Mills Land & Water Company has been in a legislative. limbo for over 25 years. Mills has not even been allowed to process an application for. development without first seeking a general plan amendment to remove the "bonservation" designation from its property. Imposition of the "conservation" designation in the Land Use Plan, and application of the -CC suffix to Mills' property, constitute arbitrary and capricious acts. The acts are invalid because they are based on the theoretical . notions that (a) the Mills property is a degraded ."wetland, " (b) that it feasibly can be restored as a "wetland" despite the absence of a water source to do so, and (c) that someone will buy the land and attempt that restoration. None of these assumptions is supported by reliable evidence before the City or the Commission. * The proposal also violates the Commission's own procedures by attempting to effectuate a change in the LUP through implementation zoning. Thomas W. Gwyn, Chair July 11, 1991 Page 9 Accordingly, Mills requests the Commission take the following actions: 1. Deny certification of the implementation zoning. 2. Initiate and complete, within six months, a scientific study of the White Hole area to determine the feasibility of re-creating,. in any part of the area, a functioning wetlands, applying the criteria for "feasibility" set forth in Public Resources Code § 30108. 3 . If the study concludes that a wetlands re-creation is feasible, and if it is determined that these wetlands are necessary for the health and welfare of the State, initiate condemnation proceedings to accomplish this goal. 4. If the study concludes that restoration of all or part of the area is not feasible, initiate amendments: to the LUP to permit development in the areas where wetlands cannot be re-created. Mills is prepared to cooperate with and assist the Commission, the City and DFG in making an accurate determination of the feasibility of re-creating any part of the tidal marsh that once existed in this area. CONCLUSION Over the past 25 years, the Mills property has been carved up, condemned, landlocked, and overregulated by a variety of governmental agencies. Due to the actions of the Coastal Commission and the City, the remaining patchwork of parcels have been left with no economically viable use. The historic wetlands in this area were lost, not through Mills' activity, but through progressive improvements completed by the State and its agencies. It would be unconscionable, not to mention unconstitutional, for the Commission and the City to impose upon three families the entire burden of "protection" of the pathetic vestiges of a former coastal salt marsh on behalf of all the people of this State. Nor does it advance any legitimate state interest to preclude development where such preclusion does not result in the stated goal: creation and protection of a functional wetlands. Thomas W. Gwyn, Chair July 11, 1991 Page 10 .Mills Land and Water Company respectfully urges this Commission to examine its premises, to apply the standards of the Coastal Act, and to consider its constitutional obligations to private property owners. Very truly yours, Maria P. Rivera MPR:sj k/1 0749I cc: See attached list. i . • Thomas W. Gwyn, Chair July 11, 1991 Page 11 SERVICE LIST 16 copies to Mr. Charles Damm at the Coastal Commission for delivery to the Commissioners,_ ex-officio members, and the Executive Director. Peter Green, Mayor of Huntington Beach Council Persons: Jack Kelly Don MacAllister Linda Moulton-Patterson Earle Robitaille Jim Silva Grace Winchell Director of Community Development, Michael Adams City Administrator, Michael Uberuaga City Attorney, Gail Hutton ADDENDUM TO JULY 11 LETTER FROM MILLS LAND & WATER More than two years after the LUP was certified, City staff proposed adoption of the implementation zoning. Apparently concerned about the confiscatory impacts of a rezoning, City decided to attach the -CC suffix instead of removing or changing the base zoning. This was intended as an interim measure, pending the issuance of recommendations from a "wetlands coalition. " (HB Staff Report 12/5/89 at p. 7) The wetlands coalition (aka the "Pacific Coast Highway Coalition" ) , made up of "property owners, responsible agencies , the City, conservation, and interest group representatives, " was formed to study alternative land uses and other creative solutions for the area in accordance with legal counsel ' s opinion. The coalition was deputized to work with staff to "prepare a land use plan and explore various land planning techniques such as specific plans and Transfer of Development Rights programs . " (HB Staff Report, 12/5/89 , p. 3) The coalition began meeting in January of 1990; their recommenda- tions were expected in three to four months . ( Id. at p. 7) More than fourteen months have passed since the formation of the "Pacific Coast Highway Coalition" yet no reports, proposals or ideas have emanated from that group. It is our understanding that after a few meetings many members simply stopped attending, funding for the group dried up, and the Coalition now exists on paper only. The City also failed to follow counsel ' s advice; it did not address private property rights in the proposed ordinance itself . The City has stated that "the existence of a suffix removal process, as described in the Ordinance Code, provides the affected property owners with .a mechanism to challenge this zone change. " (Huntington Beach Staff Report, 12/5/89, p. 7) Specifically, staff describes the Code as providing "an administrative review procedure . . . to allow applicants to challenge the economic viability of the permitted uses and the designation as wetlands . " (Id. , at p. 6) But the staff report is incorrect; the Code does not provide any such procedures . The ordinance relied upon (Municipal- Code 9 9422 .3) provides for removal of the -CC suffix only upon findings that the underlying district "conforms to the coastal element of the City' s Land Use Plan and is in accordance with the policies of the Coastal Act . " In other words, the suffix can be removed only after amendment to the underlying Land Use Plan, a monumental -- if not impossible -- undertaking. Essentially, it would require the landowner to process through both the City and the Coastal Commission an application to reverse the twelve-year legislative process only now being completed. This does not constitute an "administrative procedure" to relieve property owners of the onerous affects of the new zoning, and, consequently, does not "reduce potential exposure to liability. " As noted in the letter, none of counsel ' s recommendations to reduce the City' s exposure to liability for a taking of property has been adopted. a $?Ali Of CAU'ORNIA—TKE F1u0uRQt AOINCy ' . CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION UKft C6ARf ARIA 146 V461 MOAOWAY, SUM UW IONO UACK. CA 9001 a1sy MWI RLuElVED DATE: April 8, 1991 APR 9 - 1991 TO:, -Commissioners and interested Persons 4UU44��WAM FROM: South Coast Staff RE: Addendum to April 11 , 1991 Cammission meeting item 5.5 b Changes to suggested modifications Which will clarify the intent of the modifications and .additional modification to provide for development standards for a particular location in the area of deferred certification. Page 8 of the staff report for the Huntington Beach Implementing Ordinances. for the PCH area of deferred certification between 89ach Blvd. and the Santa An* River. substitute: jj)AnY environmontaa areas of _the 11je, haye- been gr will-.be U.216cted by n u tl 9 9.10and gn open c0nsVr_vajJ2n deed restri&jj!pgr or other i ntjfivd mechanisms, over all sens tiv Page 9 before 980 Add article to Coastal Conservation District: 9422. 1 1 to rjar2els. dibe as A. a rye Number 148 all-41 4 - - 2 4- 14-150-5 11 - - 3A 114-15 - T14-152- astal Con 'CC' suffix a ;,fin vat. ov r e le i evelo • se r b ton 7 maY bs p0mi 1 urs li i le ove doveloRrgent Dlan for th4 entire overlay re2qrtiqV th r t jh2i a lit o ra hic ill ang Un er ation the a 1 e v ea end soilA forNtion,, _PrcD&Ced by a gualifitA professiroyiewed e Deparlme'l-21 'fish b GAMI-6 which idantifies 1be extend of aq:j egislinfl WgIlands go the Rromly. Unservation easements. ions or o1her i 1 ita _ mechanijMS jhglj bo-reggirtA over bes as candiAln o ve -to pszgry pormnei OR4 EUbljg. yehig1,]_air traffic pprQhjhjQd 1n yetland areas g2yerned by a conservatiQn eisement. smitic drainaae and er 1 r ireM1041 shall be InigrPqrited i n o ect design r pre n t adveraely pffeCjgo. f er i of e ermit e u h ve the StfIct-If diviO102 2ff envirViR� s nsit yp hAbitat from of tt,pa,sti4ns of soh parcels for hich urban_ UZOL i arjjgMittsd in the cityll &oastal &Igment unti h time as t Urmankfit protection on AM Watland . is allured- W ea ti f ied s ands on thg sg§ject the uses of the Co stol co-Vat- on i rict as i ntif ed i e .5 d 9422.6 su rcede the UUS f the VSC. 86 and M1- Consistent with 22 of the C041tal Act. tar- o f c.i 1 ve priority 2yer- ihdUltrilij, meat bu ova 1 ltur verl e Page 10 Insert after "and the issue would be moot." in the Findings for Approval if Modified of the Coastal Conservation Suffix removal : The addition of the article to provide for the development standards of a large block of contiguous parcels in common ownership, at the corner of PCH and Beach Boulevard, will assure that the parcels are developed in a manner most consistent with the mandate to protect environmentally sensitive areas. This type of conservation overlay zone classification is found on a site across the street from the subject site on beach Blvd. 0051E a ' e �• \ top . Ott food Mpo,!�09 Zo"W6r NtW W��. iA � a` �� �• -��• � � \ ��i�+ _�;.emu rn: r � .. MCCUTCHEN, OOYLE, BROWN & ENERSEN 3AN FRANC,SCO - COUNSELORS AT LAW WA3HINGTON.O.C. LOS ANGELES 4331 NORTH CALIFORNIA BOULEVARO TAIPCI SAN JOSE POST OFFICE BOX V WALNUT CREEK WALNUT CREEK.CALIFORNIA 94596 AFF/LIATCO OFFICC TELEPHONE (510) 937-9000 GANGKOK FACSIMILE (510) 975-5390 May 8, 1992 01RCCT OIAL NUMSCR Thomas W. Gwyn, Chair California Coastal Commission South Coast Area 245 W. Broadway, Suite 380 Long Beach, CA 90802 Mills Land & Water Company Our File No. 72484-001 Dear Mr . Gwyn: This firm represents the Mills Land & Water Company, which owns property affected by the Huntington Beach Land Use Plan. As you have heard many times, Mills is a small, family-owned company that has held this property for over ninety years . This letter is submitted in connection with the Coastal Commission' s review of the proposed zoning for approximately 232 acres along the Pacific Coast Highway between Beach Boulevard and the Santa Ana River [ the "White Hole area of deferred certification" ) . The proposed zoning is before the Commission,,, for the second time, to determine its conformance to the Land Use Plan certified in October 1986 . . In connection with the first hearing on the proposed zoning, this firm submitted a letter to you dated July 11 , 1991 , addressing a number of issues concerning the Land Use Plan and imulementation zoning. Rather than repeat the contents of that letter , I enclose a copy and request that it be included in the record of the May 12 hearing. Last July, your staff recommended approval of the City' s proposed zoning ordinances, with modifications . Those proposed modifications included the insertion of a 'conservation overlay" on several parcels , including the only parcel designated for development by the Land Use Plan. The language of the overlay was less than clear, but could be read Thomas W. Gwyn, Chair California Coastal Commission May 7 , 1992 Page 2 to mean that any permit to develop the seven-acre parcel would be conditioned upon restoration or dedication of the adjacent 40+ acres as "wetlands . " Any development would also be made subject to the approval of the Department of Fish & Game. In the face of unanimous opposition from the City, CalTrans , and Mills , the Commission chose to postpone action on the zoning, to "make .the language a little bit clearer and understandable" and to allow staff to "sit down with the City and try to work (this] out . " . Not surprisingly, .given the history of this certification, nothing of substance has been accomplished by the postponement . Although two meetings were held to address the problems , the Coastal Commission staff did not go back to the City or to CalTrans with any proposed changes , amendments or clarifications . The most recent staff report does reflect the addition of some language that purports to ameliorate the harsh restrictions of the modifications . However , even with the new language, the proposed overlay has precisely the same effect as that which was before you last July. Indeed, staff has confirmed that the purpose of the overlay on the CalTrans frontage is to ensure protection of "wetlands" on adjacent parcels , through an overall development plan; there are no environmental concerns relating to the frontage property designated Visitor-Serving Commercial . Pregumably, your Commission is well aware of the legal and technical concerns which have repeatedly been raised by Mills and other property owners throughout this lengthy certification process . We will not repeat them here in detail , but wish to list the principal ones in summary fashion, to keep them before the Commission as it makes its decision: ( 1) The 1983 report by DF&G depicting the Mills land as "restorable wetlands" does not provide a credible or reliable basis for a "Conservation" land use designation or zoning, for the following reasons : ( a) The accuracy of the original conclusion that there are "restorable wetlands" on the property, is dubious at best, and has been questioned by at least one expert in the field (see Vogl letter) . Thomas W. Gwyn, Chair California Coastal Commission May 7 , 1992 Page 3 (b) The report is based upon data which is more than twelve years old and has not been updated. Meanwhile, there has been continued degradation of the land, which has been permanently severed from a regular water source for some fifty years . (c) The report concluded that "wetlands" can be "easily" created on the Mills land by breaching the flood-control channel . This conclusion is echoed and relied upon in your staff ' s report of March 13, 1992, which asserts that "the wetlands could be restored without major restoration efforts . " The meagre bases for this conclusion have been completely refuted. Not only is it environmentally unsound to use urban runoff to create a "wetland" (see Vogl letter) , but the Public Works Department, which has jurisdiction over the flood control channel , has clearly indicated it will not consider use of the channel for this purpose. (See Nelson letter . ) These and other factors which the Department of Fish & Game has apparently chosen to ignore, demonstrate that the feasibility standards set forth in Public Resources Code § 30108 have not been adequately addressed. ( 2) The bizarre "hybrid" zoning proposed by the City, which purports to permit development but which prohibits any economically viable use of the property because of the -CC suffix, violates both the takings and due process clauses of the Constitution. The permitted uses , as described by the March 13 staff report, are either physically or economically infeasible, or are not permitted in the Mi-A-O district . (3) The Coastal Commission' s proposed "conservation overlay" on that portion of the ADC slated for development constitutes discriminatory spot-zoning and violates the takings clause. Less onerous regulations, such as the creation of buffer zones , to protect "environmentally sensitive areas" ( if any) , are available to -- and have been suggested to -- the Commission staff . These proposals have been all but ignored. ( 4) The proposed "conservation overlay" requires permanent protection through a "conservation easement, dedication or other . . . similar mechanism" over all parcels which have a Conservation land use designation. This requirement would impose enormous additional costs on development of the CalTrans frontage without any relation to the environmental impact of a proposed development . Both the state and federal constitutions require a sufficient "nexus" Thomas W. Gwyn, Chair California Coastal Commission May 7 , 1992 Page 4 between the imposition of conditions and the anticipated impact of the proposed development . Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 483 U.S. 825 ( 1987) . Here, it is conceded that no wetlands or environmentally sensitive habitat exist on the affected area. Therefore, the staff proposal would impose severly restrictive conditions on development without any nexus whatsoever to the effect of development on the area. The proposal does not even attempt to meet the nexus requirement . In sum, if this implementation zoning as modified by the Commission staff is adopted and approved, compensation will have to be paid to. those landowners who will , as a result, be unable to use their property in any economically viable fashion. As pointed out in our prior presentation to your Commission. Mills Land & Water Company is not unwilling to sell (at fair market value) any property which is of real value as a "wetlands . " Whether the Mills property has any wetlands value is very much open to question; if it does , it is time for someone to come forward and create these wetlands . The mere imposition of indefinite restrictions on development will not create wetlands , and will only result in the further degradation of the ecological value ( if any) of these vacant lots . Very truly yours, 11 - 0 Maria P. Rivera MPR:sjk/0 0722G cc : see attached list Enclosure MOUTCHEN, DOYLE:, BROWN & ARSEN BAN FRANC13CO COUNSELORS AT LAW WASNINGTON• O.C. SOS ANGELrt I,91 NORTH CALIFORNIA BOULEVARD TAIPLN SAN J03r POST OFFICE BOX V WALNUT GRECK WALNUT CREEK.CALIFORNIA 94KAE-450z aFFIL/ATra OFFICE TELCPHONE(310)037-aOQC PANOKOK FACSIMILE(510)575.5300 September 2, 1994 DIRECT DIAL NUM@ER HAND DELIVERY Mayor Linda Moulton-Patterson and City Council Members City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach LCP Proposed "White Hole" Rezoning Amendment 93-8 September 601994 City Council Meeting-Agenda Item D-5 Dear Mayor Moulton-Patterson and City Council Members: This letter is submitted for your review and consideration in connection with the proposed Zoning code Amendment designated 93-8, and previously proposed Code Amendment . 93-3 (formerly Zone Change 88-18). At the request of Council Member Victor Leipzig, direction has been given by the City Council to the,Huntington Beach planning staff to prepare for resubmittal to the California Coastal Commission a proposed rezoning for properties located on the inland side of Pacific Coast Highway between Beach Boulevard and the Santa Ana River. This action was taken at the City Council meeting on Tune 21, 1993, and is in reference to the area of deferred certification of the City's Local Coastal Program (LCP) commonly known as the "White Hole". This firm represents the Mills Land& Water Company, which is one of only two or three private property owners who will be impacted by the proposed changes to the existing zoning. As most of you are aware, Mills is a small, family-owned company which has held the property in this area for more than 90 years. History of LCP Proceedings The proceedings for adoption of the City's LCP began sixteen years ago. The record of these proceedings is replete with letters, documents and testimony by and on behalf of Milts, objecting to a host of procedural and substantive errors in connection with the ,2L�? e0mMa0 /('_41" ors r Mayor Linda Moulton-Patterson and City Council Members September 2, 1994 Page 2 conditionally adopted LCP and its proposed implementation zoning, For example, even the most fundamental premise upon which the LCP designations are based-- the depiction of Mills land as "restorable wetlands" --has never been the subject of a proper determination by the City or the Coastal Commission that any wetlands restoration project on the site would be economically, environmentally or technologically feasible, as required by Public Resources Code § 30108. It would be impossible at this point to attempt to summarize,much less restate all of the previous comments and points raised by Mills in the course of these lengthy proceedings. A copy of the most recent letter submitted to the Huntington Beach Planning Commission in connection with the Commission's February 1, 1994 consideration of the proposed "Conservation" zoning was included in your packet as Attachment 16 to the staff report. We have also enclosed as "Exhibit A," letters submitted wthe Coastal Commission which raise other serious legal concerns that should be considered before the Council takes action. All of those letters, along with all previous statements, both written and oral, presented to the Planning Commission and City Council on behalf of Mills with respect to the City's Local Coastal.Plan and all of the resolutions and ordinances intended to implement it, are hereby incorporated by reference. Recent Developments Since our February submittal to the Planning Commission, the U. S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Dolan v. City of Tigard.' In Dolan, the court held that local governments have the burden of showing that any exactions or dedications imposed in connection with the proposed development of private property bear a reasonable relationship to the impacts of the proposed development. As the Supreme Court stated: One of the principal purposes of the Takings Clause is "to bar Government from forcing some people alone to bear public burdens which, in all fairness and justice, should be borne by the public as a whole." In the LCP proceedings to date, City has made no effort to measure the prospective impacts of Mills' proposed light-industrial project(which City has refused to process without an amendment to the LCP removing the "Conservation" designation), or the impacts of any other development, to determine whether the forced dedication to the public of virtually all the Mills property designated for "Conservation" is roughly proportional to the impacts of any proposed development. The City's perceived need to preserve the property in its undeveloped state is essentially an exaction unrelated to any specific development impacts, Therefore, the City cannot possibly meet the requirement established by the Supreme court in the Dolan case 1 Dolan v. City of Tigard, U. S. Supreme Court Case No. 93-518, decided June 24, 1994. l Mayor Linda Moulton-Fa erson and City Council Members September 2, 1994 Page 3 that the local government "make some sort of individualized determination that the required- dedication is related both in nature and extent to the impact of proposed development." The inescapable conclusion at this point in the long-running "White Hole" saga is that the City intends to preclude development of the Mills property so as to assure the possibility of retaining it for open space, and to see that it remains available for possible restoration as wetlands. It is thus clear that the restrictions proposed in the zoning ordinance bear no relation whatsoever to the impacts of development,but are intended to preserve the ecological benefits of the property in its existing state (such as they are) for the benefit of all of the people of California. The City cannot require the family of owners of Mills Land& 'Water Company to bear the burden of"protecting" the vestigial remnant of a former coastal salt marsh for the benefit of the public in general. Such a requirement would be an unconstitutional exercise of the power of eminent domain and a confiscation of private property under the guise of zoning regulations. In the recent decision in Loveladies Harbor, Inc. v. United States,Z the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit addressed the question whether denial of a permit to develop privately owned wetlands constituted a taking. The 12.5 acres at issue was part of a larger 254 acre holding, most of which had been developed prior to the adoption of the federal wetlands regulations. The question before the court was whether the cost of preserving and protecting the remaining 12.5 acres, designated as wetlands, should fall solely upon the affected property owner, or must it be shared by the public at large, to whom the benefit inures? Applying the principles enunciated in Lucas v, South Carolina Coastal Couneil,3 the court concluded.that the owner had purchased and partially developed its property "with the intent to develop it long before [the wetlands] regulatory programs came into effect" and that the denial of owner's development application constituted a"denial of economically viable use of the property as a result of the regulatory imposition." The court ruled that Loveladies was entitled to two-and-a-half million dollars in damages, plus interest, for a "regulatory taking" of the 12.5 acres. Mills' situation is virtually identical. It held the property with the intent to develop it long before the LCP was conditionally approved. Loveladies has made it clear that earlier development of portions of the property does not insulate the City or the Coastal Commission from liability for inverse condemnation, as has been suggested by City's outside 2 Loveladies Harbor, Inc. and Loveladies Harbor, Unit D, Inc. v. United States, 1994 WL 259489(Fed Cir.). Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 120 L. Ed. 2d 798(1992). Mayor Linda Moulton-Patterson and City Council Members September 2, 1994 Page 4 legal eounsel4. In short, City's attempt to adopt a zoning ordinance which requires a conservation easement for the benefit of the public on virtually all of Mills remaining undeveloped land, irrespective of the size, character or impacts of any present or future proposed development on any portion of the Mills or neighboring property, would constitute a taking requiring compensation, Additionally, the imposition of special regulations on only a handful of parcels identified by parcel number, as proposed in Code Amendment 93-8, would constitute unlawful "spot zoning" in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. See, Exhibit A,p. 3, 13. Finally, we would note without extensive discussion three other legal issues that should be seriously considered before the Council takes action: First, under the Supreme Court decision handed down in First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v. County of Los Angeles, 96 L. Ed. 2d 250 (1987), due to the City's extended and unconscionable delays in preparing and processing the LCP and coning, and due to the City's refusal to process Mills'proposed application, or any development application for the White Hole Area pending final adoption and approval of the implementation zoning and the LCP,the City is already potentially liable for damages for a temporary taking of Mills' property. Second, the agenda for the September 6 meeting reflects that the Council's action will include the adoption of Zone Change 88-18, as is required by state regulations. However, the Public Notice for the September 6 hearing did not include that action, but noticed only a hearing for Amendment 93-8. This is in violation of the property owners' and public's procedural due process rights. Third, the staff report appears to contain a fairly serious error in describing the proposed Code Amendment. The report states that the Amendment "includes a detailed removal procedure that allows applicants to challenge the economic viability of the permitted uses and the designation as wetlands, as suggested in the [outside] legal opinion." First, we have been unable to locate in the Amendment any provision for removal of the %CC" suffix based on a challenge to the economic viability of the permitted uses. Second, it is obvious that any removal procedure based on a challenge to the wetlands designation would be utterly futile. The "Conservation" designation and the "CC" suffix are predicated entirely on the Coastal Commissions and City's "findings" that the properties are "viable or restorable" wetlands, and the property owners' sixteen-year attempt to influence or reverse that "finding" has been in vain. The Code Amendment's removal procedure does nothing more than to require the useless exercise of repeating that process. See, also, McCutchen letter to Planning Commission at pages 3-4. 4 "Legal Opinion on Coastal Conservation Zoning" prepared for the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach by Katherine E. Stone, Margaret A. Sohagi and Richard R.Terzian. i Mayor Linda Moulton-Patterson and City Council Members September 2, 1994 Page 5 Conclusion Mills does not claim an absolute entitlement to develop its property. Rather, Mills has repeatedly urged the City and the Coastal Commission to initiate and complete, within six months, a valid, scientific study of the "White Hole" area to determine the feasibility of re- creating anywhere in the area a functioning wetlands.s In making this determination,the statutory criteria for "feasibility" set forth in Public Resources Code § 30108 should be followed. If the study shows a wetlands can be feasibly re-established, and if the City and/or State continue to assert that these wetlands must be protected for the benefit, health and welfare of the people of California, then condemnation proceedings should be initiated without further delay to acquire the property from Mills for the public use and benefit. If, on the other hand, the study shows that a restoration project would not be feasible,the LCP conditional approval should be set aside and an appropriate land use designation, allowing reasonable development, should be adopted. Mills Land& Water Company respectfully urges each of you carefully to consider the social, economic and legal implications to the City of Huntington Beach of the proposed "Conservation" zoning -- as well as the constitutional obligation to private property owners. If this zoning is adopted the City could be faced with the prospect of paying millions of dollars in compensation to the landowners whose property is effectively "taken" by the ordinance.. If condemnation of these properties is to occur, it makes much more sense to determine first, whether the property has the "wetlands" value ascribed to it, and second, to secure funding from appropriate sources to offset the costs, rather than having a court simply require the City to pay the fare. Very truly yo ; , Maria P. Rivera See; e.g., "A Modest Proposal" discussed in Attachment 16 to the staff report["Request for City Council Action", dated September 6, 1994 retarding Code Amendment No. 93-81. i Mayor Linda Moulton-Patterson and City Council Members September 2, 1994 Page 6 DISTRIBUTION LIST Linda Moulton-Patterson, Mayor Huntington Beach City Council Members Ralph Bauer Victor Leipzig Earle Robitaille Jim Silva Dave Sullivan Grace Winchell Michael Uberuaga, City Administrator Gail Clifford Hutton, City Attorney Melanie Fallon, Director Dept. of Community Development Connie Brockway, Huntington Beach City Clerk State of California Dept. of Transportation ATTACHMENT 15) 3. The propos recise plan of street alignment to Edinger A ue between Gothard Street and appr ately 300 feet west of Beach Bo and will improve the traffic and circulation system eliminating conflict ween buses and traffic, eliminating conflicts between turning cars thro traffic, and by improving signalization. 4. The proposed precise pla street alignment dinger Avenue between Gothard Street and approxi ely 300 feet west of Beach Bo rd will improve the aesthetics of area by providing cohesive landscaping impr ents. B-5 CODE AMENDMENT NO. 93-8 (CONTINUED FROM THE FEBRUARY 1 1994 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: APPLICANT: City of Huntington Beach LOCATION: The non certified coastal area of the City of Huntington Beach generally located on the inland side of Pacific Coast Highway between Beach Boulevard and the Santa Ana River. Code Amendment No. 93-8 was continued from the February 1, 1994 Planning Commission meeting due to the lateness of the hour. The public hearing has not yet been opened. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending approval of the Code Amendment and forward to the City Council for adoption. Commissioner Gorman stated he would be abstaining from action on this item in accordance with Planning Commission by-laws. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Robin J. Hoff, 1605 W. Olympic#700, Los Angeles, representing Caltrans, stated Caltrans opposition to a Coastal Conservation Overlay on their seven(7) acres of commercial property. Caltrans requested a delay in action until the General Plan update was approved or exclude their seven (7) acres from the Coastal Conservation Overlay. Eugenia Moore, Mills Land and Water Company, requested that any rezoning of property in this area be delayed until the General Plan update had been approved. PC Minutes-2/15/94 15 (pcm003) I • • Robert London Moore Jr., Mills Land and Water Company, requested that any rezoning of property in this area be delayed until the General Plan update had been approved. Linda Wilford, 2501 Pullman Street, Santa Ana, representing Caltrans, also requested that action be delayed until the General Plan update had been approved. Loretta Wolfe, 411-6th Street, representing Huntington Beach Tomorrow, spoke in support of the request. Gordon Smith, 6832 Bar Harbor, representing Huntington Beach Wetlands Conservancy, stated he support for the request. He stated this would help protect the area. THERE WERE NO OTHER PERSONS PRESENT TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE REQUEST AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. The Commission discussed the legal issues involved with this request, mainly the Coastal Conservation Overlay proposed. Staff explained that the Code Amendment before them tonight, reflects the recommendations by the California Coastal Commission. It includes clean-up language and will be included in the Local Coastal Program which will be resubmitted to the Coastal Commission for certification if approved by the City Council. A MOTION WAS MADE BY BIDDLE, SECOND BY COOK, TO APPROVE CODE AMENDMENT NO. 93-8 WITH FINDINGS AND FORWARD TO CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Cook, Dettloff, Richardson, Biddle NOES: Inglee ABSENT: Newman ABSTAIN: Gorman MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL- CODE AMENDMENT NO. 93-8: 1. The proposed code amendment amending Articles 902, General Information, 942, coastal Conservation, and 969.9, coastal Zone, of the Huntington Beach Ordinance code is consistent with the General plan designations adopted by the city Council and the coastal Commission because it recognizes the goal of the adopted Land Use Plan. 2. The proposed cod amendment is consistent with the goals and policies of the coastal Commission and the city's Coastal Land Use Plan and reconciles the inconsistency between the land Use Plan and Implementation Plan. PC Minutes-2/15/94 16 (pcm003) ATTACHMENT 177 ' 1 MICHAEL M.RUANE DIRECTOR, EMA F WILLIAM L.ZAUN 4 U NT"Y O F DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS 2 i LOCATION: 300 N. FLOWER ST. 5 3 RAN G E SIXTH FLOOR SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA MAILING ADDRESS: ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY P.O. BOX 4048 PUBLIC WORKS SANTA ANA,CA 92702-4048 FEB 01 1994 TELEPHONE: (714)834-5447 FAX#834-2370 City of Huntington Beach "� "ry Planning Division fE9 2000 Main Street Fr_, 04 1994 Huntington 'Beach, CA 92648 �t ATTra: Scott Hess C`J�I� U�IITy1r'L SUBJECT: Notice of Continued Public .Hearing: Code Amendment No. 93-8 Dear Mr. Hess It is our understanding that Code Amendment No. 93-8 to be considered at your Planning Commission tonight.. will impact future development within the degraded wetland area located between Huntington Beach Channel (D01) and Talbert Channel (D02), PCH, Santa Ana River, and the Southern California Edison Plant. Code Amendment No. 93-8 is consistent with the Orange County Flood Control District (OCFCD) concern that the subject degraded wetland be preserved for future enlargement, restoration and enhancement. The OCFCD is committed to these goals, and supports any action that helps to protect wetlands adjacent to the flood control channels in this area. Following specific comments are submitted for your consideration: If the subject degraded wetland is rezoned by the City of Huntington Beach for development, the developers shall be conditioned to provide flood protection by improving the southern levees of D01 and D02 at their own costs. If Code Amendment No. 93-8 is adopted and an unconditional flood easement is granted to .the OCFCD, .the current and/or future land owners may remove the southern levees of DO1 and D02 along the wetlands at their own costs. If you have any question, please contact Neil Jordan at 834-3843. lee R. S. Bavan Chief, Program Planning NJ/HA:jwPWL03-541 (4032)4020108430918. ATTACHMENT 18 NEW MICHAEL S. HARMS ATTORNEY AT LAW 5 CIVIC PLAZA,SU,TE 320 NEWPORT BEACH,CALIFORNIA 92660 (714)644.5801 TELEFAX(714)720.1232 February 1, 1994 BY TELEFAX TO 714/374-1540 Huntington Beach Planning Commission 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 ATTN: Howard Zelefsky Dear Planning Commission and Mr. zelefsky: I am writing to you regarding the Planning Commission' s meeting scheduled for February 1 , 1994 concerning Code Amendment No. 93-8 . Specifically, I am writing with regard to Area Six, which is described as approximately 56 acres between Brookhurst and Magnolia along Pacific Coast Highway. My understanding is that this land is currently zoned for wetlands use only, and that the proposed Code Amendment No. 93-8 will place a stricter regulation on this land to prohibit development. I fully support no development of this land. My understanding is that this land has been, and is currently, zoned for a use which prohibits development, and to the extent the proposed change protects this land from development, I think the proposed change should be adopted. when you drive from Newport Beach into Huntington Beach, the first, and most distinguishing difference of our city in my opinion, is the wide open space which gives the feeling of a more rural beach community. This is the distinct advantage that Huntington Beach enjoys over all other coastal communities from San Diego to the L.A. Beach communities. As you well know, once our precious coastal land is developed, it is gone forever in its natural state. Please do not allow the personal interests of politicians who are bought off by developers to ruin our coastal lands. As I understand it, this land at Area 6 is owned by a company called Pacific Enviro Design. What a joke to think these people care about the pacific environment. Again, I fully support the change as it relates to Area 6 of the proposed Code Amendment 93-8 to the extent it is adding another limitation which will fully preserve all of Area 6 and prohibit development of any kind thereon. Sincerely, Michael S. Harms ATTACHMENT 19 PETE WILSON, Govemor?TAME Qf; CALIFORNIA—THE RESOURCES AGENC • CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION SOUTH COAST AREA 245 W. BROADWAY, STE. 380 May 13, 1994 P.O. BOX 1450 LONG BEACH, CA 90802-"16 (310) 590-5071 Scott Hess 1 Department of Community Developmenr_t:•.Y. l 5 ICIQ4 City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 SUBJECT: Comments on the Proposed City of Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program Amendment for the White Hole Area. Dear Mr. Hess: Thank you for the opportunity to review the draft local coastal program amendment in advance. The draft local coastal program amendment was sent to us through Mr. Zelefsky's letter of April 1 , 1994. Coastal Commission staff concurs that most of the proposed wording conforms to the suggested modifications requested in the Revised Findings adopted by the Commission on October 13, 1992. Coastal Commission staff, however, suggests that the wording of sections 9422.2.1 and 969.9.21 of the Zoning Code be modified to conform to the suggested modification wording as found in the Commission's revised findings report dated September 28, 1992 (attached). Coastal Commission staff believes that the proposed wording for sections 9422.2.1 and 969.9.21 of the Zoning Code does not fully implement the intent of the Commission's suggested modifications. The proposed Zoning Code wording is: "Development for any parcel or portion thereof designated with the Coastal conservation suffix (-CC) shall be permitted only pursuant to an overall development plan for all such parcels ... " The suggested modification contained in the Commissions staff report of September 28, 1992 states: "As applicable to parcels described as Assessors Parcel Number: 148-011-01, 148-011-02, 114-150-26, 114-150-51, 114-150-53, 114-150-58 and 114-150-55 development of any parcel, or portion thereof, shall be permitted only pursuant to an overall development plan for all above parcels. " The proposed rewording (as contained in the draft Zoning Code) would have the effect of excluding parcels which lack the "CC" suffix from the requirement to be included in the overall development plan. For example, parcel 1 14-150-26 which does not contain the "CC" suffix would be exempt. Under the Commission's suggested modification parcel 1 14-1 50-26 would be required to be included in the overall development plan. The concept of developing an overall development i • • Page: 2 plan was approved by the Commission to promote a comprehensive development and protection plan for contiguous parcels in common ownership where both wetlands and uplands are present. Under the overall development plan the uplands could be developed as allowed by the base zone use provided that any necessary feasible mitigation measures are incorporated to protect the adjacent wetlands. We note that additional wording is being added to Section 9020. Our legal staff may have comments on this addition at a later date. Additionally, two typographical errors should be corrected. On page 2 of Attachment 2b the words "shallconstitute" are combined and should be changed to "shall constitute". This wording was correct on page 6 of Attachment 3i. Also on page 2 of Attachment 2bthe word "I.C.P." should be changed to "L.C.P." This word also needs to be corrected on page 6 of Attachment 3i. We also note that the City's staff report of February 1 , 1994 contained a copy of the our staff report of April 28, 1994 (Attachment 10). This staff report was superseded by the Commission's staff report of September 28, 1992. A copy of this report is attached. We look forward to receiving this LCP amendment. Should you have any questions please give me a call. Stephen Rynas, AICP Orange County Supervisor c:\winword\coastal\hunt3.doc 5/13/94 @ 4:55 PM 'G REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION (N2.-Date October 19 , 1992 Honorable Mayor and City Council M bers Submitted to: Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrato Submitted by: Michael Adams, Director of Community Develo t Prepared by: RESOLUTION NO. 6 .V37 : AGREEMENT AND ACCEPTANCE OF Subject: THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION'S ACTION TO APPROVE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. 90-2 Consistent with Council Policy? KI Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception / r� _ 3 Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions,Attachments: STATEMENT OF ISSUE• Transmitted for your re-consideration is a Resolution which agrees and accepts the Coastal Commission' s action to approve Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA) No. 90-2 with modifications. LCPA No. 90-2 represents Zone Change No. 88-18 to rezone the non- certified (white-hole area) of the City along PCH between Beach Blvd. and the Santa Ana River. By accepting the modifications, the City will have a certified Local Coastal Program for the area which will enable the City to issue Coastal Development Permits rather than the Coastal Commission. In addition, zoning will be consistent with the Coastal Element of the General Plan reducing the City' s exposure for legal challenge. On June 15, 1992, the City Council did not approve the Resolution because of concerns by Caltrans . An alternative action for a revised Resolution addressing Caltrans ' concerns has been included. RECOMMENDATION• Motion to: "Adopt Resolution No. b Y 3 7 accepting the California Coastal Commission' s action to approve Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 90-2 as modified" . ANALYSIS• On February 20, 1990, the City Council approved Zone Change No. 88-18 to rezone a 232 acre area along the inland side of Pacific Coast Highway between Beach Blvd. and the Santa Ana River channel in order to achieve consistency with the adopted Land Use Plan and to complete certification of the subject area and the Local Coastal Program. No 5/85 The zone change was subsequently submitted to the California Coastal Commission for certification. At a public hearing on May 12, 1992, the Coastal Commission certified LCPA No. 90-2 with modifications (see attachment no. 3) . There are six modifications that the Coastal Commission approved which further clarifies the intent of the Coastal Conservation (CC) suffix. These modifications are necessary to bring the zoning into conformity with and adequate to carry out the applicable provisions of the certified Huntington Beach Land Use Plan for the subject area. On June 15, 1992, the City Council did not approve the Resolution because of concerns raised by Caltrans and other property owners. Caltrans requested modifications to a Coastal Commission requirement (Sec. 9422 .2. 1) because they felt is was unfair and resulted in unequal treatment of property owners (Attachment No. 4) . Caltrans presented this argument unsuccessfully to the Coastal Commission at their hearing in May. Another letter was presented to the Council from John Yeager, Counsel for Coastal Magnolia Group, expressing their concern that the certification would violate the constitutionally protected rights of private property owners (Attachment No . 5) . Coastal Magnolia Group has already initiated legal action against the City as well as the Coastal Commission and others because of the Pacific Coast Highway widening project . It is the opinion of the City' s legal counsel, Moore and Rutter, that this Resolution accepting the Coastal Commission' s action on the zone change will reduce the City' s exposure to further legal challenge. It should be pointed out that there has been four years of staff resources involved in processing this zone change in addition to the years spent seeking Coastal Commission approval of the land use plan. The General Plan land use designation for this area was adopted in 1986. It is the controlling document for land uses in the area. The Government Code requires zoning to be consistent with the General Plan. If the Resolution is not adopted, the City will not have a certified Local Coastal Program for the area and the zoning will remain inconsistent with the approved Land Use Plan. This inconsistency increases the City' s exposure for legal challenge. In addition, without a certified LCP, all uses and development proposals are subject to the Coastal Commission' s approval rather than the City. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: This project is exempt from further environmental review pursuant to the CEQA. No additional action is necessary. FUNDING SOURCE: Not applicable. RCA 10/19/92 -2- (4730d) ALTERNATIVE ACTION: The City Council may adopt Resolution No. -B, which includes a minor modification to the California Coastal Commission' s action. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution No. 6q37-A accepting the CCC' s modification to LCPA No. 90-2 . 2 . Resolution No. 6 V-3 7-B accepting the California Coastal Commission' s modifications to Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 90-2 with a minor modification 3 . RCA dated June 15, 1991 4 . Letter from Caltrans dated June 10, 1992 5. Letter from John Yeager of Pettis, Tester, Kruse and Krinsky dated June 15, 1992 6 . Letter from Jon. & Cynthia Ely dated June 10, 1992 MTU:MA:SH: lp RCA 10/19/92 -3- (4730d) T � RESOLUTION NO. 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. 90-2 (ZONE CHANGE NO. 88-18) AS MODIFIED WHEREAS, the California Coastal Commission reviewed and approved Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 90-2 as modified at the May 12, 1992 Coastal Commission hearing; and Section 13544 . 5 of the Coastal Commission Regulations require the local government to accept and agree to the modification by resolution; and Upon the City Council action staff will forward Resolution No. for final Coastal Commission certification; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does accept and agrees to the Coastal Commission' s approval of Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 90-2 as modified. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting held on the day of 1992. Mayor ATTEST: APPR VED A �FORM: City Clerk City Attorneyk��l2 GI'� �p=i3-iv E. D` ND 0 INITIAT D AN APPROVED: i y Adminis -r ` or Director of Community Development SLk 6/92317 i RESOLUTION NO. 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. 90-2 ZONE CHANGE NO. 88-18) AS MODIFIED WHEREAS, the California Coastal Commission reviewed and approved Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 90-2 as modified at the May 12, 1992 Coastal Commission hearing; and Section 13544 . 5 of the Coastal Commission Regulations require the local government to accept and agree to the modification by resolution; and Upon the City Council action staff will forward Resolution No. for final Coastal Commission certification; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does accept and agrees to the Coastal Commission' s approval of Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 90-2 as modified with a minor language change as follows : "Alternatively, if the owner of an above parcel(s) wishes to develop only the parcel(s) which has coastal element land use designations other than conservation, the required overall development plan and coastal development permit application is not required to include the wetlands determination as stated above. However, a conservation easement, dedication or other identified similar mechanism shall be required over the parcel(s) area which have a conservation land use designation and are within the parcel(s) proposed for development . The conservation easement may be removed from those parcels or 10/92 :367:SLk 1 portions thereof which are found not to contain wetlands through a subsequent overall development plan and coastal development permit application which shall include a wetlands determination as specified above. The above drainage and erosion control and no further subdivision provisions also apply under this alternative. " PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting held on the day of 1992. Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk rVII?_0YK ty Attorney REVIEWED AND APP VED: INITIATED AND APPROVED: City Ad n r istrato 4 Director of Community Development 10/92 :367:SLk 2 REQUEST FOR �CITV COUNCIL ACTION Date June 15 , 1992 Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Submitted by: Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrator Prepared by: Michael Adams , Director of Community Development RESOLUTION NO. AGREEMENT AND ACCEPTANCE OF Subject: THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION' S ACTION TO APPROVE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. 90-2 Consistent with Council Policy? (A Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions, Attachments: STATEMENT OF ISSUE: Transmitted for your consideration is Resolution No . which agrees and accepts the Coastal Commission ' s action to approve Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA) No . 90-2 with modifications . LCPA No . 90-2 represents Zone Change No . 88-18 to rezone the non- certified (white-hole area) of the_ City along PCH between Beach Blvd . and the Santa Ana River . RECOMMENDATION: Motion to : "Adopt Resolution No . accepting the California Coastal Commission ' s action to approve Local Coastal Program Amendment No . 90-2 as modified" . ANALYSIS: On February 20 , 1990 , the City Council approved Zone Change No . 88-18 to rezone a 232 acre area along the inland side of Pacific Coast Highway between Beach Blvd . and the Santa Ana River channel in order to achieve consistency with the adopted Land Use Plan and to complete certification of the subject area and the Local Coastal Program. The rezone consisted of the following : designating a 7 . 0 acre area at Pacific Coast Highway and Beach Blvd . as Visitor Serving Commercial (VSC) ; • applying the Coastal Zone (CZ) suffix to 83 acres of existing Edison Facilities ; and, • affixing the Coastal Conservation (CC) suffix to the existing zoning on the remaining 142 acres (,see attached map) . P10 5/85 The zone change was subsequently submitted to the California Coastal Commission for certification. At a public hearing on May 12 , 1992, the Coastal Commission certified LCPA No. 90-2 with modifications (see attachment no. 3) . There are six modifications that the Coastal Commission approved which further clarifies the intent of the Coastal Conservation (CC) suffix. The following is a summary of . the modifications : 1 . Amends Section 9422 . 1(f) to reinstate the complete definition of wetlands as originally approved by the City and Coastal Commission in 1985 . 2 . Amends Section 9422 . 2 . 1 and 969 . 9 . 21(a) to require a conceptual development plan and environmental studies for seven parcels at Beach and Pacific Coast Highway (see attachment no . 5) should any portion be proposed for development . Also requires that an easement , dedication or similar mechanism to assure permanent protection of wetlands against unpermitted development and/or uses . It should be pointed out that this provision only applies if the seven parcels are under common ownership and geographically contiguous at said time of development of any parcel(s) . In otherwords, should the parcels be owned by different individuals at time of a development proposal, this provision is inapplicable. 3 . Amends 9422 . 3 relative to the content of certain findings that must be approved prior to removal of the "CC" suffix. 4 . Minor language change to Section 9422 .4 . 5 . Amends Section 9422 . 6(a) by expanding the uses permitted pursuant to a conditional use permit in accord with the Coastal Act . 6 . Minor language change to Section 9422 . 9 . These modifications are necessary to bring the zoning into conformity with and adequate to carry out the applicable provisions of the certified Huntington Beach Land Use Plan for the subject area . If the Resolution is not approved, the City will not have a certified Local Coastal Program for the area and the zoning will remain inconsistent with the approved Land Use Plan. Without a certified LCP, all uses and development proposals are subject to the Coastal Commission' s approval rather than the City. In addition, inconsistent zoning increases the City' s exposure for legal challenge. Environmental Status : This project is exempt from further environmental review pursuant to the CEQA. No additional action is necessary. RCA -2- (3550d) FUNDING SOURCE: Not applicable. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: The City Council may not adopt Resolution No . Such action will nullify LCPA No . 90-2 as modified. ATTACHMENTS: 1 . Resolution No . accepting the CCC' s modification to LCPA No . 90-2 . 2 . Zone Change Area Map 3 . Coastal Commission' s Modifications . 4 . City' s Original Language for the "CC" Suffix 5 . Parcel map of parcels cited in Section 9422 . 2 . 1 6 . Certified Land Use Plan MTU:MA: SH: lp RCA -3- (3550d) RESOLUTION NO. 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. 90-2 (ZONE CHANGE NO. 88-18) AS MODIFIED WHEREAS, the California Coastal Commission reviewed and approved Huntington Beach Local Coastal 'Program Amendment No . 90-2 as modified at the May 12 , 1992 Coastal Commission hearing ; and Section 13544 . 5 of the Coastal Commission Regulations require the local government to accept and agree to the modification by resolution; and Upon the City Council action staff will forward Resolution No . for final Coastal Commission certification; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does accept and agrees to the Coastal Commission' s approval of Local Coastal Program Amendment No . 90-2 as modified . PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting held on the day of 1992 . Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TOO FORM: City Clerk City Attorney , REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVED: 4140 City Administrator Director of ommunity Development SLk 6/92317 , NC. � I� IJJlljll 'IIII1I1)'' ., \��•` \ >cc .' <G' ICI Q .III.:' i:; 1��t1> (11 / \/\. / OIIII I I i/ � l e// "`/•� v �;� Vic, \��_.. \/ J •\ /(`r..� \ �/ ( ur_ul__—i III " A PA .'� CCC2F T:.' J \ - 4 \ /:,::: � fit \ < _ YZ .\. OF L_PA 90'I. .' \. \`d`� \... _-- Z 7 SI Cl fP7_. 1 1 O� \.. :. f p it ��� S,-cZ'Fvz S�C f((iiflTiI11111TiR17(T1iT(J171ii I IIII!I((r i,l'I tl o Z .. 5, CZ-Fez -r— �mlar-i17T(iT11111TTfIiiTfiTifT1((( II 4"F.c SI-CZ_FP2 —SI P nlluu�ilTn1(illiii(1(ini7((inTimm�nl7ir( ulllillllili,i�lf� sr cz..f P2,. ,pn7iil(lT(( 4a .FnFmRq a IiT'iTTT!(T inlll77Ti17TMMT[fllnrmnrrMT-11 li�illilll(7(Ilf(iIIiI of 1 vnGfC 0 Zone C;�o► SS - 18� AL, M.ODI IFOA S Certification of the Implementation Plan Amendment is subject to the following modifications : 1 . Wetlands Definition 9422.1 (f) Wetland shall mean lands within the coastal zone which may be covered periodically or permanently with shallow water and include salt water marshes , freshwater marshes , open or closed brackish water marshes, swamps , mudflats and fens . 2. Development on Geographically Contiguous Parcels Under Common Ownership 9422 . 2 . 1 As applicable to parcels described as Assessors Parcel Numbers 148-011-01 , 148-011-02 , , 114-150-26 , 114-150-51 , 114-150-53 , 114-150-58 , and 114-150-55 , development for any parcel , or portion thereof , shall be permitted only pursuant to an overall development plan for all above parcels , if at said time of application the parcels are geographically contiguous and under common ownership . As Par o any such Application the a , ir.ant shall include topographic , vegetative , hydrologic and soils information , prepared by a qualified profPssional and reviewed and concurred in by thp. nPpartment of Fish and Game , which identifies the extent of any exisi.inq wetlands on the 11ropertY. Conservation easeinents , dedications or other identified similar mechanisms shall be e tired over all wetland areas as a condition of development , to assure_permanent protection against development inconsistent with sections 9422 . 5 - 90 2 . 7 Specific drainage and erosion control rye uireinents shall he incorporated into the project design to ensure that wetland areas are not: advPrsPly affected . No further subdivision of any parcel shall be permitted which would have the effect of dividing off environmentally sensitive habitat from other portions of such parcels for which urban uses are permitted in the City ' s Coastal Element until such time as the permanent protection on any wetland is assured . Alternatively, if an owner of geographically contiguous parcels wishes to develop only those parcels which have Coastal Element land use designations other than Conservation , the required overall development plan and coastal development permit application is not required to include the wetlands dei.ennination as stated above However a conservation easement. , dedication or other identified similar mechanism shall be rPgijired over all parcels which have a Conservation land rise designation . The conservation easement may be removed from those parcels or portions thereof which are found not to contain wetlands through a subsequent overall development plan and coastal development permit application which shall include a wetlands determination as specified above . The above drainage and erosion control and no further subdivision provisions also apply under this alternative . Public vehicular traffic (the extension of Hamilton Avenue) shall be permitted in wetland areas governed by a conservation easement provided the road is constructed in a manner consistent with Section 9 .4 . 5 ; Area 1 (Beach Blvd . . to Newland Street) and Section 6, Environmentally Sensitive Habitat of the certified Land Use Plan Atvh e** q 969 . 9 . 21( a) As applicable to parcels described as Assessors Parcel _ Numbers 148-011-01 , 148-011-02 , 114-150-26 , 114-150-51, 114-150-53 , 114-150-58 , and 114-150-55 , development for any parcel , or portion thereof , shall be permitted only pursuant to an overall development plan for all above parcels , if at said time of application the parcels are geographically contiguous and under ' _common ownership . All provisions of Section 9422 . 2 . 1 shall be applicable . 3. Removal of the CC Suffix 9422 .3 Coastal conservation suffix--Removal of . Prior to removal of the Coastal Conservation suffix (-CC) , the following findings shall be made: (a)7H�z/�H�/►!r(�!H!r`I�/�r(�/��'�f1>"���/�H��'�H�l�it"dri/it'�t/ HHH�a•��frf�'/►4�'XH/i�Hf.//.ri��i'�1/llH�if_r(i~/rSf/zHH/��r(H�`�X/dX�r�/df/i'HH/ C �/Hf/KrSrSia'rS�i'vS►i/KH�f�H( No wetlands exist on the subect parcel as determined by a site-specific topographic , vegetative, hydrologic, and soils analysis of the subject parcel , prepared by a qualified wetland biologist or other qualified professional and reviewed and concurred in by the Department of Fish and Game; and (b) That the proposed removal of the suffix is in accordance with the policies , standards and provisions of the California Coastal Act; and (c) That there is no feasible, less environmentally damaging alternative site for any proposed land use or development which may be allowed under California Public Resources Code sections 307.33(a) (1 ) and 30264 . Any such removal of the Coastal Conservation suffix (-CC) shall constitute an amendment to the Tmplementation Plan and , if applicable, the land Use Plan portion of the Local Coastal Program. Pursuant to Section 30514 of the Coastal Act , an LCP amendment shall not take effect unless and until it has been effectively certified by the California Coastal Commission. 4. General .Uses : 9422.4 The uses set out in this article shall only be allowed where there is no feasible, less environmentally damaging alternative and where 00effeXI feasible mitigation measures have been provided. 5 . Conditional use permit required : 9422.6(a) New or expanded port, energy and coastal dependent industrial facilities , including commercial fishing facilities . (d) Only in conjunction with restoration plans , new flood control facilities where necessary for public safety and to protect existing development in the flood plain . (j ) Habitat Restoration projects . 6. Development standards--Mitigation measures : 9422.9 Before any application is accepted for processing, the applicant shall meet the following standards of this article, and shall incorporate into the project design any feasible mitigation measures which will PYWXU minimize adverse environmental effects . 9421 . 1--:'3422ex �T21 CO 9421 . 1 Permitted uses . ( a) The. following uses sh 1 be permitted : B . Beaches P. P ' vate boat ramps, slips, docks, cant ' evered decks, ' ndscreens and boat hoists in conj ction with ad ' cent single family dwellings Publi boat ramps and piers ( b) Conditi al use ermit . : - The f lowing public and semipublic uses sh i be permitted su ect to the approval of a conditional use erm-it by the p anning commission : B . Boat related ac ivity Boat slips . D . Docks M. Marine fueling do s S . Sight-seeing v sels' Sport fishing W . Water taxi ervice (Orc , . 28 2 Oct 86 ; Ord . 2752, 4/85; Ord . 2704, /84; Ord . 2659, 12 3) 9421 . 2 De to ment standards . ( a) N use shall be sited or designed s as to obstruct public access any sandy beach or public u area . ( b) o deck or structure shall extend more t n five ( 5) feet ov or in front of any bulkhead in any channe except for a 'Land ' g or brow for access to a gangway - for a dock . No strut re shall extend beyond the bulkhead in an area � enti- fied as environmentally sensitive such as , but not limit to, ee rass beds and mudflats . ( Ord . 2862, 2 Oct 86; Ord . 752, 4 5 . Ord . 2704 , 7/84) 9422 General provisions--coastal conservation district . The purpose of the coastal conservation district is to imple- ment. the general plan land use designation of open space con- servation , and pr(lvide for protection, --maintenance, restoration and enhancement of wetlands and environmentally sensitive habi- tat areas located within the coastal zone while permitting appropriate land uses . ( Ord . . • 2888, 31 Dec 86; Ord . 2862, 10/86) 7/87 128 t7YJl/vC welnt KID,, qq 9422. 1--9422 . 3 9422. 1 Definitions . The following words and phrases shall be construed as defined herein unless the context clearly indi- cates otherwise : (a ) Energy facilit_y shall mean any public or private processing, producing , generating, storing , transmitting , or recovering facility for electricity, natural gas, petroleum, coal, or other source of energy. ( b) Environmentally sensitive (habitat ) area shall mean a wetland or any area in which plant or animal li a or their habitats are either rare or especially valuable because of their special nature or . role in an ecosystem and which could be easily disturbed or degraded by human activities and develop- ments. ( c ) Feasible shall mean capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, social , and technological factors . ( d) Functional capacity shall mean the ability of an environmentally sensitive area to be self-sustaining and to maintain natural species diversity. (e ) Significant disruption shall mean having a substantial adverse effect upon the functional capacity . ( f ) Wetland shall mean lands within the coastal zone which may be covered periodically or permanently with shallow water and include salt water marshes, swamps, mudflats and fens . (Ord . 2888, 31 Dec 86; Ord . 2862, 10/86) 9422 . 2 Coastal conservation suffix ( -CC) . There is hereby established the suffix ( -CC) to be appended to any base district to denote and protect environmentally sensitive areas . such suffix shall take precedence over any other district designation. (Ord . 2888, 31 Dec 86) 9422 . 3 Coastal conservation suffix--gemoval of . Prior to removal of the coastal conservation suffix ( -CC) , the following findings shall be made : ( a ) That the underlying district designation is consistent with the coastal element of the general plan of the city of Huntington Beach; ( b) That the proposed removal of the suffix is in ac- 7/87 �l b 129 9422 4--94112 6 cordance with the policies, standards and provisions of- the --- California Coastal Act ; and _ (c ) That there is no feasible, less environmentally damaging alternative site for any proposed land use or development which maybe allowed under California Public Resources Code sections 30233(a) ( 1) and 30264. (Ord. 2888, 31 Dec 86) - 9422. 4 Uses generally . The uses set out in this article shall only be allowed where there is no feasible, less environ- mentally damaging alternative and where practical mitigation measures-have been-provided. ( Ord. 2888, 31 Dec 86; - Ord 2862, 10/86) - 9422 5 Use permit required The following uses shall be permitted in the coastal conservation district upon approval of a use permit by the board of zoning adjustments :- - , ( a) Incidental public service projects such as, but not limited to, burying cables and pipes ' ( b) Maintenance of existing streets -and utility structures. (Ord 2888, 31 Dec 86, Ord. 2862, 10/86) 9422 6 Conditional use permit required The following uses may be permitted upon approval of a conditional use permit by the planning commission - ( a) New or expanded energy and coastal dependent industrial facilities ( b ) Diking, dredging and filling necessary for the protection, maintenance, restoration or enhancement of the area ' s functional capacity as a habitat ( c) Provision for existing flood control facilities where the primary purpose is to maintain existing capacity, necessary for public safety or to protect existing-development in the flood plain No maintenance activities shall be permitted which have the effect of draining wetlands Such maintenance activities may include maintenance dredging of less than 100, 000 cubic yards in a twelve-month period,'� lining of in-place art3ticial channels, increasing t-he -height of existing levees, changes in the -cross sEction of the interior channel to accommodate the design capacit} of channels when no widening of the top dimensions or widening of the outer levee is required 7/87 f "t G 130 i 9422. 7--9422 . 8 ( d) New flood control facilities in conjunction with plans .� where necessary for pyblic saiety and to protect existing de- velopment in the flood plain . (e) Mineral extraction, including sand for beach restora- tion except- in environmentally sensitive areas . ( f ) Pedestrian trails and observation platforms for pas- sive nature study, including bird watching and the- study of flora and fauna. Such uses . may be located within an environ- mentally sensitive habitat area provided that they are immedi- ately adjacent to the area ' s peripheral edge . _ (g ) -Maintenance of existing or restoration of previously dredged .depths of- navigational channels, turning basins, vessel berthing and mooring areas, and boat launching ramps . (h) Entrance channels for new or expanded boating facili- ties in a. wetland area may be permitted . In a degraded_ wet- land, identified by the state department of fish and game pur- suant to California Public Resources Code section 30411 (b) , such facilities maybe. perm tt.�� a su stantial portion of the -degraded wetland -is restor-ed and maintained a -a biolog- ical-iy productive wetland . The maximum area of the wetland used for boating facilities, including berthing space, turning basins, necessary navigation channels, and any necessary sup- port service facilities, shall be twenty-five ( 25% ) percent of the total degraded wetland area . ( i ) Nature study, aquaculture, or . similar resource dependent activities . (Ord. 2888, 31 Dec 86; Ord . 2862, 10/86 ) 9422 . 7 Prohibited uses . Any use or structure not ex- pressly permitted shall be prohibited . ( Ord . 2888, 31 Dec 86 ; Ord. 2862 , 10/86 ) 9422 . 8 Required permits and agreements . Before any appli- cation is accepted for processing, proof shall be provideo that the' necessary state and federal regulatory permits or agree- ments have been obtained, or a statement from the regulatory body that such permits are not required shall be submitted : ( a ) United States Army Corps of Engineers : S . 404 and S . 10 permits; ( b) California Department of Fish and Game: 1601-1603 agreement; 7/ 87 1� 131 9422 . 9--9422 . 11 (c ) State Water- Resource Control Board (permit depends on �.. the operation) ; - (d ) Regional water quality control board, (permit depends on operation) ; , r (e) California state lands commission permit . (Ord. 2888, 31 Dec 86; Ord. 2862, 10/86) 9422 . 9 Develo ment ,standards--Mitigation measures. Before any application -is accepted or processing, the applicant -shall meet the following standards of this article, and shall incor- porate into the -project design any feasible mitigation measures which will moderate adverse environmental effects. (Ord . 2888, 31 Dec 87; Ord . 2862, 10/86 ) ,C 9422 .10 Mitigation measures--Dredging .- If the project involves any dredging, mitigation measures shall include the following: - - _ - (a) Dredging and spoils disposal shall-be planned and car- ried out to, avoid significant disruption to wetland habitats and to water circulation. (b) Limitations may be imposed on, he timing of the - operation , the type of operation, the quantity of dredged material removed,- and the location of the spoil- site. ( c ) Dredge spoils suitable for beach replenishment shall , where feasible, be transported to appropriate beaches or into suitable longshore current systems . (d ) Other mitigation measures may include opening up areas to tidal action , removing dikes, improving tidal- flushing , or other restoration measures .- (Ord . 2888, 31 Dec 86; - Ord . 2862 , 10/86) , - 9422 . 11 Mitigation measures--Diking ox, filling . If the project involves diking or- filling of a wetland , the following minimum mitigation measures shall apply. These mitigation measures shall not be required for temporary or short-term fill or diking if a bond ors other evidence of financial responsi- bility is provided to assure that restoration will be accom- plished in the shortest feasible time . (a ) if an appropriate restoration site is available,- the 7/8 7 132 9422. 12--9422 . 13 applicant shall submit a detailed restoration plan to the di- rector which includes provisions for purchase and restoration of an equivalent area of equal or greater biological produc- tivity and dedication of the land to a public agency or otherwise permanently restricting its use for open space pur- poses . The site shall be purchased -before the dike or fill development proceeds . (b) The applicant may in some cases be permitted to open equivalent areas to tidal action or provide other sources of surface water . This method of mitigation is appropriate if the applicant already owns_ fi,lled,._ diked. areas which themselves are not environmen.tal_ly sensitive habitat-- areas,-- but may become so if opened- to tidal action or provided with other sources of surface water . ( c) If no appropriate restoration sites under. options contained in this article are available , the applicant shall pay an in-lieu fee, determined by the city council, which shall be of sufficient value..to an appropriate- public-- agency for the purchase and restoration of an . area of- equivalent productive value , or equivalent surface area'. This option shall be allowed only if the applicant is unable to find a willing seller of a potential restoration site . Since the public agency may also face difficulties in acquiring appropriate sites , the in-lieu fee shall reflect the additional costs of acquisition, including litigation and attorney 's fees, as well _ as the cost of restoration , relocation and other costs . If the public agency ' s restoration project is not already approved by the coastal commission , the public agency may need to be a coapplicant for a coastal development permit to provide adequate assurance that conditions can be imposed to assure that the purchase of the mitigation site shall occur prior to the issuance of the permit . In addition , such restoration shall occur in the same general region, e .g . , within the same stream, lake , or estuary where the fill occurred . ( Ord . 2888, 31 Dec 86; Ord . 2862, 10/86) 9422 . 12 mitigation measures--Vegetation . Any areas where vegetation is temporarily removed shall be replanted with a native or an adaptable species in a quantity and quality equal to the vegetation removed . (Ord . 2888,. 31 Dec 86 ; Ord . 2862 , 10/86 ) 9422 . 13 Mitiyation measures--Reduction of disturbances . Pedestrian trails, observation platforms and other incidental structures shall be designed to reduce disturbance of wildlife and vegetation . Examples of improvements to effect such reduc- _ 7/87 (o 133 t tion are elevated walkways and viewing platforms, and vegeta- tive and structural barriers to lessen disturbances from -- permitted uses and inhibit internal access . (Ord. 2888, 31 Dec 86, Ord . 2862, 10/86 ) 9422 . 14 Mitigation measures--Litter control . Passive nature study uses shall include a program to control litter such as placement of an adequate number of containers and - posted signs . (Ord . -2888, 31 Dec 86; Ord . 2862, 10/86) - / r- 9422 . 15 Mitigation measures--Flood control . Environ - mentally sensitive habitat areas shall be restored and augmented to lessen the risk of flood damage to adjacent properties . - �(,Ord . 2888; 31 Dec 86; Ord . 2862; 10/86 ) _ 9422 . 16 Mitigation measures--Construction and improve- ments . Any construction, alteration or other improvement shall generally be carried 'out between September 15 and April 15 to avoid disturbing rare, threatened , or endangered species which utilize -the area -for nesting . This requirement shall not apply -if it can be demonstrated- to- the satisfaction of the director that no such disturbance would occur, in which case construction shall be timed to cause the least- disturbance to wetland dependent species, such as migratory waterfowl and shorebirds Construction or maintenance activities shall- be carried ou- in areas- of minimal size The site shall be restored to its original state prior to completion of the project unless such site is to be altered to conform with an approved restoration project (Ord 2888, 31 Dec 86, Ord 2862, 10/86) 9422 17 Mitigation measures--Duty of applicant . The applicant shall demonstrate that the functional capacity is maintained or augmented unless relieved of any one or more of these requirements by the California department of fish and game, and it is also shown that the project will not significantly ( a) Alter existing plant and animal populations in- a manner that would impair the long-term stability of the ecosystem, i e , natural species diversity, abundance and composition are essentially unchanged as a result of the project - - (b) Harm or destroy a species or habitat that is rare or endangerea . - - _ 7/87 134 --9422 . 19 9422. 18 ( c ) Harm a species or habitat that is essential to the natural biological function of a wetland or estuary . (d) Reduce consumptive ( fishing, aquaculture and hunting ) or nonconsumptive ( water quality and research opportunity ) values of a wetland or estuarian ecosystem. ( Ord . 2888, 31 Dec 86; Ord. 2862, 10/86) 9422 . 18 Degraded wetland restoration . If the proposed project involves restoration of a degraded wetland, the ap- plicant shall comply with California Public Resources Code sections 30411 and 30233 to the satisfaction of the director . (Ord . 2888, 31 Dec 86 ; Ord . 2862, 10/86) 9422. 19 Findings--Environmentally sensitive habitats . The purpose of this section is to ensure an environment which is suitable for the self-perpetuation of environmentally sensitive habitat areas . Prior to approval of energy production facili- ties, the decision-making authority shall make a finding with a statement of fact that : ( a ) Provision has been made for the enhancement of a sig- nificant portion of the project area to ensure preservation of plant and wildlife species . ( b) For all other projects, a finding shall be made that L1 the functional capacity of the environmentally sensitive habi- tat area is maintained . (Ord . 2888, 31 Dec 86 ; Ord . 2862, 0/86) ( Prior law: Ord . 2655, 12/83 ; Ord . 2657 , 10/83 ; Ord . 2700, 7/84 ; Ord. 2701 , 7/84 ; Ord . 2702, 7/84; Ord . 2716, 9/84 ; Ord . 2751 , 4/85; Ord . 2753, 4/85 ; Ord . 2862, 10/86) 7/87 �V1 135 U2 04 W � zt J R v J W L O R/ 291.1 353.15 /263' Oe 0 011 SBE 439-30-/-/ m 4.66 AC. 5.26AC. + 4.06AC. O� 20AC. 46(. N N O.C.FC.D. s FREEWAY o ' m- /. /2 AC. f 30 /9, Laeryg-o�i- s 4-150- .� N � 570 .� 3.09 AC. 16. 37 AC. \ e A 6.36AC. 0, C. F. C. D. FREEWAY ,?'�- C� U N 00 5I N N /9. 9 AC. N o ' CO M n 3i87.5 AC(C) I �y A i �2 53 �\y: s o - ;FRW Yoo. G h� awrOP +N 25 Ac. 5.r0- R y CBE/4B-30 or �� Ay. s � 'sue •� I �.�(u-r � ��--•`. 4 G;• I � I �^.,.,._� .may'.._---� -�.� `.-✓�" i `K�1j':'i � '• � O.C.SA.v ReaON ••j:�iN_ (` c\�. ��� T7tEATYLYl PLAXC I - -r• VISITOR SERVING COh1MERCIAL ----..\:"?,( LTON EXTE.IS f 01`r EXHIBIT A CONSERVATION ® NONCERTIFIED [NDUSRTIAL ENERGY PRCDUCTiOrI COASTAL AREAS IND. ENERGY PROD./ CONSERVATION ""WT*+GTQ" 964CH c4UFoaru _ R�onr•1G OEHIRTMB'(f R �n I STATE OF LALIFORNIA----BUSINESS AND TRANSPORTATION AGENCY PETE WILSON,Governor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 12 2501 PULLMAN ST. SANTA ANA, CA 92705 June 10, 1992 City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Attention: Mr. Jim Silva, Mayor RE: Huntington Beach Local Coastal Plan Pacific Coast Highway Area of Deferred Certification Dear Mayor and City Council: The purpose of this letter is to request a change to section 9422 . 2 . 1 of the proposed Huntington Beach Local Coastal Plan. At the May 12 , 1992 , meeting of the California Coastal Commission, in Marina Del Rey, its commissioners approved their staff recommendation to reject Implementation Plan Amendment 2-90 for the Pacific Coast Highway Area of Deferred Certification. At the same time, the Commissioner's adopted a resolution approving Implementation Plan Amendment No. 2-90, if it is modified in accordance with language proposed by the Coastal Commission Staff. Representatives of the Department of Transportation addressed the Commission on the proposed modification and pointed out that a disparity existed as to the total area of land to be "permanently protected against development inconsistent with sections 9422 . 5 - 9422 .711 , by a contiguous land owner; and the area "permanently protected" by a non-contiguous land owner. The result is the modified language treats potential purchasers of the State of California's excess property at Beach Boulevard and Pacific Coast Highway, unequally. Mills Land and Water Co. (MLWC) is the only contiguous land owner to the State's property. In 1978, the Legislature gave MLWC the right to purchase the State's excess property to settle a substantial lawsuit. If MLWC exercises its legislative right it will be required to "permanently protect" not only wetlands on the State's property but also any wetlands contiguous and owned by MLWC. However, it the sale of the State's property were to a non-contiguous owner, the only area requiring "permanent protection" is that which is contained within the boundaries of the State's property. Mr. Jim Silva, Mayor June 10, 1992 Page 2 This unequal treatment of a contiguous owner by the Commission's modified language will eventually result in litigation. In order to avoid further time consuming delay in the Local Coastal Plan Certification, it is requested that the second paragraph of section 9422 . 2 . 1 be changed as follows: "Alternatively, if the owner of an above parcel (s) wishes to develop only the parcel (s) which has coastal element land. use designations other than conservation, the required overall development plan and coastal development permit application is not required to include the wetlands determination as stated above. However, a conservation easement, dedication or other identified similar mechanism shall be required over the parcel (s) area which have a conservation land use designation and are within the parcel (s) proposed for development. The conservation easement may be removed from those parcels or portions thereof which are found not to contain wetlands through a subsequent overall development plan and coastal development permit application which shall include a wetlands determination as specified above. The above drainage and erosion control and no further subdivision provisions also apply under this alternative. " The above language would remove the unequal treatment of potential purchasers of the State's property and, as a practical matter, lessen the chance of a challenge to the L.C.P. based on constitutional grounds. Although the time frame for certification of the L.C. P. would be lengthened by approximately 2 months, this inconvenience would be far less that any time spent litigating the constitutional rights of contiguous land owners. Thank you for your consideration of the Department of Transportation's position in this matter. Very truly yours, rt o , n % N!�;,j RALPH H. NEAL Deputy District Director District 12, Right-of-Way PETTIS, TESTER, KRUSE & KRINSKy KEITH P. BISHOP ATTORNEYS AT LAW MARK R. McGU1RE ADELE K.CARDOZA ..�n...cna^'....cL.,o.No...o•caao....CO.......Na MICHAEL L.MILLER MICHAEL S.GUCCHICSI 18881 VON KARMAN AVENUE,16T" FLOOR DANA L.MISHNE SCOTT J. DARUTY DENNIS D.O NEIL DEAN DUNN-RANKIN IRVINE,CALIFORNIA 92715 JAY F. PALCHIKOFF CHARLES S. EXON DANIEL L.PELEK000AS GH RISTOPH ER J. PARLEY' POST OFFICE BOX 19766 ALAN W.PETTIS LISA M.OUINN G LENN E.FULLER MARK B•E. FULLS R N IRVINE,CALIFORNIA 92713 ROBERT A.R12Z1 ROBERT J.GERAR D. JR. PAUL A. ROWE ALAN J. GORDEE TELEPHONE (714) 553-2500 OONALD J. SAJOR ROBERT L.GREEN FACSIMILE R.CRAIG SCOTT HOWARD HALL CAROLE STEVENS WILLIAM E.HALLE (714) 261-0662 (714) 261-7251 BRUCE A.TESTER CHERIE ERICKSON HARRIS WILLIAM L.TWOMEY ANDREW K. HARTZELL KENN ETH A.WOLFSON BII wEST SEVENTH STREET,5V ITS 1230 JOHN P.YEAGER HUGH HEWITT UG HE HILTON LOS ANGELES.CALIFORNIA 90017 MICHAEL G.YODER LAWTELEPHONE (213)362-0350 JOHN D. HUDSON CARY K. HYDEN FACSIMILE (213) 362-0359 OF COUNSEL KART M. K.AROEL DAMON LAWRENCE DAVID A.KRINSKY MICHAEL B.LUBIC M. RUSSELL KRUSE June 15, 1992 CHRISTINE L.LUKETIC aA PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL NUMBER OUR FILE NUMBER (714) 253-2443 _ 18705-00001 IL; 1 VIA MESSENGER Mayor James Silva Huntington Beach City Council City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 Re: Proposed Resolution to Agree to Accept the California Coastal Commission' s Action to Approve Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 90-2 Mayor Silva and City Council Members: My clients, the Coastal Magnolia Group ("CMG") and Pacific Enviro Design ("PED") , own approximately 66-acres of property (collectively, the "Property") in the City of Huntington Beach (the "City") which is included in the City' s 232-acre Pacific Coast Highway Area of Deferred Certification (the "Whitehole Area") . On May 12 , 1992 , the California Coastal Commission (the "Coastal Commission") certified an amendment to the City's Local Coastal Plan ("LCP") and an Implementation Plan for the Whitehole Area "with suggested modifications" (collec- tively, the "Certification") . Before the Certification becomes effective, the City must formally agree to the suggested modifications and take whatever formal action is required to meet the terms of the Certification. Cal. Admin. Code tit. 14, § 13544 . I understand 05-06C 1RR\9 00001 �1 ' RO G:\DOC\1\196\CORR\92060016.LTR PETTIS, TESTER, KBUSE & KRINSKY Mayor James Silva Huntington Beach City Council June 15, 1992 Page 2 that the City will consider these modifications in its proposed "Resolution to Agree and Accept the California Coastal Commission's Action to Approve Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 9-2" (the "Resolution") tonight at its City Council meeting. CMG and PED wish to voice their concerns about and objections to the Resolution. CMG and PED respectfully submit that the City should not accept the Certification because, quite simply, the LCP would violate the constitutionally protected rights of private property owners. I detailed these same concerns to the Coastal Commission in my May 6, 1992 letter to Chairman Gwyn and the other members of the Coastal Commission. Rather than reiterate these concerns, I refer you to that letter, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated by this reference as though set forth at length. CMG and PED have already initiated legal action against the City, the Coastal Commission and others to vindicate its legal rights vis-a-vis the Property. As I stated to the Coastal Commission, the City should treat this letter as notice that, should the City formally accept the Certification by passing the Resolution, it will be subjecting itself to yet another legal challenge. The Property owners in the Whitehole Area have their backs to the wall and will have no choice but to seek redress from the courts. CMG and PED urge the City to reject the Resolution and work to apply land use regulations to the Property which will permit economically viable use of the Property. Very truly yours, John P. eager JPY/cl cc: Gail Hutton, Esq. Mr. Paul Cook Mr. Michael Adams 05-06-92 18705-00001 G:\DOC\196\CORR\92060016_LTR . i . PETTIS, TESTER. KRtiSE & KRINSKY ATTORNEYS AT LAW KEITH P BISHOP MARK R. MCGUIRE ADELE K. CARDOZA "'w.w�.c ws..�F•�c_uo .c wwo•cs s�o+..cowwow.Tlows MICHAEL L- MILLER rl IC HAEL S. CUCCHISSI 18881 VON KARMAN AVENUE. 161w FLOOR DANA L. MISHNE S C OTT J. OARUTY DENNIS O O NEIL DEAN OUNN-RANKIN POST OFFICE BOX 19766 JAY F PALCHIKOFF CHARLES S. EXON IRVINE. CALIFORNIA 92715 OANIF.L L PELEKOUOA5 CHRISTOPHER J FARLEY* ALAN W. PETTIS MARK FELDMAN TELEPHONE 171AI 553-2500 LISA M OUINN GLENN E. FULLER ROBERT A RIZZI ROBERT GER4A 0, JR. FACSIMILE PAUL A. ROWE ALAN J GOROEE I7141 261-0882 DONALD J SAJOR ROBERT L. GREEN R. CRAIG SCOTT HOWARD HALL 17141 261-72SI CAROLE STEVENS WILL-AM C HALLE BRUCE A. TESTER CHERIE ERICKSON HARRIS WILLIAM L TWOMEY ANDREW A. HART7EI-L 811 WEST SEVENTH STREET. SUITE 1230 KENNETH A. WOLFSON "UGH HEWITT LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90017 JOHN P. YEAGER LAWRENCE J. HILTON MICHAEL G. YODER JOHN D HUOSON TELEPHONE 12131 362-0350 CARY K. HYDEN FACSIMILE 1213) 362-03S9 KAKI M. KARDEL OF COuNSEL DAVID A. KRINSKY 0AMON LAWRENCE M RUSSELL KRUSE MICHAEL B LUBIC CHRISTINE L. LUKETIC May 6, 1992 A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ' WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL NUMBER OUR FILE NUMBER (714) 253-2443 18705-00001 VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS Thomas Gwyn, Chairman California Coastal Commission South Coast Area 245 N. Broadway, Suite 380 Long Beach, CA 90802 Re: City of Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 2-90 and Amendment to the Implementation Plan Portion of the LCP to Certify Zoning for the Pacific Coast Highway Area of Deferred Certification Chairman Gwyn and Members of the Coastal Commission: My clients, the Coastal Magnolia Group ("CMG") and Pacific Enviro Design ("PED") , own approximately 66-acres of property (hereinafter referred to collectively as the "Property") in the City of Huntington Beach ("City") which is included in the City' s 232-acre Pacific Coast Highway Area of Deferred Certification ("Whitehole Area") . The City has submitted an amendment to its Local Coastal Plan ("LCP") and an Implementation Plan for the Whitehole Area to the Coastal Commission ("Commission") for its consideration at the Commission' s May 12 , 1992 hearing. Due to recent events in the cities of Los Angeles and Long Beach, the Commission' s staff did not complete or mail the staff report on this agenda item until Tuesday, May 5th, and we have not yet received the staff 's report. In a telephone conversation with Teresa Henry of the Commission' s staff, I learned that the Commission's staff has recommended that the Commission reject the City' s proposal as submitted but 05-06-92 18705-00001 G:\D0C\196\C0RR\92040002ATR PETTIS, TESTER. KRUSE & KRINSKy Thomas Gwyn, Chairman May 6 , 1992 Page 2 conditionally approve a modified LCP amendment and Implementation Plan. This letter is being submitted to comply with the Commission' s requirement that all written correspondence be submitted no less than three working days before the hearing date. If necessary, I will submit another letter prior to the hearing to address issues raised by the latest staff report. I hope that under the circumstances all correspondence received prior to or at the May 12 , 1992 meeting will be considered by the Commission prior to acting on this item. CMG and PED wish to voice their concerns about and objections to both the City and Commission staff proposals. CMG and PED respectfully submit that the Commission has an obligation under law to order the preparation of a new staff report which considers whether the proposals presented to the Commission, if adopted, would violate the constitutionally protected rights of private property owners. See Cal. Pub. Res. Code §§ 30001. 5 (b) , 30001. 5 (c) , and 30010. The confiscatory nature of the City' s proposed LCP for this area has been a hotly debated subject for many years. The City has struggled with this issue openly and in private, and has even sought outside legal counsel on how to address it. Property owners in the Whitehole Area, including another. State agency, have written the Commission on numerous occasions to explain why the LCP for this area results in the uncompensated taking of private property. CMG and PED have reluctantly been forced to pursue an inverse condemnation suit relating to their Property because of a series of confiscatory acts by Caltrans, the Commission and the City. The City and staff proposals ignore the fact that much of the land within the Whitehole Area is privately owned and that real peoples ' livelihoods are affected by the Commission' s actions with respect to this area. The Coastal Act of 1976, California Resources Code 30000 et sec . ("Coastal Act") , provides this Commission with a mandate to act in a manner "consistent with sound resource conservation principles and constitutionally Protected rights of private property owners. " Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 30001. 5 (c) (emphasis added) . In order for the Commission to carry out this mandate, the Commission must reject the City's proposal as well as its staff ' s. Instead, the Commission should inform the City that the Commission is only willing to consider proposals in which all private property owners are allowed some viable economic use of their property or are compensated for that property which is effectively taken by regulatory action. 05-06-92 18705-00001 G:\DOC\196\CORR\92040002ATR PETTIS, TESTER, KRUSE & KRINSKy Thomas Gwyn, Chairman May 6 , 1992 Page 3 The "Coastal Conservation" Overlay Constitutes an Unlawful "Taking" on Its Face and As Applied. By placing a "Coastal Conservation" zoning overlay on 124 . 5 acres within the Whitehole Area, including all 66 acres owned by CMG and PED, the City has unlawfully taken the Property of PED and CMG without any compensation whatsoever. It is absolutely clear that the Coastal Conservation overlay proposed for Commission certification or as modified per the Commission staff alternative denies PED and CMG all viable economic use of their Property. The Commission staff ' s proposed expansion of the potential conditional uses on property within the Coastal Conservation overlay zone to allow for port or commercial facilities is totally meaningless to PED and CMG. No such uses are physically possible on the Property, let alone economically feasible. In addition, the Commission staff ' s proposal to allow habitat restoration projects and new flood control facilities (when in conjunction with habitat restoration projects) reveals the Commission staff' s future hope for these historical but now thoroughly degraded wetland parcels, but this proposal too provides no opportunity for meaningful economic use of the PED and CMG Property. With the Coastal Conservation overlay in place, most of the remaining allowable uses for the Property are physically or economically infeasible as well, and those uses which are feasible have no economic value. There are no existing streets or utilities to maintain on the Property, so this use is not applicable. The Property has been rejected as a site for any new energy facilities by the State Energy and Resources Conservation and Development Commission. There is no water on the Property or access to the coast, thus ruling out aquaculture or similar resource-dependent activities, coastal dependent industrial activities and all the allowable uses relating to boating facilities, navigation channels, etc. This leaves three allowable uses under the Coastal Conservation area: restoration projects, nature study and incidental public service purposes such as burying cables and pipes. The three allowable uses under the Coastal Conservation designation which are at all practical for the PED and CMG Property all relate to public benefits with no private benefits whatsoever. To allow property owners to use their land as public parks, nature reserves or conduits for incidental public works 05-06-92 18705-00001 G:\DOC\196\CORR\92040002ATR PETTIS, TESTER, KRUSE & KRINSKY Thomas Gwyn, Chairman May 6, 1992 Page 4 projects does not provide economically viable use of such property so as to avoid the constitutional obligation to compensate the owners for taking their property. Consequently, PED and CMG wish to reiterate to the Commission that approval of either the City or Commission staff proposal will in fact preclude any economically viable use of the PED and CMG Property and would constitute an unlawful taking of the Property. Lawyers for the Commission have repeatedly taken the position that the means to raise an alleged "takings" claim against the Commission is through an administrative mandamus action. The commission should treat this letter as notice that should the Commission adopt either the City or Commission staff ' s proposal, it will be subjecting itself to yet another legal challenge. The Property owners in the Whitehole Area have their backs to the wall and will have no choice but to seek redress from the courts. The Commission, on the other hand, does have a choice: it can obey the oath taken by each member of the Commission to defend and uphold the constitutions of the State of California and the United States. The courts should not be the Commission's testing grounds to see if its actions are constitutionally out of bounds. Pursuant to the Coastal Act, The Commission Should Balance Conservation Concerns with Social and Economic Concerns. The Coastal Act was adopted in part to "assure orderly, balanced utilization and conservation of coastal zone resources taking into account the social and economic needs of the people of the state. " Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 30001. 5 (b) . The PED and CMG Property alone has the potential to generate millions of dollars per year in tax revenue for the City and provide substantial housing opportunities for citizens of this State. Such economic and social benefits, which would directly address pressing economic and social concerns faced by this State, are . blindly ignored in the proposals being presented to the Commission. The current proposals before the Commission, however, monomaniacally focus on the conservation of coastal resources which are degraded and only marginally useful in their present state. -For example, the PED and CMG Property, if left alone, will become further degraded and removed from its historic wetland character. Indeed, the designation of the Property as wetlands at present is an unprecedented expansion of the "wetland" definition (analogous to defining a desert which was 05-06-92 18705-00001 G:\DOC\196\CORR\92%0002ATR PETTIS, TESTER, KRUSE & KRINSKY i Thomas Gwyn, Chairman May 6 , 1992 Page 5 once under the ocean as an "historical sea" and subjecting it to the Coastal Act) . To restore the PED and CMG Property to a functioning wetland would require extensive human intervention and physical invasion of the Property, and any physical invasion would undoubtedly require compensation to PED and CMG. See Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp. , 458 U. S. 419, 428 (1982) . Such a restoration effort would be expensive and subject to possible failure due to the extent of degradation which has occurred over many decades. PED and CMG are quite sure that the Coastal Act does not allow the Commission to undertake such an ambitious effort without at least compensating the property owners whose land has been taken. But does the Coastal Act require the Commission to undertake such an expensive effort for such a limited potential return? PED and CMG submit that the Coastal Act does not compel such an inefficient result, and arguably compels a different outcome. Unfortunately, the Commission to date has blithely ignored all proposals for use of the Property that would balance the competing concerns of restoring potential habitat areas, promoting economic and housing opportunities for the people of this State and acknowledging the rights of private property owners. For the above stated reasons, PED and CMG urge the Commission to reject both the City' s and its staff ' s proposed LCP amendment and Implementation Plan for the Whitehole Area or commence formal condemnation proceedings on the Property at once. Very truly yo rs, Jo P. Ye r JPY: jmm cc (via regular mail) : Teresa Henry, Coastal Program Analyst Robert Nastase Gail Hutton, Esq. Paul Cook Michael Adams ;;5-06-92 18705-00001 G--\DM\196\a)RR\92040002.LTR i June 10, 1992 Jon and Cynthia Ely 22051 Hula Circle Huntington Beach, California 92646 Huntington Beach City Council 2000 Main Street " `- i r E .. Huntington Beach, California 92648 RE: Local Coastal Program No. 90-2 (White Hole Zone Change No. 88-18) Dear Members of the Council: We are writing this letter to you not to oppose or support Resolution 88-18 , but rather to advise caution and good judgement with respect to one of the City's most valuable and irreplaceable assets - its Wetlands. Although we are merely individual homeowners and not affiliated as yet with an organized group such as the Wetlands Conservancy or Amigos De Bolsa, our concern for the preservation of the Huntington Beach Wetlands south of the Edison Plant is echoed by all of those who live in our neighborhood. We want these wildlife habitats to be protected and hopefully your actions regarding this new zoning for the "white hole" will permanently prohibit development on these precious Wetlands. We and our friends intend to follow this issue closely and trust you will do everything in your power to ensure the preservation of these Wetlands for the wildlife who live there, our children and future generations. Sincerely, Jon and Cyndee Ely C� l (714) 964-8586 . cc: Mike Adams, Director of Community Development . � M t\10- COVER SHEET M CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARINGS N/A YES NO ( ) Did Wang type out City Council or Planning Commission public hearing notice? ( ) ( ) If appeal, are appellant and applicant shown on legal notice? t ( ) ( ) If housin is involved, is "legal challenge paragraph" included? ( ) ( ) If Coastal Development Permit, are the RESIDENT labels attached and is the Coastal Commissio Off* on the labels. aTr,> X� ( ) ( ) # Were latest Assessor's Parcel Rolls used? ( ) ( ) Is the appellant's name and address part of the labels? ( ) Is day of public hearing correct — Monday/Tuesday? ( ) Has the City Administrator's Office authorized the public hearing to be set? , j ( ) is PC Matrix mailing list required? �((�((�,(,� /�° lST For Public Hearings at the City Council level please revise the last paragraph of the public hearing notice as follows: ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit to the City Clerk, written evidence for or against the application as outlined above. If there are any further questions please call (insert name of Planner) at 536-5227. CONNIE BROCKWAY,CITY CLERK CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92649 (714) 536-5227 The oaraeraph which is currently on Coastal Commission public hearings should remain. 0019z `'� r � WHITE HOLE 1156D 3/24/92 Amigos De Bolsa Chica Cal Coastal Commission P.O. Box 1563 South Coast Area Huntington Beach, CA 92647 245 W. Braodway Ste. 380 Attn: Lorraine Faber Long Beach, CA 90802 Attn: John Leslie Michael Martin Caltrans/District 7 So. Cal Edison Co. 120 S. Spring Street 7333 Bolsa Ave. Los Angeles, CA 90012-3606 Westminster, CA 92683 Attn: Bob Dixon Assemblyman Frizzelle U.S. Fish & Wildlife Svc. 17195 Newhope St. Ste. 201 Div. of Ecological Service Fountain Valley, CA 92708 2400 Avila Road Attn: Jim Orr Laguna Niguel, CA 92677 Attn: Jack Fancher Dept. of Fish & Game Dept. of the Army 1416 9th St. 12th Floor L.A. Dist, Corp. of Engr. Sacramento, CA 95814 P.O. Box 2711 Attn: Bob Radovich Los Angeles, CA 90053-2325 Attn: Cheryl Hill Carl Nelson, Director Cal . Dept. of Fish & Game Env. Mgmt. Agency—P.W. Region 5 400 Civic Center Dr. W. 245 W. Broadway, Ste. 350 P. 0. Box 4048 Long Beach, CA 90802 Santa Ane, CA 92702-4048 Attn: Fred Worthy, Jr. Senator Bergeson Ruth Gallanter 140 Newport Center Dr. Ste 120 P.O. Box 66494 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Los Angeles, CA 90066 Attn: Julie Froberg Coastal Conservancy Daisy Piccirelli 1330 Broadway, Suite 1100 P.O. Box 6202 Oakland, CA 94612 Mesa, Arizona 85206 Attn: Reed Holderman/Wendy Eliot F. William Olson, Mgr. Charles Larwood Analysis Sec/Env Mgmt Agency Caltrans/District 12 12 Civic Center Plaza Env. Ping. Brh C Santa Ana, CA 92702-4048 2501 Holman Street Santa Ana, CA 92705 Steve Ross Tom Mungari 9562 Hightide Drive ISCO Ind, NESI Investment Grp Huntington Beach, CA 92646 15342 Hawthorne Blvd. Ste. 400 Lawndale, CA 90260 W i r White Hole-1156D Page 2 Mary F. Porcaro/Oc Stanley Hetrick 8135 Foxha ive 1562 Quail Run Hun on Beach, CA 92646 Santa Ana, CA 92705 148-027-58 Ascon Properties Byron Tarnutzer 21602 Surveyor Circle 4 Upper Newport Plaza, Ste. 201 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Newport Beach, CA 92660 148-121-03 Cabrillo Mobilehome HomeOwn Assoc. Kerry Shaw 21752 Pacific Coast Hwy. 21391 Antiqua Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Attn: Ron Yocrem 148-081-13 Robert Van Zandt 148-027-33 P.O. Box 4345 Keith Campbell Glendale, CA 91222 8121 Ridgefield 148-027-30 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Richard D. Gilespie 149-023-07 8145 Foxhall Dr. Teresa Lee Huntington Beach, CA 92646 21901 Kiowa Lane 148-027-49 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Lennie Pope 148-027-35 8142 Pawtucket Drive Scott Hooper/Carmela Tijerima Huntington Beach, CA 92646 8131 Ridgefield Dr. 148-027-24 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Patricia Yamazaki 148-121-01 8111 Ridgefield Drive Bernard Kaplan Huntington Beach, CA 92646 P. 0. Box 5278 148-027-31 Huntington Beach, CA 92615 Melvin Freitas 148-027-43 9042 Niguel Circle Darlene Giacone Huntington Beach, CA 92646 8126 Ridgefield Drive 149-041-04 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Occupant Occupant 8129 Foxhall Drive 21861 Kiowa Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 i White Hole-1156D Page 3 148-027-52 148-027-55 Robert Ujihara Roy Lothringer 2901 Rebano 20311 Brentstone Lane San Clemente, CA 92672 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 148-027-46 114-150-11 Robert B Mello Scow Properties 2605 A Del Way 675 Irvine Ave. Huntington Beach, Cq 92646 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 149-041-21 148-027-56 Marci Klauser Ralph Gumberg 9062 Adelia Circle 8112 Foxhall Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 148-081-11 148-081-07 Roger Gasteiger Wayne Lewis 21421 Antiqua Lane 8512 Sandy Hook Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 148-081-12 148-027-57 Keith Belew Don Dickerson 21401 Antiqua Lane 8116 Foxhall Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 149-014-02 148-081-08 Gerald Gartland Lawrence Ayers 21832 Kiowa Lane 8502 Sandy Hook Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 149-371-24 114-150-50/62 Kaushal Sharma Calif. Public Works 22381 Harwich Lane 21643 Pacific Coast Hwy. Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 149-014-01 148-027-58 Robert McGargar James Hetrick 21822 Kiowa Lane 1562 Quail Run Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Santa Ana, CA 92705 148-027-55 148-081-09 Roy Lothronger Gay Boyer 20311 Brentstone Lane 21441 Antigua Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 i White Hole-1156D Page 4 Planning Commissioner . 148-027-51 Victor Leipzig Edward Hartline City of Huntington Beach Mailbox Station 2000 Main Street 419 Main St. Ste. A Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 148-027-59 148-027-62 David Tucker Richard Barnes 8126 Foxhall Drive 8142 Foxhall Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 148-081-10 148-027-52 John Hill Robert Ujihara 21431 Antigua Lane 2901 Rebano Huntington Beach, CA 92646 San Clemente, CA 92672 114-150--75,76, & 77 148-027-63 Ascon Properties Jerrold Dunlap 21572 Surveyor Circle 8146 Foxhall Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 148-027-60 149-041-17 Katherine Vermillion Joseph Johnson 8132 Foxhall Drive 9002 Adelia Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 149-021-01 148-027-53 Jack Wannebo Russell Berg 12459 Beach Blvd. 8125 Foxhall Drive Stanton, CA 90680 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 148-021-25 149-041-30 Huntington Breakers David Archibald P. 0. Box 22630 9031 Rhodesia Drive Long Beach, CA 90801 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 148-027-61 148-027-54 Jeff Reardon Harry Weber Jr. 8136 Foxhall Drive 8121 Foxhall Dr. Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 148-121-04 Robert London Moore, Jr. City of Hunt. Bch. Mills Land & Water Co. 8641 Edison Ave. P. 0. Box 7108 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 White Hole-1156D Page 5 149-023-08 149-023-11 William Wells Don McKinney 21911 Kiowa Lane 21961 Kiowa Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 149-371-14 149-371-17 Nagash Shetty James Brady 9332 Gatehead Drive 2231 Harwich Lane Huntington Beach,..CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 149-371-25 149-371-28 Dale Vaznaian Tom Angelovic 22391 Harwich Lane 22421 Harwich Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 149-023-09 149-023-12 Paul Howard Julius Paldi 21931 Kiowa Lane 21832 Windsong Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 149-371-15 Harry Anderson Gerald Anderson 8136 Pawtucket 9342 Gatehead Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 148-027-25 149-371-26 Anthony D. Lee Dale Holmsen 8115 Ridgefield Dr. 3247 Karen Ave. Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Long Beach, CA 90808 148-027-32 149-023-10 Lawrence Mallon Fares Jahshan 9041 Adelia Circle 21941 Kiowa Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 149-041-13 149-371-16 Robert Marlow Brown Artemio R. Ramil 9061 Rhodesia Drive 22301 Harwich Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 149-041-28 149-371-27 114-495-01 Steven Peters Helen Viala Tr. 22411 Harwich Lane George Rogers Law Corp. Huntington Beach, CA 92646 17111 Beach Blvd., Ste 103 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 White Hole-1156D Page 6 Katherine Stone/Margaret Sohagi Freilich, Stone, Leitner, Carlisle The Wilshire Landmark, Ste 1230 11755 Wilshire Blvd. Los Angeles, Ca 90025-1518 Woolsey, Angelo & Thatcher Kent M. Pierce 2099 San Joaquin Hills Road HB/FV Board of Realtors Newport Beach, CA 92660 19900 Beach Blvd., Ste 1 Attn: Roy Woolsey Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Mills Land and Water Herb Nakasone, MGR. 18090 Beach Blvd. Ste. 6 Flood Programs Division Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Env. Mgnt. Agency/Flood Ctrl. Attn: Robert London Moore, Jr. P.O.Box 4048 Santa Ana, CA 92701 Mr. Larry Sitton Robert Mandic/Gary Gorman Calif. Dept. of Fish & Game H.B. Wetlands Conservancy 330 Goldenshore, Ste. 50 P.O. Box 5903 Long Beach, CA 90802 Huntington Beach, CA 92645 Attn: Wildlife Management Steve Bone Title Energy of California Robert Mayer Corporation 10537 Santa Monica Blvd. 660 Newport Center Drive #105 3rd Floor Newport Beach, CA 92658 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Attn: Bill Curtis Mark Shapiro Paul Gonzales, Chief Branch "C" 21322 Ashburton Cir. Env. Ping. D.O.T., Dist 12 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 2501 Pullman Street Santa Ana, CA 92705 Paul D'Alessandro John Toyama Deputy City Attorney Space 288 City of Huntington Beach 21851 Newland Street 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 926487 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Trudy Obrikat 21871 Newland #131 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Don Troy Gary L. Gumbert 5272 Allstone Drive 22011 Hula Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 114-481-14 i White Hole-1156D Page 7 Charles Priddy 114-481-21 2971 Brookstone Way Kourosh Khavari Sacramento, CA 92833 9022 Christing Drive 149-022-02 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Larry Hartsuiker 114-495-02 9062 Christine Drive James Ibbotson Huntington Beach, CA 92646 9262 Christing Drive 114-481-25 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Terry Harmon 114-481-12 C/O Lucille Harmon Michael Hunter 9582 Hamilton Ave. #343 22012 Hula Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 149-371-23 Joseph Wheelock 114-481-22 9232 Christine Drive Keith Tucker Huntington Beach, CA 92646 9032 Christine Drive 224-495-05 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Raymond Cole 114-495-03 22061 Susan Lane Guenter Steuer Huntington Beach, CA 92646 9252 Christine Drive 114-481-05 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 114-481-13 Marcel Lourtie 22001 Hula Circle 114-150-11 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 114-481-20 114-481-23 Don Brunk William Burke 9012 Christine Lane 9042 Christine Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 114-495-01 114-495-04 Occupant Christopher Button 8041 Newman Ave. 9242 Christine Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 114-481-11 114-481-14 Kathleen Mooney Gary Gumbert 22101 Jonesport Lane 22011 Hula Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 i White Hole-1156D Page 8 114-481-24 114-495-09 Philip Buekema Farouk Shamoo 9052 Christine Drive 9192 Christine Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 114-495-05 114-495-10 Denise Lynch Fred Galluccio 9232 Christine Drive 9182 Christine Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 114-481-15 114-495-11 Thomas Lenihan Jack Buffa 22021 Hula Circle 9172 Christine Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 114-495-12 Marshall Papke 9162 Christine Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92646 114-495-06 114-495-13 Robert Simpson Edward Drews 9222 Christine Drive 9152 Christine Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 114-495-14 Greg Brenner 9142 Christine Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92646 114-481-26 114-495-15 Karl Wysocki Wayne Murry 9072 Christine Drive 9130 Christine Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 114-495-07 114-495-16 Lucille Bagnoli Gary Gorman 9562 Hightide Drive 9122 Christine Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 114-495-08 Ivy Dane—Mins Herbert Ahn Taiyo Investment 9202 Christine Drive 19750 S. Vermont Ave. #145 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Torrance, CA 90502 White Hole-1156D Page 9 149-013-02 149-013-05 Hilde Grantham Don Homes 21781 Kiowa Lane 21821 Kiowa Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 149-023-02 149-023-05 Winton Marriott Daniel Malloy 21851 Kiowa Lane 21881 Kiowa Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 149-041-36 149-022-03 George Hutton—Potts David Nelson 9042 Rhodesia Drive 21862 Kiowa Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 149-013-03 149-013-06 Louis Kastorff Charles Carter 21801 Kiowa Lane 21831 Kiowa Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 149-023-03 149-023-06 Isolde Wittman James Simpson 9702 Toucan Ave. 21891 Kiowa Lane Fountain Valley, CA 92708 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 149-011-01 149-011-03 Victor Ziegler A. Ashurst 9001 Bermuda Drive 9051 Bermuda Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 149-013-04 149-021-01 Tim Ferril Occupant 21811 Kiowa Lane 21842 Kiowa Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 149-023-04 149-023-07 Richard Svoboda Owner/Occupant 21871 Kiowa Lane 21901 Kiowa Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 149-011-02 114-481-06 Guy Adams Christopher Valsamakis 9021 Bermuda Drive 22081 Susan Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 I White Hole-1156D Page 10 114-481-17 114-481-20 Steven Hurlburt Don Brunk 22051 Hula Circle 9012 Christine Drive Huntington Beach, CA 926486 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 114-481-27 114-481-30 Donald G. West Marion Golfos 9082 Christine Drive 22161 Wood Island Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 114-481-07 114-481-10 Beverly Reason Tr Gerald Riley 22091 Susan Lane 22042 Hula Cicle Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 114-481-18 149-371-18 Kenneth Kimball James Brink 22071 Hula Circle 22321 Harwich Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 114-481-28 149-371-29 Elmore Loranger Harvey Rudy 9092 Christine Drive P. 0. Box 26134 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Santa Ana, CA 92799 i 114-481-08 149-024-01 Robert White John Acampora 22072 Hula Circle 21932 Kiowa Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 114-481-19 149-371-19 Franklin Goodenough Wilson Ying 9002 Christine Circle 22331 Harwich Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 114-481-29 144-481-01 Alireza Vaziri Shirley Posadas 66 Balboa Coves 22001 Susan Lane Newport Beach, CA 92663 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 114-481-09 149-024-02 Raymond Jones Richard Finley 22052 Hula Circle 21912 Kiowa Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 1 White Hole-1156D Page 11 149-371-20 Robert Belanger 22341 Harwich Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92646 114-481-02 114-481-05 Harry Howell Raymond Cole 1815 Toyon Lane 22062 Susan Lane Newport Beach, CA 92660 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 149-024-03 149-041-31 Charles Gant Odie Powell 21902 Kiowa Lane 9021 Rhodesia Drive Huntington Beach, CA 926486 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 149-371-21 149-012-01 William Malkin Alex Mirand 22351 Harwich Lane 21802 Kiowa Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 114-481-03 149-022-01 Charles Javer Guy Martin 22031 Susan Lane 21882 Kiowa Lane Newport Beach, CA 92660 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 149-371-12 149-041-32 Allen Gimenez Michael Herman 9341 Gateshead Drive 9001 Rhodesia Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 149-371-22 149-012-02 Ron Wiles Dolores Battenfield 22361 Harwich Lane 21782 Kiowa Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 114-481-04 149-022-02 Carol Cagle Occupant 21572 Oakbrook 21872 Kiowa Lane Mission Viejo, CA 92692 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 149-371-13 149-041-33 Frank Chenelia John Earley 9331 Gateshead 9002 Rhodesia Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 i White Hole-1156D Page 12 149-012-03 Donald Zaleski 21772 Kiowa Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92646 149-022-03 David Nelson 21862 Kiowa Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92646 149-041-34 Fred Grimes 202 21st Street #B Newport Beach, CA 92663 149-013-01 Kara Crosby 21771 Kiowa Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92646 149-023-01 Vernon Hupp 21841 Kiowa Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92646 149-041-35 John Montoya 9032 Rhodesia Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92646 MILLS LAND & WATER COMPANY SINCE 1901 July 6 , 1992 Mayor Jim Silva Huntington Beach City Council HAND DELIVERED City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 Re: Agreement and Acceptance of the California Coastal Commission Approval of Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 90-2 Proposed Resolution (No. 6395) Mayor Silva and City Council Members : We are informed that on Monday, July 6 , 1992 the Huntington Beach City Council will again consider the modifications approved by the California Coastal Commission in its conditional certification of implementing zoning for the Huntington Beach Local Coastal Plan ( "LCP" ) . The LCP covers approximately 232 acres along the inland side of Pacific Coast Highway between Beach Boulevard and the Santa Ana River , commonly known as the "White Hole" Area of Deferred Certification . As you have heard many times , Kills Land and Water Company is a small , family-owned firm that has owned property in the "White Hole" area for over 90 years . As you are also aware , Mills has an option granted by the California Legislature to buy back approximately 28 . 5 acres acquired by the State of California from Mills in 1965 for freeway purposes . To give effect to the Coastal Commission ' s approval and certi- fication of the City ' s proposed zoning ordinances , with modifi- cations , the City of Huntington Beach must formally agree to these modifications and take whatever formal action is required to meet the terms of the certification. As we understand it, the City Council will consider these :modifications in a proposed "Resolution to Acknowledge Receipt of the Coastal Commission Action and Accept and Agree to Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 90-2 (Zone Change No. 88-18) as Modified" (Resolution No. 6395) . The purpose of this letter is to express Mills ' concern and objection to the proposed Resolution. As you learned from representatives of the Mills owners at the City Council meeting (714) 841-7898 POST OFFICE BOX 7108 - HUNTINGTON BEACH • CALIFORNIA 92615 Mayor Jim Silva Huntington Beach City Council July 6 , 1992 Page two on June 15 , 1992 , Mills respectfully submits that the City should not adopt the Resolution to accept the Coastal Commission certifi- fication because the LCP as it stands is procedurally defective and violates the constitutionally-protected rights of private property owners such as Mills. If implemented, it will cost the City and State of California many millions of dollars to compensate private landowners for the loss of use of their property. Correspond- ingly, the City of Huntington Beach will be deprived of untold millions of tax dollars and other revenues which would otherwise be realized from the sensible utilization of these valuable land resources. Background Summary The family of owners of Mills Land & Water Company has waited for about 25 years while the City and other governmental agencies have condemned, studied, rezoned, redesignated, restudied, surveyed, and attempted to rezone again the Mills parcels now designated for "Conservation" uses in the City ' s Land Use Plan. During most of that period, and certainly for the last 15 years, Mills has been informed that no development application would be considered until street alignments, various studies, land-use designation, surveys, rezoning, and Coastal Commission approval were completed. From 1958 , when the State announced plans for the Pacific Coast Freeway, the City refused to consider any development of the Mills property in the path of, or adjacent to the proposed freeway. By final judgment of condemnation in 1965 , the State of California acquired approximately 28 . 5 acres of Mills ' frontage on Beach Boulevard and Pacific Coast Highway. For more than 27 years since the State acquired Mills ' highway frontage for the freeway, access to the remainder of Mills ' land has been substantially impaired. In 1975 , after 10 years of delay and indecision, the State formally dropped plans to build the freeway and declined to construct frontage roads to provide access to 'Mills ' landlocked property. Mills sued the State of California for compensation for the delay and permanent loss of access to its valuable coastal property. In 1978 , the California Legislature passed A. B. 2816 (Mangers) which authorized and directed the Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to sell back to Mills the land no longer needed for the freeway. The intent of the Legislature was to settle Mills ' multi-million dollar legal action and recoup taxpayer dollars from the sale of the land surplus -to the needs of the State. For over 14 years since the passage of this legislation, the City and State have failed to identify any economically-viable develop- ment of the surplus freeway parcels which would justify Mills' purchase of the land from the State. As such, there has been no Mayor Jim Silva Huntington Beach City Council July 6 , 1992 Page three settlement of Mills ' legal action; nor has it been possible for Caltrans to sell the highway frontage and restore the land to local property tax rolls. In July 1989 , seeing only further delays on the horizon, Mills sub- mitted an application for an upscale, light-industrial/office head- quarters project on 23+ acres of its undeveloped property. The project was designed to fully comply with the existing M1-A-0 zoning on the property. To date , the City ' s planning department has de- clined to process the application and the City has failed to act on Mills ' appeal of the staff decision in this matter. As pointed out in the appeal , and in appearances before the Hunting- ton Beach Planning Commission and City Council, Mills has been unable to ascertain any economic uses of the property acceptable to the City — or indeed even process an application for any development of the property — in spite of the fact that the City has permitted substantial development of properties all around the Mills land. Interestingly, all of these other properties have, like the Mills land, been similarly depicted as "wetlands. " Procedural and Legal Issues Over the years you have all become aware of the legal and technical concerns which have been repeatedly raised by Mills and other prop- erty owners throughout the lengthy LCP certification process. As you may appreciate, there is neither time nor space available here to detail all of these concerns which have been presented in approx- imately 14 years of these proceedings . To facilitate your reflection on the major concerns as you consider the proposed Resolution, we shall attempt to highlight the principal points in summary fashion as follows: 1 . The 1983 report prepared by the California Depart- ment of Fish & Game depicting the undeveloped Mills and adjacent Caltrans parcels as "wetlands" does not provide a credible or reliable basis for "Conser- vation" land use designation or zoning. The historic tidal marsh which once covered most of the Huntington Beach coastal area at this location was destroyed by the State of California some 50 years ago when the State acquired and improved Huntington State Beach, and cut off the ocean connection to the wetlands . In making its "wetlands" determination, Fish & Game failed to properly consider existing (instead of historical) vegetation, soil, and Mayor Jim Silva Huntington Beach City Council July 6 , 1992 Page four hydrological conditions. The Fish & Game report itself is based upon data which is more than 12 years old and has not been updated. The irreversible degrada- tion of the land, permanently severed from a regular water source, continues to this day. As pointed out many times before to the City and Coast- al Commission, Fish & Game has never addressed the feasibility of reviving what it depicts as "restorable wetlands" . This is required by Section 30108 of the Coastal Act which is very specific as to the standards which must be met in order to establish that wetlands may be " feasibly" restored. The conclusion of Fish & Game that a "wetlands" can be "easily" created on the Mills and adjoining Caltrans parcels simply by breaching the flood control channel not only fails to meet the statutory requirements of Section 30108 , but ignores completely that in the absence of outright acquisition of these parcels from Mills and Caltrans , the Orange County Flood Control District will not permit the use of its channel as an instrument to inundate the adjoin- ing lands. ' Further, given the presence of toxic and hazardous materials in storm drain runoff present in the channel, such a "restoration" proposal would be environmentally unsound. 2 . In crafting zoning to implement the "Conservation" land uses adopted by the City for the undeveloped land in the "White Hole" area, the City Council was advised that it might avoid liability to Mills and other private landowners for a regulatory taking based on "downzoning" if the existing zoning were left in place. In June 1990 , after several years of wrestling with the "taking" issue, the City Council adopted and submitted to the Coastal Commission an unusual "Conservation" zoning overlay ( "-CC suffix") to be appended to the existing zoning on parcels designated for "Conservation" uses in the City' s certified Land Use Plan. 1 This hybrid zoning, devised by the City and certified with modifications by the Coastal Commission, purports ' to permit development in accord with the underlying base zone. In reality, however, the zoning overlay serves to prohibit any economically viable use of the property so zoned. The permitted uses — insofar as they 1/ See, e.g. , letter dated May 24, 1982 from Carl R. Nelson, Orange County Public Works Director, to California Department of Fish & Game, a copy of which is attached in Exhibit A. 2/ Resolution No. 6160 passed by the City Council on June 18, 1990 adopting Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 90-1 (Zone Change No. 88-g8 for the "White Hole" Area) . Mayor Jim Silva Huntington Beach City Council July 6 , 1992 Page five have been described in the LCP proceedings are either physically or economically infeasible, or are in conflict with, and thus not permitted in the base zone. The allowable uses under the "Con- servation" designation which are not water dependent and realistically relate to the dry land subject to the "Conservation" land use and zoning overlay are extremely limited, and are focused on public benefit. These are local public parks and open space, nature restoration projects, nature study, and certain "in- cidental public service purposes" such as burying cables and pipes. ' 3 . As modified and certified by the Coastal Commission, the proposed "Conservation overlay" zone for some 7 acres designated for "Visitor-serving commercial" uses along Pacific Coast Highway is procedurally defective for several reasons. The proposed zoning overlay on these 7 acres is inconsistent with the "Visitor-serving commercial" designation in the City' s Land Use Plan which was previously certified by the Coastal Commission to be in conformance with the Coastal Act. The Commission was correct in certifying the 7 acres for "Visitor- serving commercial" uses without any restrictive conditions on development. This is because the Pacific Coast Highway frontage is acknowleged to have no "wetlands" or any other environmentally- sensitive attributes requiring protection from development. When viewed in this light, the proposed zoning overlay , as modified by the Coastal Commission for the 7 acres of highway frontage, also violates well-established land use and zoning procedures by attempting to use zoning to effectuate a change in the Land Use Plan. Moreover, the development of a 7-acre site along the heavily-traveled Pacific Coast Highway near the major intersection with Beach Boulevard could not, under any stretch of Coastal Act requirements, create the need for an open-space easement or similar dedication of some 27 acres offsite for "wetlands" protection. The apparent rationale for this proposal is to ensure that if Mills exercises its legislative option to purchase the Caltrans parcels, and attempts to develop 3/ Public Resources Code, Sec. 30233 (a) . Mayor Jim Silva Huntington Beach City Council July 6 , 1992 Page six the 7± acres designated for "Visitor-serving commercial" uses , it will be required to dedicate for public use some 20 acres of the property pur- chased from the State plus contiguous parcels of its own land. This extremely onerous condition is an undisguised attempt to thrust on Mills the staggering burden of "permanently protecting" and turning over for public use some 27 acres of land valued at many millions of dollars as a condition for making some limited use of 7± acres of highway frontage. If adopted by the City, this zoning overlay could not possibly pass the "nexus" test set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Nollan vs . California Coastal Commission . Nor could it meet the standards prescribed for exactions by California Government Code Section 66005 . Reasonable and far less onerous mitigation meas- ures are available in respect to development of the 7± acres designated for "Visitor-serving commercial" uses. The creation of sensible buffer zones and other forms of mitigation which may be ascertained with some certainty upon the submittal of a specific project, may be implemented to offset any real or perceived environmental impacts on the "wetlands" . The Proposed "Coastal Conservation" Zoning Overlay is Both Discriminatory and Constitutes a "Taking" of Private Property for which Compensation Must Be Paid. The unsubstantiated "restorable wetlands" proposal of Fish & Game, which serves as the rationale for the "Conservation" land use designation and proposed zoning overlay for the undeveloped parcels owned by Mills and others in the "White Hole" area of the City' s coastal sector, is in reality a subterfuge for main- taining open space at the expense of private land owners . In the most recent decision of the United States Supreme Court in Lucas vs. South Carolina Coastal Council, " . . . the fact that regulations that leave the owner of land without economically beneficial or productive options for its use — typically, as here, by requiring land to be left in substantially its natural state — carry with them a heightened risk that private property is being pressed into some form of public service under the guise of mitigating serious public harm: " Mayor Jim Silva Huntington Beach City Council July 6 , 1992 Page seven The dills families have paid their dues in the form of property taxes and other financial obligations in their ownership of this valuable coastal property for more than 90 years . In the process , they have acquired certain reasonable investment-backed expectations that some day they would be able to develop the Mills land. The impact of the "Conservation" land use and proposed zoning overlay now before the City Council is to effect a taking of private property within the context of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution which mandate payment of just compensation to the landowner. As stated by the Supreme Court in Lucas , " . . . when the owner of real property has been called upon to sacrifice all economically beneficial uses in the name of the common good, that is to leave his property economically idle, he has suffered a taking. " In addition, both the City and State will be liable to Mills for damages for an interim or "temporary" taking of the land. The actions of both the City and State have effectively barred Mills from any economic use of the land for the past 25 years. In First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale vs. County of Los Angeles, the U. S. Supreme Court held that temporary depriva- tions of use of land are compensable under the Takings Clause of the Constitution. The history of development of land in the vicinity and immediately adjacent to Mills ' property manifests blatant discrimination in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amend- ment. Succinctly, projects have been approved and development has taken place on major portions of properties which, like Mills' undeveloped land, were depicted as "wetlands" by Fish & Game. These developments include, among others , the J & K Nursery on 2+ acres fronting on Hamilton Avenue approximately 500 feet east of Newland Street, and the adjoining Carlsberg Business Park developed on 5. 4 acres of "wetlands" between Hamilton and the flood control channel. There is also the Oakwood Huntington Breakers Apartments project built on 9 . 8 acres of "wetlands" immediately to the north of the Mills and Caltrans parcels on Beach Boulevard. And, as you are all aware , the City of Huntington Beach approved the major $350+ million Waterfront Hotel complex on some 50 acres of its own property, a portion of which was also designated as "wetlands" by the Department of Fish & Game. A copy of the map showing these "Wetlands as Depicted by the Dept. of Fish & Game" and the location of the above-described projects is attached in Figure 1-A. Because of the near-identical physical and environmental character- istics of the Mills property and the adjacent parcels for which development has been allowed, we can discern no legitimate or rational basis for denying Mills the right .to undertake a similar development of its so-called "wetlands. " .. '� ►q �COvwci r , RECEIVED, CLERK w � MILLS LAND & WATER COMI, Y:`'a�F SINCE 1901 OCT October 19 , 1992 1 Mayor Jim Silva and HAND DELIVERED Huntington Beach City Council 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 Re: Reconsideration of Acceptance California Coastal Commission Approval of Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 90-2 Proposed Resolutions No. 6437-A, No. 6437-B Dear Mayor Silva and City Council Members: We have been belatedly notified that staff has placed on your agenda for tonight' s City Council meeting a request for your reconsideration of zoning proposed for the "White Hole" area of deferred certification for the Local Coastal Program. As you are well aware, the matter was presented to you for con- sideration and action at your meeting on July 6 , 1992 . At that time, you voted to reject the action taken by the Coastal Commis- sion in respect to the proposed zoning. The resolution prepared for your consideration at that time (No. 6395) was identical to Resolution No. 6437-A now before you. In the alternative, staff proposes for your consideration tonight Resolution No. 6437-B. This proposal would incorporate certain language suggested by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) , but contrary to the suggestion of Caltrans, it would not "lessen the chance of a challenge to the LCP based on constitu- tional grounds. " Significantly, your adoption of either of the proposed resolu- tions would set the stage for major litigation which Mills Land & Water Company would be forced to commence against the City of Huntington Beach to seek compensation for a taking of private property within the context of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. This aspect of the proposed "Coastal Conservation" zoning for the strategically-situated parcels owned by Mills and Caltrans was covered in some detail in our July 6 , 1992 letter to Mayor Silva and Council members. A copy of that letter is enclosed for your ready reference. (714) 841-7898 POST OFFICE BOX 7108 • HUNTINGTON BEACH • CALIFORNIA 92615 Mayor Jim Silva Huntington Beach City Council October 19 , 1992 Page two In its request for your reconsideration of this matter, staff states, "It is the opinion of the City' s legal counsel, Moore and Rutter, that [the] Resolution accepting the Coastal Commission' s action on the zone change will reduce the City' s exposure to further legal challenge. " To the extent that the City' s legal counsel have provided an opinion in respect to potential exposure to future legal challenge or liability, we would appreciate the opportunity to review it. Suffice it to say that the subject zoning has been inconsistent with the Land Use Plan approved for the "White Hole" area of the LCP for over six years. Thus far, we are unaware of any legal challenge directed at the City based solely on this inconsistency. A worst-case scenario would be that the City might have to respond to a petition for writ of mandate seeking to compel further pro- ceedings to bring zoning into conformity with the land-use designa- tions in the LUP. We perceive this to be a slight risk when compared to the City' s potential for liability in defending litigation on the basis of a "taking" of privately-owned land as a result of adopting the proposed "Conservation" zoning. We would once again urge you to reject the "Conservation" zoning proposal. Following that, Mills would seek your support for changes to the Land Use Plan which would make possible the reason- able and sensible development of valuable coastal properties owned by Mills and others in the vicinity of Pacific Coast Highway. As we've discussed before , this would provide many benefits for the City, would also provide a means to resolve the potential liability of the City to private landowners. The specifics of such a beneficial and positive approach to land use planning and . zoning for the City' s strategic coastal area are outlined at the conclusion of our July 6 , 1992 letter. If you have questions , or desire to discuss this, we would appre- ciate hearing from you. For Mills Land & Water Company, POBERT LONDON MOO JR. cc : Michael Uberuaga, City Administrator Gail Clifford Hutton, Huntington Beach City Attorney Michael Adams, Director Dept. of Community Development State of California Dept. of Transportation 1 STATE OF CAUFORNIA County of Orange I am a Citizen of the United States and a PUBLIC NOTICE resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the NOTICE OF MEETING RESOLUTION TO age of eighteen years, and not a party to or AGREE AND ACCEPT THE _ interested in the below entitled matter. I am a CALIFORNIA COMMISSION'S AL -,principal clerk of the HUN'nNGTON BEACH ACTION TO APPROVE LOCAL INDEPENDENT, a newspaper Of general COASTAL PROGRAM circulation, printed and published in the City of AMENDMENT(WHITE HOLE--ZZ ONNEE State of Huntington Sbach, County of Orange, CHANGE NO.88-18) WITH AMENDED CaGfomia, and that attached Notice is a true and LANGUAGE NOTICE IS HEREBY that complete copy as was printed and published in the Huntington Beach City Council will consider the the Huntington Beach and Fountain Valley lCoabove Council Resolutioncil Chamber in a the t the I Huntington Beach Civic issues of said newspaper to wit the issue(s) of: (Center 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, Califor. 'nia, on the date and at the time indicated below., DATE08289 ber 19,1992,7:00 PM APPLICATION NUMBER: Resolution to Agree and Accept the California October. 15 , 1992 Coastal Commission's Ac- tion to Approve Local Coastal Program Amend- ment No.90-2(White Hole- Zone Change No.88-18) APPLICANT: City of Hun- tington Beach. LOCATION: 232 acres on the inland side of PCH be- tween Beach Blvd. and the Santa Ana River Channel REQUEST: To agree and accept by Resolution the California Coastal Commis sion's's action to approve Local Coastal Program; Amendment No. 90-2 as' modified (White Hole area-i Zone change No. 88-18) with amended language. ON FILE: A copy of the proposed request is on file I declare, under penalty of perjury, that the in the City Clerk's Office, 200 Main Street, Hun- foregoing is true and correct. tington Beach, California 92648, for inspection by, the public. ALL INTERESTED PER October 1.5 2 SONS are invited to attend; Executed on r �99—L said hearing. Any com-' ments relative to the sp- at Costa M a, Califomia. videdi in should be pris vided in writing since this is a non-public hearing itern—Oral comments may -be 'presehpli under .(he• ".ublic:'.GkV_rments" -seg- SlgnatUre wj6t ot«"Me Council meet- ing. If there are any further questions please call Scott Hess,Senior Planer at 536- d S271. ( Connie Brockway, City Clerk, City of Hun- tington Beach Published Huntington Beach-Fountain Valley In- dependent October 15, PROOF OF PUBLICATION 19V 103-394I Office of the City Clerk •. 'A t I, City of Huntington Beach P.O.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648--:1""'F 0 ^•"'r' '^�. 1.. J � Z � c4� in � 1 w L•o" Ivy Dana-thins m Taiyo Investment z '— 19750 S. Vermont Ave. N145 x c Torrance, CA 90502 RETURN TO rl'�RETURN TO c SENDER �. SENDER FORWARD EXPIRED FORWARD EXPIRED Office of the City Clerk � City of Huntington Beach g P.O.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 j"s �,F l•�;,i J �i i r.•,' /'� Cal. Dept. of Fish 6 Game Region 5 i o 245 M. Broadway, Ste. 350 Long Beach, CA 90802 - Attn: Fred iioriny, 5r• =�•c� gr�7 �:nut,.I,lsr�urr�4lrn,�aat�,;zrrc�:x:x.::.'x:z. Office of the City Clerk i. t& City of Huntington Beach P.O.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648r., 12 CCi{� ,;(� --- C� x \148-021-25 Huntington Breakers -"n P'�0. Box 22636 m' Long Beac !CA 90801 m _ ,n Kj Ywii ' N '. n 1., PARDING 0110FR EXPIRE? ) e' ;rF �°p7 I�(lF.�,�111tr�IrI11,G�I�iP,F�1173�N x:�•x:.a:x:x:x.:z. I , Ulttce of the City Clerk City of Huntington Bcach P.O.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 � � � .. tt''I' (•' '�I '" 149-013-01 - Kara Crosby 21771 Kiowa Lane g Huntington Beach, CA 92646 CRUS771 gab%2004 1892 10/1S/92 CR[ISSY'KARA M(JVF_O I.fiFT NO AW)RFSS iz UNAOLE TO FORWARD RETURN TO SENDER Illfftllff,f,ll,tll,.Il..flltfflifttllttfftfllll,f,llt,fllfftl Office of the City Clerk I, City of Huntington Bcach P.O.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 Kent M. Pierce ,n HB/FV Board of Realtors 'r:!y�� '--'"' _•f 19900 Beach Dlvd., Ste 1 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 i S U Iirl„„I.I.II,..I�rllr�l„�Il�l�r,I,Ilrr,,,il,l�rll Office of the City Clerk i, City of Huntington Bcach ::.:...,• .T P.O.B0X 190 CALIFORNIA 926 .WIHJl~i }Miff f-IMF _f;?ry,�f 31J r _ -Robert Mc Ga rgar 21822 Kiowa Lane o Huntington Beach,'CA 92646 -. . V`3�y rc Office of the City Clerk I. l� City of Huntington Bcach • `�- P.O.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 imp+ti{i..N lif 311V' rj;V) � - N - r 114-481-03 ..�- o Charles Javer Ery, s Lane L 22031 Susan a _ r0 f0 ew Nport Beach, CA 92660 SfNOrq O N�'POR r�acH rKEfl Office of the City Clerk City of Huntington Beach - P.O.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648- ��rlTr_1"A'rM MF y'2Ffrki !]At 1144 Scowgpp ePtfp d ost`a'.11esa, 2626 �+ JQ_ � �S s n N ! 644 .i. i NOTICE OF MEETING RESOLUTION TO AGREE AND ACCEPT THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION' S ACTION TO APPROVE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. 90-2 (WHITE HOLE-ZONE CHANGE NO. 88-18) WITH AMENDED LANGUAGE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Huntington Beach City Council will consider the above Resolution in the Council Chamber at the Huntington Beach Civic Center, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California, on the date and at the time indicated below. DATE/TIME: Monday, October 19 , 1992, 7: 00 PM APPLICATION NUMBER: Resolution to Agree and Accept the California Coastal Commission' s Action to Approve Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 90-2 (White Hole-Zone Change No. 88-18) APPLICANT: City of Huntington Beach LOCATION: 232 acres on the inland side of PCH between Beach Blvd. and the Santa Ana River Channel REQUEST: To agree and accept by Resolution the California Coastal Commission' s action to approve Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 90-2 as modified (White Hole area - Zone Change No. 88-18) with amended language. ON FILE: A copy of the proposed request is on file in the City Clerk' s Office, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648, for inspection by the public. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing . Any comments relative to the application should be provided in writing since this is a non-public hearing item. Oral comments may be presented under the "Public Comments" segment of the Council meeting. If there are any further questions please call Scott Hess, Senior Planner at 536-5271 . Connie Brockway City Clerk (3553d) White Hole-1156D - --� Page 7 V �� U c , 114-150-11 I v i IV 9 - -- - ----- - - s� ti �--�---- - - i -._ '^ - -- - -�- --�fl�-- ��- ����'- - ----- - -- - - -- --- ---- - ------- --- -- - ---����----�.- -�GN -----_- -- - - ---- --- - - - - - - - �-- --- - ----�P��-��- --�l���_— -�1__l�'�; -G ----- ---- --- -----—--- T - ---- �-o----f-- --i -���=----1 z ------- ---- - ------- � � _ ._-'- -_3?--3�h� - `�� - -- --- -- -- - - - _- -- - - - --- -. �� ----------------�_�'V_I-t1k---r-C/� - �-271� - - ---- ---- - -- -- - -- - - J�1�I� -------- - -- -- - -- ZZC>� �'�a C r.. - - - -- {�-- --- - -- � � � d Hok i:�r, a4- J e. share :fie Ol Mayor Jim Silva Huntington Beach City Council July 6 , 1992 Page eight As Modified and Applied by the Coastal Commission to 7± Acres of Pacific Coast Hiahwav Frontage Previously Certified for "Visitor-serving Commercial" Land Uses , the "Conservation" Zoning Overlay is Arbitrary and Discriminatorv. As noted by Caltrans and Mills , the proposed overlay devised by the staff of the Coastal Commission for the 7± acres previously certified for "Visitor-serving commercial" uses is not only pro- cedurally incorrect, but it is also arbitrary and discriminatory. The effect of the proposed overlay is to treat potential pur- chasers of the State ' s excess parcels unequally. The parcel- specific designations in the overlay make it crystal clear that it is directed at Mills . If the proposed zoning overlay should be implemented as to the 7± acres designated for "Visitor-serving commercial" uses, and if Mills were to exercise its option to purchase the highway frontage , as a condition for development approvals on the 7± acres, Mills would be required to dedicate not only the vacant land depicted as "wetlands" on the State ' s property, but also to dedi- cate contiguous parcels owned by Mills . If the sale of the State ' s excess parcels were to an entity other than Mills, the proposed zoning overlay would only require dedication of land within the area of the State ' s property depicted as "wetlands" as a condition for such development approvals. In short, the proposal constitutes an undisguised attempt at discriminatory spot-zoning. As such, the proposed overlay for the "Visitor-serving commercial" highway frontage is extremely ill-advised and should not be adopted. The City Council Should Not Adopt the Resolution Accepting and Approving the Proposed "Conservation" Overlay Zoning for the Mills and Caltrans Parcels. The implementation zoning submitted by the City for the Mills and Caltrans parcels , and conditionally certified by the Coastal Commission with modifications, is procedurally defective and vulnerable to legal challenge. if accepted and adopted by the City Council, the zoning would also be detrimental to the best interests of the citizens and taxpayers of the City of Huntington Beach and the State of California. The basis for the "Conservation" land use designation and proposed zoning now before you is a cursory and unfounded "wet- lands" determination made by the Department of Fish & Game more than 12 years ago. Fish & Games ' proposal for "restoration" of these so-called "wetlands" fails to meet statutory requirements Mayor Jim Silva Huntington Beach City Council July 6 , 1992 Page nine of the Coastal Act. Nor does it take into account the basic fact that no one — not even the government — is prepared to step forward and purchase the property from the private landowners and Caltrans, and then spend upwards of $50- to $100 million or more to attempt to re-create the ecology that existed there some 50 years ago. Caltrans has made it clear that it is not prepared to dedicate , "permanently preserve" or "restore" its excess parcels depicted as "wetlands" . From a legal standpoint, imposition of the "Conservation" designa- tion in the Land Use Plan together with application of the proposed zoning overlay (the "-CC suffix") to the Mills and Caltrans parcels constitute arbitrary and caaricious acts . These actions are invalid because they are based on the unfounded theoretical notions that (a) the subject parcels are "wetlands" , albeit "degraded" ; (b) that they can be " feasibly restored" as "wetlands" despite the lack of a water source to do so; and (c) that someone will buy this land and attempt such a restoration. None of these assumptions has been supported by reliable evidence in the 14+ year history of the LCP proceedings before the City or the Coastal Commission. If you should vote to adopt the proposed Resolution and implement the "Conservation" zoning overlay on the Mills and Caltrans parcels, your action will produce far-reaching and undesirable consequences for the City and State. Among these will be: ( 1) Both the City of Huntington Beach and the State of California will incur substantial liability to private landowners such as Mills for the deprivation of all economically-viable use of their property. (2) The City of Huntington Beach and other local govern- ment entities will be deprived of countless millions of dollars in tax and other municipal revenues which may have otherwise been gained through a reasonable development and use of the property. (3) The guarantee of further degradation of environmental values which may have existed on these parcels in the past. For the reasons stated, we submit that the proposed "Conservation" zoning overlay for the Mills and Caltrans parcels should be reject- ed. At a time when the City is facing a major funding crisis, prospects for an array of fee hikes, and possible public service Mayor Jim Silva Huntington Beach City Council July 6 , 1992 Page ten cutbacks, it is difficult to contemplate that the City would simply write off prospects for the substantial revenues and other benefits to be derived from a sensible and economic use of the Mills and Caltrans land resources which are at the very heart of the City ' s visitor-serving commercial window on the beach. If the City Council decides to reject the "Conservation" zoning overlay, Mills would urge that the following actions be taken: 1 . Initiate and complete , within six months , an objec- tive, scientific study of the "White Hole" area to determine the feasibility of re-creating in any part of the area, a truly viable and functioning wetlands , applying the criteria for " feasibility" set forth in Public Resources Code Section 30108 . 2 . If the study concludes that re-creation of a viable and functioning wetlands is " feasible" , taking into account all of the statutory criteria in Section 30108 , and if it is determined that these wetlands are essential for the health and welfare of the City and State , initiate formal condemnation proceedings to acquire the land and appropriate funding for the cost of land acquistion and the estimated cost of accomplishing a successful re-creation of the historic tidal wetlands within a reasonable time. 3 . If the study concludes that re-creation of a viable and functioning wetlands is not feasible within the context of Section 30108 , initiate amendments to the Land Use Plan and zoning to permit the reasonable and sensible development of these valuable coastal properties . For Mills Land & Water Company, / ROBERT LONDON MOO JR. cc: Michael Uberuaga, City Administrator Gail Clifford Hutton, Huntington Beach City Attorney Michael Adams, Director Dept. of Community Development State of California Dept. of Transportation t COMM... !il l I lit •.i i ..,�r •� I I ill RESIDENTIALLu —.:-:.�; li��l� �;� -• I�� ►•+��. , ;".� c AEV0ENTGL :. I ,KI � �. .�-Z' "TS. ram- �'� illy-ll •' i •i^ �•.. LT-w h..Y FUEL ST�O. ;q Asa 'a ARREN _•__ _� vx • = — C I L'. ''•- OIL SUMP - �'•. INOI.STIiIAL:r. R C TA R . mr- U 0 IN, L;c pi "=•=c` Ile �. FUEL STCRAGE ' Ic 'O s • �� G �`J _ I PCY1 E R PL.:•N f L=GcN0 \ •; — , • C'JASTaL SAL,' MARSH �C� /ems;� - •-_ / _ BEACH COASTAL SALT FLAT 4.. =`_=-T=� ••• •` Ih QFRESH/BRACKISH WATER MARSH �„� e� :: _sue —• •• RIPARIAN AREA >>,esaa STANDING WATER AND FLOOD CONTROL DIKES RESTORABLE AREAS WHICH HAVE BEEN FILLED AND/OR CLEARED IS-se Att:cmcwnyono Teal I Coastal Zone Boundary WZTI-ANI?S AS 'Or.?'C:I:O BY :'S?' 7=?:'. . OF F_SH AND GAM= Figure 1—A 0 J + K Mc12sEitY CAXLGatMC) ,2USiNC-GS PP�RIC OAKMOOD )-fvWrAJ67-0N �3�EAKERS ��� s C 1 Try O r= H c//U; N GTON •36RC H CAI.'rAAMS ""SCE* �f AC#e&S tea.^ua:-v 1980 MURRAY STORM U NTY C1 F olneeToR. lMA C.a.NI LSON OIRICTOR of ►v91.IC woRas 2 LOCATION Me CIVIC CiNTt• ORIve wliT > > RAN 0 F. IANTA ANA CALIrORNIA ADD ENVIIIONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY nAILIi 0 sea dads 61 /UallC WORKSSANTA ANA,CA 92702 40" TILIr"ON! 17141$34 2300 FILE D01.70 Mf 3 4 ! ltr. Don Schultz, Aiarine Biologist MA California Department of Fish and Game Y 2S IVC2 Coastal Planning Section (&A 1410 9th Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Dear Mr. Schultz : The South Coast District Office of the California Coastal Cmaission has advised this office that special conditions, specifically, opening the flapgate to allow tidal flow onto adjacent property, to be included in Permit 5-81-404 are based upon California Department of Fish and Came recommendations. This is to request special consideration of the matter. Permit No. 5-81-404 is a retroactive aprlication of permit procedures to a mainte- nance activity performed upon a deteriorated flapgated storm drainage entry to the Huntington Beach flood control channel on August 24 and 25 , 1981 by the Orange County Flood Control District . It was in early August of 1981 that Flood Control District staff an routine mainte- nance inspection discovered that the drainage entry pipe installed during the origi- nal channel construction in 1961 had deteriorated to the point of allo►zng seawater to leak out of the flood control channel onto the adjacent property of the Mills Land and hater Company. This leakage, in effect, was a detriment to the private property rights of the Mills Land and later Cagwy in that prior to the construc- tion of the flood control channel the Mills Land and Water C r4ny was not subject to inundation by seawater. The Orange County Flood Control District acquired fee title to its property from Mills Land and water Censpany by the process of eondeaution for the specific pur- pose to excavate and construct a flood control channel. The purpose of the flood control channel , as outlined in the engineers report of 19SS and funded Solder a bond issue approved by the voters of Orange County, California in June of 1956, was to provide for the drainage of surface and stormwaters from the inland portions of the Talbert valley to the ocean. Excavation of the channel allowed the ebb and flow of tidewaters within the namnade floodway. The purpose of the wtal drainage pipe and flapgate installation was to allow gravity drainage of adjacent property during the low portion of the tidal cycle and to preclude the escape of seawater onto the adjacent property during the high tidal cycle. The levee qn bt pe •imeter EXHIBIT A Mr. Don Schultz , Brine Biologist Page 2 of the flood channel has the pvTpose of preventing the accumulated surface waters from escaping and flooding the low lying lands adjacent the flood.channel route to the ocean. Until the deterioration was discovered and repaired in the summer of 1981 , the flapgated storm drainage entries have properly functioned for more than 20 years in accordance with the plans and specifications adopted by the Board of Supervisors of the Orange County Flood Control District in 1961 . The County's repair work sim- ply restored the pipe and flapgate drainage entry to its designed condition. Should a condition of the permit be adopted to require opening the flapgate, the impact would be a violation of the property rights agreement affected by the grant deed frcr stills Land and Eater Company to the Orange County Flood Control District, re- ccrded in Boot. 5790, page 18 of Official Records on July 26 , 1961 . The practical effe:t of an%- proposal to open the flargate would be the damaging of the Mills Land anJ Hater Company land which could lead to a claim of inverse condemnation. in vie%. of the fact the Flood Control District ham m intent of taking the Mills .Land and eater Company property, and no funding appropriated for the purpose of dc- fcnJ' ng a claim of inverse condemration, this is to advise that any condition stipu- lating opening the gate would lead to a cross complaint by the Orange County Flood Cc-:trol District against the California Coastal Commission and otheT eontr:'+uting acc-._ics should Malls Lane' and hater Company file against the County. To avoid unnecessary litigation and tests to the affected public agencies, it is respectfully recommended your department find that the permit covers the repair of a deteriorated flood protection facility and that the repair restored the faci:it% to :ts originally constructed design; and recormend the permit be issued without further conditions . Respectfully submitted, Nelson' Director of Public Works FDK:das cc: %talifornia Coastal Commission, South Coast District Office 44 Mills Land and Dater Company �'{ Mr. James M. Palin, City of Huntington Beach S—%I— 4401-{ Mr. Frank Gray, Fish and Game Mr. Harold Novi ek, Fish and Gwme J Mr. Fred Worthley, Fish and Game W. Charlie Sevier, County Counsel t 1 • Office of the City Clerk City of Huntington Beach P.O.BOX 190 CALIFOR NIA 926481 Charles Priddy 2971 8rookstone Way Sacramento, CA 92833 149-022-02 Office of the City Clerk - �• I' City of Huntington Beach A LT\P.O.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 - - - - _ e° L' 21 c `q_J t 114-495-05 Denise Lynch 9232'Christine Drive Hunting o°c 1�1/3. RETURN Ttl SENDER t3R ARD 13Melt Nil UNABLE Tn NAR FILE D RETURN T13- SENDER iiitil'illlliiiltii11N1Uii/Iliil/fitly{H�iUitll i if l sill l li RECEIVED CITY CLERK CITY Of HUNTINCTGN uEACH,CALIF. CC, 19 I is PIS '92 October 19 , 1992 Mayor Silva and Huntington Beach City Council Members For the protection of our city' s beautiful Wetlands, we urge you to pass the resolution approved by the Coastal Commission regarding the rezoning of the White Hole area. Continuation of this back and forth debate will only lead to city council ' s time and taxpayer' s money for changes in the plans . As a resident of Huntington Beach, I am opposed to any development on this land. Huntington Beach is one of the most unique cities in the country with it ' s beautiful undeveloped wetlands . Let' s keep it that way. Sincerely, Ilia,( Y - �� Aa U0 r 0-f- I RECEIVEL CITY CLERK CITY OF NUNTINGTry r,-t., CALIF. OCT 19 ( 16 Pig '92 October 19 , 1992 Mayor Silva and Huntington Beach City Council Members For the protection of our city' s beautiful Wetlands, we urge you to pass the resolution approved by the Coastal Commission regarding the rezoning of the White Hole area. Continuation of this back and forth debate will only lead to city council ' s time and taxpayer' s money for changes in the plans . As a resident of Huntington Beach, I am opposed to any development on this land. Huntington Beach is one of the most unique cities in the country with it' s beautiful undeveloped wetlands . Let ' s keep it that way. Sincerely, D� Z. ` kk-u•�-C� RECEIVED CITY CLERK CITY OF HUNTING'i;1a -ACH,CALIF. OCT 19 1 16 PM '92 October 19, 1992 Mayor Silva and Huntington Beach City Council Members For the protection of our city' s beautiful Wetlands, we urge you to pass the resolution approved by the Coastal Commission regarding the rezoning of the White Hole area. Continuation of this back and forth debate will only lead to city council ' s time and taxpayer' s money for changes in the plans . As a resident of Huntington Beach, I am opposed to any development on this land. Huntington Beach is one of the most unique cities in the country with it ' s beautiful undeveloped wetlands . Let ' s keep it that way. Sincerely, i C� g2ULAI RECEIVED CITY CLERK CITY OF HUNTINGT%a 4rh, CALIF. OCT f 9 i 16 PI! '92 October 19, 1992 Mayor Silva and Huntington Beach City Council Members For the protection of our city' s beautiful Wetlands, we urge you to pass the resolution approved by the Coastal Commission regarding the rezoning of the White Hole area. Continuation of this back and forth debate will only lead to city council ' s time and taxpayer' s money for changes in the plans . As a resident of Huntington Beach, I am opposed to any development on this land. Huntington Beach is one of the most unique cities in the country with it ' s beautiful undeveloped wetlands . Let ' s keep it that way. Sincerely, � \ I �X�• L-1 J\e� ICJ ► ` cij,I r -) , , RECEIVED CITY CLERK CITY OF HUNTING-Ch o-ACH.CALIF. OCT f 9 f 16 P '92 October 19, 1992 Mayor Silva and Huntington Beach City Council Members For the protection of our city' s beautiful Wetlands, we urge you to pass the resolution approved by the Coastal Commission regarding the rezoning of the White Hole area. Continuation of this back and forth debate will only lead to city council ' s time and taxpayer' s money for changes in the plans . As a resident of Huntington Beach, I am opposed to any development on this land. Huntington Beach is one of the most unique cities in the country with it ' s beautiful undeveloped wetlands . Let ' s keep it that way. Sincerely, L q3 �o oZ C�A. f4j v o d 2_ ti� • r�, . C-A- 9 zt, h-� RECEIVED CITY CLERK CITY OF HUNTIN,,i r•N CALIF. OCT [9 ! 16 Pill 29Z October 19, 1992 Mayor Silva and Huntington Beach City Council Members For the protection of our city' s beautiful Wetlands, we urge you to pass the resolution approved by the Coastal Commission regarding the rezoning of the White Hole area. Continuation of this back and forth debate will only lead to city council ' s time and taxpayer' s money for changes in the plans . As a resident of Huntington Beach, I am opposed to any development on this land. Huntington Beach is one of the most unique cities in the country with it ' s beautiful undeveloped wetlands . Let ' s keep it that way. Sincerely, I 3 0 ��410E �T> - 20 3 RECEIVED CITY CLERK( CITY OF HUNTING CALIF. LT it October 19, 1992 Mayor Silva and Huntington Beach City Council Members For the protection of our city' s beautiful Wetlands, we urge you to pass the resolution approved by the Coastal Commission regarding the rezoning of the White Hole area. Continuation of this back and forth debate will only lead to city council ' s time and taxpayer' s money for changes in the plans . As a resident of Huntington Beach, I am opposed to any development on this land. Huntington Beach is one of the most unique cities in the country with it ' s beautiful undeveloped wetlands . Let ' s keep it that way. Sincerely, ko.4d4ll 3e0 tAKc ST- -HUV111 j°^ cl , RECEIVED CITY CLERK CITY OF i. c'C};,CALIF. IAIJ) t4iG`:'. aCi 1 16 October 19, 1992 Mayor Silva and Huntington Beach City Council Members For the protection of our city' s beautiful Wetlands, we urge you to pass the resolution approved by the Coastal Commission regarding the rezoning of the White Hole area. Continuation of this back and forth debate will only lead to city council ' s time and taxpayer' s money for changes in the plans . As a resident of Huntington Beach, I am opposed to any development on this land. Huntington Beach is one of the most unique cities in the country with it ' s beautiful undeveloped wetlands . Let ' s keep it that way. Sincerely, r i RECEIVED CITY CLERK ztTY OF HUNTINGit,14 :+CPs,CALIF. October 19, 1992 Mayor Silva and Huntington Beach City Council Members For the protection of our city' s beautiful Wetlands, we urge you to pass the resolution approved by the Coastal Commission regarding the rezoning of the White Hole area. Continuation of this back and forth debate will only lead to city council ' s time and taxpayer' s money for changes in the plans . As a resident of Huntington Beach, I am opposed to any development on this land. Huntington Beach is one of the most unique cities in the country with it ' s beautiful undeveloped wetlands . Let ' s keep it that way. Sincerely, CA 9 Z RECENEO CITY CLERK CITY OF HUNTING-1 October 19, 1992 Mayor Silva and Huntington Beach City Council Members For the protection of our city' s beautiful Wetlands, we urge you to pass the resolution approved by the Coastal Commission regarding the rezoning of the White Hole area. Continuation of this back and forth debate will only lead to city council ' s time and taxpayer' s money for changes in the plans . As a resident of Huntington Beach, I am opposed to any development on this land. Huntington Beach is one of the most unique cities in the country with it 's beautiful undeveloped wetlands . Let ' s keep it that way. Sincerely, � �, �ECEIVEO CITY CLERK CITY OF E'n A`ti'C ALif. NUN T 1NGTON OCT 19 i is PM '9Z October 19, 1992 Mayor Silva and Huntington Beach City Council Members For the protection of our city' s beautiful Wetlands, we urge you to pass the resolution approved by the Coastal Commission regarding the rezoning of the White Hole area. Continuation of this back and forth debate will only lead to city council ' s time and taxpayer' s money for changes in the plans . As a resident of Huntington Beach, I am opposed to any development on this land. Huntington Beach is one of the most unique cities in the country with it ' s beautiful undeveloped wetlands . Let's keep it that way. Sincerely, 1 / j � c I Y/PDVO tv, 7 . � � �5 �V&OF"Iqrn 64 V M7 ) /V G 7-a N 3g4o, G/9 �2� y RECE�VEO VTY CLERK CITY OF HLINVICTOh ckCH LALIF. OCT is October 19, 1992 Mayor Silva and Huntington Beach City Council Members For the protection of our city' s beautiful Wetlands, we urge you to pass the resolution approved by the Coastal Commission regarding the rezoning of the White Hole area. Continuation of this back and forth debate will only lead to city council ' s time and taxpayer' s money for changes in the plans . As a resident of Huntington Beach, I am opposed to any development on this land. Huntington Beach is one of the most unique cities in the country with it ' s beautiful undeveloped wetlands . Let ' s keep it that way. Sincerely, Marlene McGrath 20422 Harbor Isle Lane Huntington Beach, California i r LJ CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH V.-kit 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CONNIE BROCKWAY CITY CLERK October 21 , 1992 Gary Gumbert 22011 Hula Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92646 The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach held October 19, 1992 deferred action on Resolution No. 6437 pertaining to Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 90-2 (Zone Change No. 88-18) . If you have any questions regarding this matter please call our office at 536-5227. Connie Brockway, CMC City Clerk 2638k (Telephone:714-536-5227) CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CONNIE BROCKWAY CITY CLERK October 21 , 1992 Marlene McGrath 20422 Harbor Isle Lane Huntington Beach, CA The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach held October 19, 1992 deferred action on Resolution No. 6437 pertaining to Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 90-2 (Zone Change No. 88-18) . If you have any questions regarding this matter please call our office at 536-5227. Connie Brockway, CMC City Clerk 2638k (Telephone:714-536-5227) CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CONNIE BROCKWAY CITY CLERK October 21 , 1992 Raymond W. Pingle, D.D.S. 8421 Sunbeam Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92646 The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach held October 19, 1992 deferred action on Resolution No. 6437 pertaining to Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 90-2 (Zone Change No. 88-18) . If you have any questions regarding this matter please call our office at 536-5227. Connie Brockway, CMC City Clerk 2638k (Telephone: 714-536-5227) I FOB CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CONNIE BROCKWAY CITY CLERK October 21 , 1992 Jana Cescolini 8421 Sunbeam Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92646 The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach held October 19, 1992 deferred action on Resolution No. 6437 pertaining to Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 90-2 (Zone Change No. 88-18) . If you have any questions regarding this matter please call our office at 536-5227. Connie Brockway, CMC City Clerk 2638k (Telephone: 714-536-5227) i CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CONNIE BROCKWAY CITY CLERK October 21 , 1992 Andrea Viggers 716 14th Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach held October 19, 1992 deferred action on Resolution No. 6437 pertaining to Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 90-2 (Zone Change No. 88-18) . If you have any questions regarding this matter please call our office at 536-5227. Connie Brockway, CMC City Clerk 2638k (Telephone:714.536-5227) CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CONNIE BROCKWAY CITY CLERK October 21 , 1992 Debra T. Johnson 19132 Stingray Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92646 The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach held October 19, 1992 deferred action on Resolution No. 6437 pertaining to Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 90-2 (Zone Change No. 88-18) . If you have any questions regarding this matter please call our office at 536-5227. Connie Brockway, CMC City Clerk 2638k (Telephone: 714-536-5227) CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CONNIE BROCKWAY CITY CLERK October 21 , 1992 Randall G. Oka 310 Lake Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach held October 19, 1992 deferred action on Resolution No. 6437 pertaining to Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 90-2 (Zone Change No. 88-18) . If you have any questions regarding this matter please call our office at 536-5227. Connie Brockway, CMC City Clerk 2638k (Telephone: 714-536.5227) CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH � f 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CONNIE BROCKWAY CITY CLERK October 21 , 1992 Kim Anderson 310 Lake Street #203 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach held October 19, 1992 deferred action on Resolution No. 6437 pertaining to Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 90-2 (Zone Change No. 88-18) . If you have any questions regarding this matter please call our office at 536-5227. Connie Brockway, CMC City Clerk 2638k (Telephone: 714-536-5227) t , CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH LOLI) 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CONNIE BROCKWAY CITY CLERK October 21 , 1992 Irene Licher 9362 Clifford Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92646 The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach held October 19, 1992 deferred action on Resolution No. 6437 pertaining to Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 90-2 (Zone Change No. 88-18) . If you have any questions regarding this matter please call our office at 536-5227. Connie Brockway, CMC City Clerk 2638k (Telephone:714-536-5227) LA1 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH LIV 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CONNIE BROCKWAY CITY CLERK October 21 , 1992 William Licher 9362 Clifford Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92646 The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach held October 19, 1992 deferred action on Resolution No. 6437 pertaining to Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 90-2 (Zone Change No. 88-18) . If you have any questions regarding this matter please call our office at 536-5227. Connie Brockway, CMC City Clerk 2638k (Telephone:714-536-5227) Fj CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CONNIE BROCKWAY CITY CLERK October 21 , 1992 Judy Perry 10132 Hoiburn Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92646 The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach held October 19, 1992 deferred action on Resolution No. 6437 pertaining to Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 90-2 (Zone Change No. 88-18) . If you have any questions regarding this matter please call our office at 536-5227. Connie Brockway, CMC City Clerk 2638k (Telephone:714.536-5227) _ I LAIDCITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH V 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CONNIE BROCKWAY CITY CLERK October 21 , 1992 Ann Grinnill 6133 Wintergreen Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92647 The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach held October 19, 1992 deferred action on Resolution No. 6437 pertaining to Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 90-2 (Zone Change No. 88-18). If you have any questions regarding this matter please call our office at 536-5227. Connie Brockway, CMC City Clerk 2638k (Telephone:714.536-5227) CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CONNIE BROCKWAY CITY CLERK October 21 , 1992 Gary Gumbert 22011 Hula Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92646 The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach held October 19, 1992 deferred action on Resolution No. 6437 pertaining to Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 90-2 (Zone Change No. 88-18) . If you have any questions regarding this matter please call our office at 536-5227. Connie Brockway, CMC City Clerk 2638k 1 Telephone:714-536-5227) Office of the City Clerk ,A!ni& City of Huntington Beach i Otj %0410-40-.01% rP.O.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648,.,5 148-027-351- ry Scott Ho4 a:er/Ca6e! Ti jerima 8131 RidgA�eld % ACO Huntington BeAk,,CA-92646 H13OP131 92bq-r 1015 1NE R:--TIJRN"TO SEN DC NO FfMiki','144RD ORDER Ot-Ji�FILE UNABLE T13 FORAIA-RD RETLIK'N TO SENDER 1114131111 goo 1111111 11164illows 1141411116 1111111111 fill 1111 off Office of the City Clerk City of Huntington Beach A CALIFORNIA 92648ir, P.O.BOX 190 OC 1 15 Don Troy 5272 Allstone Drive Huntington Beach, Ck.:�. — TROY 272 qFI.7Ljq'Cj=7 ]J..1 IL) ]..17/9:3 RETURN TO SENDER NO FORWARD ORDER ON FILE UNABLE TO FORWARD RETURN TO SENDER Office of the City Clerk ' �. City of Huntington Beach I rj."/ .4`5 P.O.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 Na ORDER l l4 150'50%62 d4D�ED' Cal i k Publ i c�Works T ADDRESS ''`` � � SN$D'F1Ct UP�,�,i;0`=�1r 21643 P46 f,i c.Coast Hwy. l U rrE.M PIED. ^> - Hun tington'9each', CA 92648 p O m rn �St ,�• n-n�o w Gr) - Ilri,r„Irl,►l,rr►rrli„i,rrrlll