The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutFile 2 of 2 - White Hole Area - Code Amendment 93-8 - Zone C Connie Brockway,City Clerk City of Huntington Beach " - � w,....K^ . •,"��' UAI Office of the City Clerk ' ` "r� �� ='us. IV 0 1 1 .r..es �.E� �.i P.O.Box 190 nn MAR 6 96 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 5 -�� o�Q ��pHTINGTpy� g'` �, W 11 PON�lfC alters,' . }Liam C. Q =�C0 A � �f6llSuxveyorCir. Huntington Beach,CA 92646 . Q Q y �FQ ISOp ppUNTY �P LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING �T�'i:f'U.S.�5 1�v• Cjty C18rk p y d � �' �> _' ?t M e c e"' o • Connie Brockway. Beach Co ton Bea �► (1 z.. of Hunting ,a.i t,4 ^' � !S A f CAI.0. C►tY clerk +� b 9A f Office of the City P.O.Box i90 / Huntington Beach,CA 92 (� y ;� 027 - 54 1�4 WEBE Jp, K�49R ox 41 hI cA 92615 f.: ton Beac LING t0 E` ►;, ; (J r3� ,to Q i 9 o PUBLIC HEARING r �ouNTv cP� LEGAL NGTICE- • � j r (9) • 3/18/96 - Council/Agency Agenda - Page 9 D-5a. (City Council),Public Hearing - Local Coastal Program No. 2-94 -Zone Change Me.. 8,8=18.- Code;Amen.dment -8 -Whiteh-Gle.Area - Introducton°of Ordinance..No. 3325/.0rdinance No. 3326 - (232 Acres Located along the inland side of''PCH between Beach Blvd. & Santa Ana_ River) (450.20) Communication from the Director of Community Development. Public hearing to consider: Applicant: City of Huntington Beach Request: To rezone various parcels to a CC (Coastal Conservation) base zone, and to amend Article 969.7 of the Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program and Zoning Code, to be consistent with Coastal Commission's suggested modifications to Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 2-94. Location: Inland side of Pacific Coast Highway between Beach Boulevard and the Santa Ana River (Whitehole Area) LCP Amendment No. 2-94 is located in the Coastal Zone and will be consistent with the California Coastal Commission's action on 11/16/95 relative to LCP Amendment No. 2-94. Environmental Categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15265 of the Status: California Environmental Quality Act. Recommended Action: 1. Approve Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 2-94 (Zone Change No. 88-8, Code Amendment No. 93-8) incorporating the suggested modifications recommended by the California Coastal Commission based upon the findings outlined in Attachment No. 1 by approving introduction of Ordinance No. 3325, after reading by title, (Attachment No. 3) - "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH ZONING AND SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE BY AMENDING THE ZONING MAP PURSUANT TO SECTION 201.04B TO PROVIDE FOR A CHANGE OF ZONING WITHIN VARIOUS DISTRICTS WITHIN THE 'WHITEHOLE' AREA OF THE COASTAL ZONE." [APPROVED INTRODUCTION 7-0 ] AND, 2. Approve introduction, after reading by title, Ordinance No. 3326 - "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH ORDINANCE CODE BY AMENDING ARTICLE 969.7 THEREOF TO CONFORM LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. 2-94 TO MODIFICATIONS MADE BY THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION." (Attachment No. 7) (9) NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Monday,'March_18, 1996, at 6:30 PM in the City Council Chambers, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach,the City Council will hold a public hearing on the following planning and zoning item: �1. LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. 2-94 (WHITE HOLE): Applicant: City of Huntington Beach Request: to rezone various parcels to a CC (Coastal Conservation) base zone, and to amend Article 969.7 of the Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program and Zoning Code,to be consistent with Coastal Commission's suggested modifications to Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 2-94. Location: Inland side of Pacific Coast Highway between Beach Boulevard and the Santa Ana River OVhite Hole area-see attached map) Project Planner: Scott Hess NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Item(s) 91 is categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15265 of the California Environmental Quality Act. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Items) #1 is located in the Coastal Zone and will be consistent with the California Coastal Commission's action on November 16, 1995 relative to Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 2-94. 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. A copy of the staff report will be available to interested parties at the City Clerk's Office after March 15, 1996. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. 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 the Planning Division at 536-5271 and refer to the above item. Direct your written communications to the City Clerk. Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street, 2nd Floor Huntington Beach, California 92648 (714) 536-5227 (cc1e103 IS) z ��,`��'i��•4♦1� is`O�'•�,!;. ,alut,� VW 7"N .�e��•i�►�� • '•.�i1•i♦•tip � O • i�� ,p is. L ,��;��`,�1� ,s�� •�♦ice•�♦ice♦ii`i.�� •� � � •. ��I,�� •j�♦♦'jam .• s 1 4 CCUTCHENI MCCUTCHEN,DOYLE,BROWN&ENERSEN,LLP I �BttAZt A44 MAR 181996 � d� CITE' OF HUNTIN.GTON 6)%-AL; i CITY COL04ChL OFFICE March 14, 1996 mrivera@mdbe.com FEDERAL EXPRESS The Hon. Dave Sullivan, Mayor City Councilmembers City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Z March 18 Agenda Item 1 ' =' City of Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 2-94 r`J Dear Mayor Sullivan and City Council members,: r This firm represents the Mills Land &Water Company, a small, family-owner' Y company which owns property in the Area of Deferred Certification in Huntington Beach. This letter is submitted for your review and consideration in connection with the proposed Zoning Code Amendment designated 2-94. We note that our November 13 letter submitted to the Coastal Commission is included in your packet, and therefore we will not here repeat the points made in that letter. However, we do wish to incorporate that letter by reference in its entirety in order to ensure its inclusion into the record of this proceeding. Specifically, we would ask you to review our discussion of the points made in that letter as follows: • Absence of Justification for the "Coastal Conservation Designation and Zoning (See, pp. 2- 3 of November 13 letter) • Mills Comments on Section 969.7.0 Purpose (See, p. 3 of November 13 letter) • Mills Comments on Sections 969.7.1.1 Designation of Project Area and Section 969.7.6(A)(1) Performance Standards (See, pp. 4 - 7 of November 13 letter) Please note that Section 969.7.6(A)(1) was amended at the Coastal Commission hearing; these changes will be discussed below. �i A T T O R N E Y S A T L A W 1331 N. California Blvd., P.O. Box V San Francisco Palo Alto Walnut Creek, California 94596-1270 Los Angeles Washington, D.C. Tel. (510) 937-8000 Fax (510) 975-5390 San Jose Taipei http://www.mccutchen.com Walnut Creek D �� The Hon. Dave Sullivan, Mayor ' - March 14, 1996 Page 2 I I' l • Mills Comments on Sections 969.7.3.1 et seq: Application for economically viable use determination; Economically viable use determination; and Economically viable use (See pp. 7- 10 of November 13 letter) • Mills Comments on Sections 969.7.5.1 and 969.7.7(C) (See p. 10 of November 13 letter) • Additional Comments: As you will note upon review of our letter submitted to the Coastal Commission in connection with Proposed Zoning Amendment 2-94, Mills objected to the language contained in Section 969.7.6(A)(1) which originally required an offer to dedicate a conservation easement or relinquishment of all development rights in all "wetlands and environmentally sensitive habitat areas not subject to development" before any development application for any portion of any contiguous parcel would even be considered. This provision, when read together with Section 969.7.1.1 was clearly intended to require any property owner to "combine" all of his contiguous parcels (including any parcels on which he merely holds an option), propose a single development and offer to dedicate in perpetuity the rights in the remainder of the property -- all before a development application would be considered. After Mills' presentation to the Commission, the Section was amended to provide: Consistent with Public Resources Code Section 30010, wetlands and environmentally sensitive habitat areas that are designated for preservation after a permit hearing shall be preserved through a conservation easement, deed restriction or other similar mechanism. According to Commissioner Glickfeld, the intent of the change was that the amount of land to be placed under a conservation easement "is to be decided at the permit hearing in concert with the development." However, notably absent from the proposed revisions and the Commissioner's remarks was any standard by which the amount of land to be placed under a conservation easement would be determined. One might presume that it would simply be the "balance" of the combined parcels as Commissioner Glickfeld's comment suggests: [T]hat also takes into account what Commissioner Wright just said, which is: remember that this land is undevelopable under the Coastal Act. It is developable because of Constitutional needs, and the criteria for the amount of development to be allowed on these properties would be to meet reasonable investment backed expectations, and other tests of constitutional reasonable use of the land. [Emphasis supplied] The Hon. Dave Sullivan, Mayor March 14, 1996 Page 3 Based upon these comments the Commission appears to admit that the property designated as "Conservation" has been rendered undevelopable by reason of the operation of the Coastal Act, and that some minimum amount of development will be allowed only to avoid having to pay compensation for the taking of the property for a public use. This method of exacting conservation easements stands the law on its head. The pending proposal appears to require a conservation easement on all property designated "Conservation", which would require the landowner to demonstrate that such an easement is not justified. To the contrary, the law requires a City first to identify the impacts of a project in order to justify the nature and extent of its exaction. The bottom-line message of the Nollan and Dolan cases is that exactions of this nature cannot be imposed on a development project unless there is some identified relationship E between a project's impacts and the exactions. No precise mathematical calculation is required, but the city must make some sort of individualized determination that the required dedication is related both in nature and extent to the impact of the proposed development. [Emphasis supplied.] Dolan v. City of Tigard, 114 S. Ct. 2309, 2319-20 (1994). This rule was most recently reiterated in the California Supreme Court case of ' Ehrlich v. City of Culver City, in which the Court confirmed the application of the Dolan "rough proportionality" principle when exactions are imposed on individual development projects, whether or not the exaction involves a dedication of property.' [W]e conclude that the tests formulated by the high court in its Dolan and Nollan opinions for determining whether a compensable regulatory taking has occurred under the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment to the federal Constitution apply . . . to the monetary exaction imposed by Culver City as a condition of approving plaintiff's request that the real property in suit be rezoned to permit the construction of a multi-unit residential condominium. We thus reject the city's contention that the heightened takings clause standard formulated by the court in i Section 976.7.6(A)(1) also provides that the conservation easement"need not authorize any public right of access or use" and that"exclusive use and possession of the area may remain with the applicant." These clauses appear to be an attempt to protect against a takings claim, because in Dolan the Court appeared to distinguish between a permanent use restriction and a dedication of land in fee to the public for active use. However, this alleged distinction was rejected by the California Supreme Court in Ehrlich when they concluded that any exaction on a specific development project--even a purely monetary exaction --was governed by Dolan. ' The Hon. Dave Sullivan, Mayor March 14, 1996 Page 4 Nollan and Dolan applies only to cases in which the local land use authority requires the developer to dedicate real property to public use as a condition of permit approval. Accordingly, to zone property as undevelopable in furtherance of the Coastal Act goals, and then permit the smallest possible increment of development in exchange for a permanent easement across the balance of the property clearly does not satisfy constitutional standards. Rather, there must first be some individualized determination of the impact, if any, of the proposed project on adjacent so-called wetlands before an exaction to mitigate the impact can be formulated.2 a Moreover, the City cannot by fiat determine which parcels must be combined for + purposes of determining how much development will be permitted. In other words, the "relevant parcel" for purposes of a takings analysis, cannot be defined by ordinance. As noted in our November 13, 1995 letter to the Coastal Commission, this issue has been the subject of many cases both in California and in the Federal courts, which explain that the determination of the "relevant parcel" depends upon a number of factors including historical uses, physical characteristics, and applicable land use regulations. In sum, the Coastal Commission freely admits that the purpose of the suggested zoning modifications is (1) to render undevelopable as much land as can be combined under Section 969.7.1.1, and (2) to minimize the amount of land that must be allowed for development in order to avoid a taking. Nothing in the case law which interprets and applies Fifth Amendment protections authorizes this approach. At minimum, the City should include in the ordinance, or in implementing regulations, language which comports with the Dollan standard and which makes clear that an individualized determination of the project's impacts must occur before the City identifies the amount of land it will require to be placed under a conservation easement as a condition of approval. The better approach, as suggested in the November 13 letter, is simply to delete Section 969.7.6(A)(1) [incorrectly designated as a "performance standard"]. Any project to be approved would still have to mitigate its impacts under CEQA and satisfy the standard set forth in Section 969.7.7(C) 2 The Ehrlich decision did make a distinction between fees imposed by an ordinance of general application and fees imposed only on specific development proposals. However, this distinction does not apply here because the exaction imposed is not a fee but a dedication of an interest in property. As noted in Justice Mosk's concurring opinion: "Although it may have been constitutionally permissible for the city to impose a bicycle path "tax" or assessment on all downtown developers with little or no showing of the individual impact of each development, it was not similarly constitutional to compel developers to cooperate in the city's land banking scheme by requiring them to dedicate a portion of the property to the city of a bicycle path in fulfillment of the city's general plan, irrespective of the public impacts of their developments." (Concurring Op., p. 20, n. 4) , 4 The Hon. Dave Sullivan, Mayor ' March 14, 1996 Page 5 • Partial Rezoning of land designated Visitor-Serving Commercial The City proposes to rezone to "Coastal Conservation/Coastal Zone" approximately six acres of property which is currently designated by the General Plan as Visitor-Serving Commercial ["VSC], following the suggestion of the Coastal Commission that .,all parcels which contain a land use designation of conservation, in whole or in part, shall be zoned Conservation district." However, in order to preserve the VSC use, the zoning ordinance was proposed to be modified to include VSC uses on any portion of the "parcel" which is land use designated VSC. Ignoring that this method of preserving the VSC use for the 7+ acres along the Coast Highway is unnecessarily convoluted, it presents at least two legal problems. First, it does precisely what the Coastal Commission said the City could not do -- have a "base zoning" that conflicts with the General Plan land use designation. Second, for this area only it defines "parcels" strictly in terms of Assessor Parcel Numbers ["APN"], which is arbitrary and discriminatory. One might have argued that the Conservation designation was properly applied across the entire area covered by an APN because it was too difficult to identify the precise boundaries of the VSC area. However, it is our understanding that at least one excuse given for the unconscionable delays that have occurred in this process was that the City was surveying and identifying the precise locations of each of the land use designated areas in the Land Use Plan in order to prepare correct and precise implementation zoning. Thus, the City has the precise information available to adopt implementation zoning for the VSC area, and there is no legal or practical justification for rezoning that area to Coastal Conservation. The Coastal Commission staff report suggests that the rezoning of the VSC area to Conservation district will "protect the wetlands existing on the subject parcels" but does not explain how this supposedly occurs. Since the VSC use was added to the implementation zoning, then the area designated in the Land Use Plan as VSC has those uses by right. Presumably, then, the only purpose of the Coastal Commission's recommendation is to redefine the "relevant parcel" for purposes of exacting a conservation easement and/or applying a takings analysis. As noted above, the definition of a "relevant parcel" is governed by existing principles of state and constitutional law and cannot be manipulated by the adoption of a result- oriented zoning ordinance. For all of the reasons stated in this letter and in the letter of November 13 to the Coastal Commission, Mills Land &Water Company objects to the adoption of the zoning amendments as proposed. Putting aside Mills' fundamental objection to the designation of these properties as "restorable wetlands," we would be happy to work with the City staff and counsel to draft alternative amendments that would resolve the other legal problems which are inherent in the current proposal. We believe this could be done with fairly limited changes, such as those described in our November 13 letter. x a • _ - The Hon. Dave Sullivan, Mayor March 14, 1996 Page 6 N Thank you for the opportunity to address this proposal, and we hope you will give serious consideration to our comments. h ' q Very truly yours, 12 L. Maria P. Rivera Y A M { I 1 RECEIVED C;, RD HUkTINGi ECEHE 1 , _IF. March 15' 1996 BR 18 3 49 Fly '96 D (BAR 181996 City Council and Planning Commission C!0 City Clerk G1T'�'OF NUn��yOTON BEACH City of Huntinghon Beach CITY COI44C6L OFFICE 2000 Main Street,2nd Floor Huntington Beach, California 92648 Dear Council and Commissioners; The partnerships of Pacific Enviro Design and The coastal Magnolia Group did not received notice of a hearing on March 18th, 1996. We are, however, informed that a hearing either, before the City Council or Planning Commission is scheduled. We have been told that the city will be considering a proposed zoning for our property. The information that we received is that the city may take action on a proposal made by the California Coastal Commission at its November 17th, 1995 meeting.. At the end of December 1995, I filed suit to challenge the Coastal Commissions action of ! November 17, 1996. Counsel for the Coastal Commission has responded. The notice that the Coastal Commission sent to the city describing the action taken at the muting of November 16 was the fact that precipitated the suit. The state has now recanted the and denied that any final action or environmental review took place. The city should not rely on that notice. We were advised by Mr_Koffman,who represents the Coastal Commission,that he would inform Mr. Rutter of the stipulation. Should the city take action in reliance on the Coastal Commission supposed action it may be invalid. I urge you not to rush hastily into a position which may only serve the states interests and not the city. Please take a moment and open your mind and consider the following facts: 1. The partnerships I represent are in dissolution and I am under legal mandate to sell the pmPerty- 2. The agencies who create the priority list for sites to be acquired and restored have removed my partnerships'property from any priority list. 3. In 1990,when it appeared that the City was considering allowing some development of my property at the Pacific Coast Highway Coalition meetings,this property was placed NUMBER ONE "1"on the priority list. When the city limits private land use,it provides protection for the state. The Coastal Act has been viewed as a mandate that properties classified as mine be acquired by a public or quasi public conservation agency. I don't understand why the city should protect the state from liability. Why should the city subject itself to monumental risk? cvb i The Coastal Commission is great at sticking the burden on the land owner or other public agencies. You need only look at what it cost CalTrans to cooperate with the Coastal Commission. Their 7.4 acres take cost them$6,200,000 in compensation,damages,interest, costs and fees. The only duties that I have to the partnerships in dissolution are to protect the assets of the partnership and liquidate. When the city threatens the partnership property by confiscatory zoning and at the same time prevent or fivstrate my ability to sell the property to a mitigation buyer,you do two things. First,you force we into a litigation mode. Second you prevent the property from coning into public hands and from being restored. I would hope that the leadership of the city can sell the firtility in following the course the Coastal Commission wants you to follow. The City should assign staff to work with me instead of trying to club me over the head. We would both save much time and legal fees. I will not try to convince you of the legal pitfalls present in the Coastal Commissions proposed zoning. I would like you to look closely at the text. When you weed through all the legal creativity, look at the true effect of the state's proposal. You are being asked to approve zoning that is unique to each owner. The zoning and land use is not based on the physical setting or relational character of adjacent uses,or even any policy goals of the community. The use will be determined based on economic factors relative to the owners'purchase. No owner can sell who he owns. The use to be allowed a subsequent owner will be based on a set of facts that existed at the time of her purchase. Ask yourself how this comports with the principals of planning that you five with everyday. I can not attend the meeting you have scheduled on the 18th. I hope that these remarks will prove helpfal in your deliberations. I stand ready to and am highly motivated in resolving all conflicts between these partnerships and the city. I share your desire to bring this conflict to an end. Thank you for considering my humble thoughts. Yours truly, 144 lAptpr Robert Nastase Surviving General Partner Pacific Enviro Design The Coastal Magnolia Group b"ME`LVEr� Y &•-MYERS C. 400 SOUTH HOPE STREET SUITE I700 CITICORP CENTER LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90071-2899 I 153 EAST 53RD STREET TELEPHONE(213)669-6000 610 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE I NEW YORK. NEW YORK 10022-4611 FACSIMILE(213)669-6407 1 TELEPHONE(212)326-2000 - NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660-64.29 FACSIMILE(212)326-2061 EMBARCADERO CENTER WEST - 275 BATTERY STREET TELEPHONE(714) 760-9600 555 13TH STREET,N.W. SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA 94111-3305 WASHINGTON• D.C.2 0 0 04-11 0 9 TELEPHONE(4151 964-8700 TELEX 4722088•FACSIMILE(714) 669-6994 TELEPHONE(202)383-5300 FACSIMILE(41S)984-8701 FACSIMILE(202)383-S414 1999 AVENUE OF THE STARS 10 FINSBURY SQUARE LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90067-6035 LONDON EC2A ILA TELEPHONE(310)553-6700 March TELEPHONE(0171)256-84SI FACSIMILE(310)246-6779 FACSIMILE(0171)636-8205 ONE GATEWAY CENTER 18th SANBANCHO KB-6 BUILDING NEWARK, NEW JERSEY 07102 1'1 9 9 6 6 SANBANCHO,CHIYODA-KU TELEPHONE 1201)639-8600 7 7 TOKYO 102 FACSIMILE(201)639-8630•539-8631 TELEPHONE(031 3239-2800 FACSIMILE(03)3239-2432 WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL NUMBER 1104 LIPPO TOWER LIPPO CENTRE 89 QUEENSWAY,CENTRAL HDNG KONG (714) 669-7938 TELEPHONE(852)2523-8266 FACSIMILE(852)2522-1760 OUR FILE NUMBER VIA BAND DELIVERY 161, 577-007 N111-257555.V1 Connie Brockway, City. Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street, 2nd Floor Huntington Beach, California 92648 Re: City of Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 2-94 ZZ.- c � x Dear Ms . Brockway and City Council Members: We represent Coastal Magnolia Group and Pacific Envirro Design (collectively "Coas.tal Magnolia") , property owners whoCJ will be affected by the City of Huntington Beach' s (the "City-".) action on the proposed Local Coastal Program (11LCP11) amendment referenced above. Coastal Magnolia' s managing general partne ,j i Robert Nastase, by separate letter has stated the partnerships' objections to the proposed LCP amendment, and has tried to express the partnerships' willingness to work with, the C.ity• to resolve all existing disputes regarding the Coastal"Magnolia properties. Unfortunately, the City seems close to approving an unprecedented action which would turn traditional concepts of land use planning on their head, apparently in an effort to seek to insulate the City from liability for the taking of private property. What the City should understand is that the Coastal Commission' s proposal is designed to shift responsibility away from the Coastal Commission. Certainly the City should fully and fairly consider its interests, and those of all affected property owners, rather than simply doing the Coastal Commission' s bidding. The proposed amendment is defective on both procedural and substantive grounds. As to the former, Coastal Magnolia was not given formal notice of the hearing (we only learned of the hearing through contact with another affected property owner) . Qv b ' ,6 Page 2 - Connie Brockway, City Clerk - March 18, 1996 Moreover, the City is charged with responsibility to develop the LCP proposal . Concurring in the Coastal Commission' s proposal is not an adequate substitute for the type of deliberative process which the law presumes will take place. Thus, at a minimum, the hearing should be continued and proper study made by the City before any amendment is proposed. As to the substantive grounds for Coastal Magnolia' s objections, LCP Amendment No. 2-94 suffers from many of the same defects of prior implementation zoning proposals considered by the City. Like its predecessor proposed amendments, LCP Amendment No. 2-94 would unfairly and unconstitutionally impact Coastal Magnolia' s property. Coastal Magnolia asserted its objections to the City' s earlier proposed amendments in letters from its former counsel, Pettis, Tester, Kruse & Krinsky ( "PTKK" ) , including PTKK' s letter to the California Coastal Commission dated July 24, 1991 and PTKK' s letter to the City Council dated June 15, 1992 . Copies of these letters are attached hereto as Exhibits 1 and 2, respectively, and they, and the objections stated therein, are incorporated by this reference . Further, Coastal Magnolia objects to the proposed LCP amendment for the reasons set forth in the January 31, 1994 letter and the September 2, 1994 letter of Martha P. Rivera of McCutchen, Doyle, Brown & Enersen, submitted on behalf of nearby landowner Mills Land & Water Company (copies of these letters are attached hereto as Exhibits 3 and 4 and incorporated herein by this reference) . The objections raised by Mills Land & Water Company apply with equal force to Coastal Magnolia. Coastal Magnolia urges the City Council to deny Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 2-94, or at least continue the matter. Approval of the proposed LCP 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. Sincerely, Todd A. Green for O'Melveny & Myers TAG:trg Enclosures PETTIS. TESTER, KRUSE & KRINSKY ATTORNEYS AT LAW JOHN BEtSNER non oPOFES SiOwA�COPPOPA*�O w4 MARK R MCGUfRE KEITH P BISHOP " PS.•n•w fit,oiwO DENISE L MCKINNEY ADELE K. CARDOZA 18681 VON KARMAN AVENUE. t6T" FLOOR MICHAEL L. MILLER MICHAEL S. CUCCHISSI DANA L MISHNE DEAN DUNN-RANKIN POST OFFICE BOX 19766 THOMAS J OLSEN CHARLES S. EXON IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92715 DENNIS D. O'NEIL C-IMISTOPHER J. FARLEY' - JAY F. PALCHIKOFF MARK FELDMAN TELEPHONE (714) SS3-2500 DANIEL L. PELEKOUOAS G LENN E FULLER ALAN W. PETTIS BETH A GAYLORD FACSIMILE LISA M_ OUINN ROBERT J GERARO. JR (714) 261-08B2 ROBERT A. RIZZI ROBERT L. GREEN PAUL A. ROWE HOWARD HALL (714) 261-7251 DONALD J. SAJOR W ILLIAM E. HALLE MARK A. SCHADRACK ANDREW K. HARTZELL R. CRAIG SCOTT JOHN D. HUDSON CAROLE STEVENS CARY K. HYDEN July 24 1991 BRUCE A. TESTER /KARI M. KARDEL WILLIAM L. TWOMEY MARY LYNN KELLY KENNETH A_ WOLFSON DAVID A. KRINSKY JOHN P_ YEAGER M. RUSSELL KRUSE MICHAEL G. YODER BARRY R LAUBSCHER a PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION OF COUNSEL HUGH HEWITT DEBBIE L. MIEOE' (714) 253-2443 WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL NUMBER OUR FILE NUMBER 18705-00001 VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS Thomas Gwyn, Chairman California Coastal Commission South Coast Area 245 W. Broadway, Suite 380 Long Beach, CA 90802 Re: City of Huntington Beach Implementing Ordinance Dear Chairman Gwyn and Members of the Coastal Commission: Prior to the April 11, 1991 meeting of the Coastal Commission, we submitted a letter to you and your staff on behalf of the Coastal Magnolia Group and Pacific Enviro Design, the owners of 66 acres within the so-called Huntington Beach Whitehole Area. We were disappointed to discovered that neither in the written staff report prepared for the July 17th Coastal Commission meeting on the Huntington Beach Whitehole Area or in staff's presentation of the Commission's discussion of the item, no mention was made of that letter or the items set forth within it. In the event that our April 9th letter has been misplaced, I have enclosed an additional copy for your consideration. Some of the thoughts set forth in our letter were echoed by other property owners within the Whitehole Area, including Caltrans. It is interesting to note that a sister state agency is also of the opinion that the City's proposed implementing ordinance and Coastal Commission-directed recommendations regarding the LCP for the Whitehole Area deprive the property owners of any economically viable use of the property. As we stated in the April 9th letter, the Coastal Commission must either immediately commence proceedings to 07-25-91 18705-00001 G:\DM\172\C0RR\91070007ATR � '44 PETTIS, TESTER, KRUID& K.RINSKY • Thomas Gwyn, Chairman California Coastal Commission July 24, 1991 Page 2 acquire our client's property in its entirety at its fair market value or direct the City to commence proceedings to amend both the LUP applicable to the property and the LCP to allow responsible development of the property. We hope that our concerns can be addressed prior to the next Coastal Commission hearing on this matter. Thank you for your assistance. Very truly yours, John P. Yeage JPY/dlg Enc. cc: Vicky Komie, Coastal Program Analyst Robert Nastase 07-24-91 18705-00001 G:\DOC\172\CORR\91070007.LTR PETTIS, TESTER, KRUSE & KRINSKY ATTORNEYS AT LAW „OwN BEISNER .... MARK R N-G RE K E 1 T-I a B SHOP *'•c.s-�e•..c_..o�NO=.o•csaloN..co.roR.*IONS D E N SE ADELE K CARDOZA I8861 VON KARMAN AVENUE. 167" FLOOR MIC-AE_ _ —IL—ER . :C. AEL S Cucc—SS, DANA _ MISS NE DEAN DUNN-R-1—N POST OFFICE BOX 19766 THOMAS � OLSEN ZRLES S EXON IRVIN E, CALIFORNIA 92715 OENN'S O O NE:_ C..I RISTOP-.ER ; BARLEY• JAY F PpLC w:KOFe MARK �EL:)MAN TELEPHONE (714) 553-2500 DANIEL L. RELEKOUDAS GLENN E �UL_ER ALAN N. PETTIS BE!H A GAYLORD FACSIMILE LISA M. OUINN ROBERT J GERARO. ,,R ROBERT A RIZZI ROBERT L GREEN (7141 261-OB62 RAUL A. ROWS wOWARO WALL (714) 261-72SI DONALD J SAJOR WILLIAM E. .IALLE MARK A SCIKAORACK ANDREW K HARTZELL R. CRAIG SCOTT JO wN O HUDSON CAROLE STEVENS CARY K wYDEN April 9 1991 BRUCE A. TESTER AAR, M KARDEL P WILLIAM L. TWOMEY MARY LYNN KELLY KENNETH A. WOLFSON DAVID A. KRINSKY JOHN P. YEAGER M RUSSELL KRUSE MICHAEL G. YODER BARRY R. LAUBSCwER PROrESSIONAL COPPOPATION OF COVNSCL w UGH wEwITT O EBB E L. MIEOE' (714) 253-2443 WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL NUMBER OUR FILE NUMBER 18705-00001 Mr. Thomas Gwyn Chairman, California Coastal Commission South Coast Area 245 W. Broadway, Suite 380 Long Beach, California 90802 Re: The City of Huntington Beach Implementing Ordinance: Agenda Item 6.c for Meeting of April 11. 1991 Chairman Gwyn and Members of the Coastal Commission: The Coastal Magnolia Group and- Pacific Enviro Design ("Magnolia Pacific") own property ("Property") in the City of Huntington Beach ("City") that is included in the request by the City to complete the LCP for the 232-acre Pacific Coast Highway Area (the so-called "Whitehole Area") between Beach Boulevard and the Santa Ana River. The Property consists of approximately sixty-six acres, and is bounded on the north by acreage owned by Southern California Edison Company, on the south by Brookhurst Street, on the west by Pacific Coast Highway ("PCH") and on the east by the Huntington Beach and Talbert flood control . channels. Magnolia Pacific acquired its interest in the Property after the City approved a zone change that rezoned the Whitehole Area by designating a parcel to Visitor Serving Commercial, applying the Coastal Zone (CZ) suffix to the existing Edison facilities and affixing the Coastal Conservation (-CC) suffix to the remainder. The City approved the zone change on February 20, 1990. 04-09-91 ISM-00001 6:\P0C\174\00RR\91030002ATR PETTIS, TESTER, KRti KRINSKY The California Coastal Commission April 9, 1991 Page 2 Magnolia Pacific respectfully requests that the Coastal Commission ("Commission") recognize the importance of responsible, environmentally sensitive development of the Property to the achievement of the goals and purposes of the California Coastal Act by taking the following actions: • Approve Motion I rejecting the Implementation Plan for the Pacific Coast Highway Area between Beach Boulevard and the Santa Ana River as proposed by the City; • Disapprove Motion II approving the Implementation Plan for the Pacific Coast Highway Area between Beach Boulevard and the Santa Ana River as modified by Commission staff; and • Approve a motion directing the City to adopt an implementation plan permitting development of the Property in an environmentally sensitive and beneficial manner consistent with the existing development pattern along Pacific Coast Highway. our request is justified on the following grounds: (1) The limitations imposed on the use of the Property by the -CC suffix are contrary to the fundamental goals and purposes of the Coastal Act to serve public and private interests by balancing preservation and protection of natural coastal resources and development within the coastal area; (2) Failure to allow development or to direct the City to do so could expose the State and the City to monetary damages for a regulatory taking of the Property. Feasible measures exist to avoid the unnecessary and unfortunate results described above. Magnolia Pacific requests that the State immediately commence proceedings to acquire the Property in its entirety at its fair market value or direct the City to commence proceedings to amend both the LUP applicable to the Property and the LCP to allow responsible development of the Property. Acknowledgement of the Coastal Act's goal of balancing the need for coastal resource preservation with the need for responsible economic development will permit Magnolia Pacific to exercise its private property interest and achieve a reasonable return on its investment. Taking such an action will also create 04-09-91 18705-00001 6:\000\174\CMR\91030002.LTR PETTIS, TESTER, KRG Bc KRINSKY • The California Coastal Commission April 9 , 1991 Page 3 a source of funding for the rehabilitation and enhancement of the degraded wetlands on the remaining portion of the Property. A. The Coastal Conservation Sutfiz As Applied To The Property Is Contrary To The Coastal Act' s Goals and Purposes. One Department of Fish & Game study states that the Property consists entirely of wetlands in varying states of degradation. Degradation has occurred over time and will continue to occur as a result of run-off from the various physical improvements surrounding the Property. As the attached map details, the Property is surrounded by extensive urbanization, including a Southern California Edison plant to the north and several housing projects and two flood control channels on the east. Even if the wetlands were restored, such urbanization prevents the wetlands from ever functioning as they would if no adjacent development were present. Thus, these wetlands will always require human maintenance to survive. The threats created by the surrounding urbanization are increasing rather than diminishing--both staff's and the City's implementation plans allow for expansion of the Edison plant, a source of noise, sight and air pollution. The -CC suffix essentially legislates maintenance of the status quo and, as a result, allows for further degradation of the Property's wetland and other habitat values. Such unabated deterioration is clearly inconsistent with the fundamental goals and purposes of the Coastal Act. Coastal Act Section 30513 states that " [t]he commission may only reject zoning ordinances, zoning district maps, or other implementing actions on the grounds that they do not conform with, or are inadequate to carry out, the provisions of the certified land use plan." The City's implementation plan as originally filed or as modified by Commission staff must be rejected for it does not conform to Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act. Both plans fail to (1) recognize that "the permanent protection of the State's natural and scenic resources is a paramount concern" to State residents, (2) recognize that "future developments that are carefully planned and developed consistent with the (Coastal Act] . . . are essential to the economic and social well-being of the people of this state . . .", (3) assure orderly utilization of the coastal zone, "taking into account the social and economic needs of the people of the state", and (4) "encourage state and local initiatives and cooperation in preparing procedures to implement- coordinated_.planning and _ _ 04-09-91 ism-00001 G:%P0C%1T4%CORK%91030002.LTR PETTIS, TESTER, K & KRINSKY The California Coastal Commission April 9, 1991 Page 4 development for mutually beneficial uses, . . " See Coastal Act §§ 30001 (b) , (d) , 30001.5(b) , (e) , 30251. Because both plans fail to provide for responsible development of the Property and the enhancement of the degraded wetlands on the remaining portion of the Property that would result, the Commission cannot make the findings necessary for it to approve either implementation plan. B. if Approved By The Commission, The Use Of The -CC Suffiz Will Result In A Taking Of The Property. Commission staff, in its September 25, 1985 letter responding to the PCH draft environmental impact statement ("DEIS") , stated that the DEIS should be modified to note that it is the City's burden to determine "whether and in what form the owners of the area would be compensated. " A legal opinion prepared for the City on the consequences of the use of the -CC suffix concluded that, absent implementation of a transfer of development rights program or an administrative claims procedure, utilization of the -CC suffix could result in a taking of the Property. Both the City's implementation plan and staff's modified plan could very well result in a taking of the Property because use of the -CC suffix substantially impairs both Magnolia Pacific's reasonable, investment-backed expectations and the economic viability of the Property. Although the Coastal Act and the City's zoning laws set forth eight permitted uses, those available to the Property-- incidental public service purposes such as the burying of pipes and cables and resource-dependent activities such as nature study and aquaculture--effectively require physical invasion of the Property. These permitted uses infringe upon Magnolia Pacific's right to exclude, traditionally one of the most treasured strands in an owner's bundle of property rights, which the United States Supreme Court has found to constitute a taking of property requiring just compensation. See Loretto v. TeleprOmRter Manhattan CATV Cow-, 458 U.S. 419, 428 (1982) . The implementation plans expose the Commission to other constitutional claims. The Court has held that landowners cannot be held responsible for the failure of prior governmental _ agencies to manage effectively development of the public trust. Sgg generally. Nollan v. California Coastal Comm'n, I U.S. , 107 S.Ct. 3141 (1987) . As the Court stated in Penn Central TransA. Co. v. City of New York, 438 U.S. 103, 124-25 (1978)', the "Fifth Amendment's guarantee . . . [is] designed to bar Government from forcing some people alone to bear public burdens 04-09-91 ISM-0owl C:WOCM?4\CORK\91a30=.1TR PETTIS. TESTER, KR*& KRINSKY • The California Coastal Commission April 9, 1991 Page 5 which, in all fairness and justice, should be borne by the public as a whole, . If Those supporting preservation of the degraded wetlands in the Area cite to a 1983 Department of Fish and Game study that states that only 115 acres of wetland remain of approximately 2,000 acres of historic wetlands which existed upcoast from what is now the Santa Ana River Flood Control Channel.. The . study states that 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." A single landowner should not be singled out to preserve its property for the welfare of the general public unless it is to be fairly compensated. Neither the State's nor the City's actions with respect to the Property provide for such compensation. In a similar fashion, Magnolia Pacific may be the victim of arbitrary and discriminatory treatment. Land-use decisions that single out a particular parcel for different, less favorable treatment than that received by neighboring parcels are improper. Thus, by not providing for responsible, environmentally sensitive development, the Commission is exposing itself to both a takings claim and a discriminatory zoning claim. C. The Coastal Act's Goals and Purposes Can Best Be Served By Permitting An Environmentally Sensitive And Economically Feasible Development Plan For The Property. The Coastal Act is better served, and the citizens of the State and the City are most benefited by a LCP that provides for development of the Property in an economically viable and an . environmentally sensitive manner. On the other hand, implementation of the -CC suffix as proposed by the City and as recommended by Commission staff will produce severable undesirable results: (1) It will guarantee the further degradation of the wetland and the environmental values which may have existed on the Property in the past; - (2) It will deprive the City and other local governmental agencies of much needed municipal revenues which may have otherwise been gained through reasonable development of the Property; and 04-09-91 UM-00001 6:VDOC\174%CORK\91030002ATR PETTIS, TESTER, K & KRINSKY • The California Coastal Commission April 9, 1991 Page 6 (3) It will require both the State and the City to compensate Magnolia Pacific for the depravation of any economically viable use of its Property. Magnolia Pacific is committed to achieving a project that is both a model for wetland enhancement and a source of much needed municipal revenues. Magnolia Pacific asks only that the Commission allow it to proceed in that direction. If the Commission is not so inclined, we request that the State proceed immediately to compensate fully and fairly Magnolia Pacific for the taking of the Property. Very trul ours, John P Yeag r RN/JPY/sap cc: Vicky Komie, Coastal Program Analyst Robert Nastase Gail Hutton Paul Cook Michael Adams 04-09-" 19M-0=1 6:\DOC\174\CORD\9103WUATR PETTIS. TESTER. KRUSE t;c KRINSKY 4CIT.1 P O ATTORNEYS AT LAW SNOP MARK R wcGVIRC AGE". K. CA ROO2A •A`...6as-.o..ca.o.-a6Pa.989la-.1 coAAa....o.• MIC"ACL ..MILLED MIC..ACL S.CUCC•'IISS- =6661 VON 4ARMAN AVENUE.IS. FLOOR DANA L. --S-NE SCOTT J. DARUTT DENNIS O.O NEIL 1pV1NC.CALIFORNIA 92715 DEAN OUN N•RANKIN JAT F PALCMIKOrr C.ARLES S. EXON DANIEL ..PELE40t:AS Cn RISTOPr ER J. rARLCT' POST OFFICE BOX 19756 ALAN W. PCTTIS MAR4 6 FELDMAN SA M OV•NN 1RV1NE.CALIFORNIA92T1] GLCVN C FULLER RO•CRT A.R12 Z' ROBCRT - iERAPO.''-R. PAUL A.ROWE -LAN J. 3OROCE 'ELE-••ONE 17141 SS3•2500 DONALD J. SAJOD •ROBERT L.GREEN FACSIMILE P.CRA.G SCOTT -OWARO '-AL. 17141 261• CAROLE STEVENS w LLIAM E ••ALLC OA62 17141 261.725• SPLICE A.TESTER C..CR C EPICA50N -ApR15 WILLIAM L -'WOME- ANOREW K. ..ARTZCL. 4CNNCT.1 A.WOLrSC% -VG- -EW1TT 6'. SCVENT-. STREET SUITE 27G O-N R -EAGER _-�S ANGE-C S.CAL•r>RN•A p0,^. MICwACL G -OOEQ LAwR[NCC J. r.I LTON -E.0 o-ONE .213I ]62'1:;]50 .O-N O. .•UDSON CART K 0E1,4 FACS.-ILC !2131 ]62.0]S9 �•COv.ua 4ARi r. KAROEL DAMON -AWRENCE 0AV10 A.KRINSKT .11E••ACL • LV 61C M RUSSELL KRUSE June 15, 1992 C-P-STINE L.LUKCTIC •.aOr[� IO...a COapaA710w WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL NUM6CR 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 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 05-06-92 1b705-00001 G:\D0C\196\00n\92060016AT1t exhlbj4 z PETTIS, TESTER. KRL K.RINSIcY • 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 IBM-00001 6:\p00\196\CCRR\92060016 ATR •ETTIS. TESTER. KRUSE & K*sKy •C • • S_y• AT-OANCYS AT LAW 'AC. S 'ON '""AN .vC%wC 6- r100R• =Am& [a -C•h a05- =fr :C boxC76e =Chh S 0 hC -•a.CS S C.Oh .s \C -.. rONr•. 98'•6 -Ah f. aC_[.:__+i ...•. rt_=...\ 'C-. -CvC 7— SS7.2300 :.c\\ c roltz .._Ca =•ca :ca..J .a r.eS - .c ea - A • -C :—_cc+.+\ _ - ., zap-=ee: _ch.\J .lC _aCC\ 2a..7aS. :AQ0-C S-c.C\s _tA _ •.. «C•• fC.Ch•« f•aCC' S..•-[ •]O •ChrC'- • «:.•S'\ -a S' .-.C• : May 6, 1992 . -•c•cSS : _. t. nQ-rQ 5 7 QEC- 7-•L Nv-SCQ OUR r:LC N--8ra (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 iei"-0000i c:�ooc�wd�cax��szocaoo2.�re PETTIS. TESTER. K ? & KRI.-ISgy 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 It 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 IBM-00001 G:\DOC\1%\Ca2\92OQM.LT2 PETTIs. TESTER, K_ & KRIvSKY • 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 ism-WWI c:\Ooc\196\C=\9204W z.ln: PETTIS, TESTER. KRO & 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 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-00001 G:\=A196\CO"\72OQ=.1nt PETTIS. TESTER. KAOE & KRI.,75gy , 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 Corn. , 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: jm3 cc (via regular mail) : Teresa Henry, Coastal Program Analyst Robert Nastase Gail Hutton, Esq. Paul Cook Michael Adams rs-os-vz taws-a000t c:�ovc�tvs�oxitwto�0002.�r� MCC&HEN, DOYLE, BROWN 6 E&SEN ,Aiv.rwANClsco COUNSELORS AT LAW rMASNINpTOM.O Los ANOELCs 1331 NORTH CALWORNIA BOULEVARD TA"rC1 IN Jose POST OFFICE BOX V JT CREEII WALNUT CROCK,CALIFORNIA 04500 Arr/LIArCD orrl, TCLCP140NC (510) 037-6000 eANOROK rAC51MILC (510) 675-5300 January 31, 1994 DIRECI DIAL NUM 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. 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 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 learnwhat uses,--if-Wity, will be pema tted 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. Exh�bi� 3 _. Shirley Dettloff, Chair, and Members of the • Huntington.Beach Plannin emmission January 31, 1994 Page 2 Nfills 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." Wi is 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 1+41h suggested modifications was rejected by the City, the--eertifig-a-tion proceeifing 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 PlanninAemmission. • January 31, 1994 Page 3 proeecs of adopting the implomontation coning, in accordance with the establisbcd Ni ucudtu e, and then resubmit the full 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, uud to explain how the City intends to address the serious concems 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 io 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 N1311s has repeatedly pointed out in its comments on this proposed ordinance (see, e.g., letter to City Coundil dated-Febru ►ry 5, I990)--::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 onunission January 31, 1994 Page 4 Section 9422.3 [Coastal conservation suffix--Removal of] contains no provisions tirhatsoever for removing a-CC suffix on the ground that none of the permitted uses are economically viable. Moreover, denial of arty 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. 7 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 Comunission, 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 mi.sht 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 vidne ablc-Ao-;4_tattings claim frbti v_Mils 6ccause 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 bo-"Carved up"for the purposes of a takings analysis, a different rul.c applies if differential zoning is imposed on the parcels. Shirley vettloff, Chair, and Members of the • • Huntington Beach Planning Commssion 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 M14, 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, 6/21191, at p. 14.) Certainly no one denies that attaching the -CC_ u 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 heen 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. A�.mrding tn Si-rtinn 9422.3, a -CC suffix ran be.temoved only if all three 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(axI) 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-�,'ub. Res. Code § 3.0233(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? Shirleyettloff Chair • Y • 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 Js 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 Coumnissiods version, the overlay provisions were applicable only to parcels owned by N ills 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 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 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 .-: .m hartfsiYi . . .shall_b� required oveT- 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. > 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 -- 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." 1n sum, the proposed "Requirements" found in S_ectiorL9422.2.1 are-extremely -- ill-advised and should not be adopted. -� Shirley Dettloff, Chair, • . and Members of the Huntington Beach Planning Commission January 31, 1994 Paee 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 motel 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. 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. 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., MiIIs' 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 "wetlands" 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 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 aTor 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 N ills' activity, but through progressive improvements completed by the State and its agencies. It would be. unconsciomble, 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, le:Ge,2e.�j Maria P. Rivera M. 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 McCUTCHEN, DOYL.E, BROWN & ENERSEN SAN r4ANCI3C0 COUNSELORS AT LAW WASHINGTON.O.C. LOB ANGELCZ I331 NORTH CALIFORNIA BOULEVARD TAIrCI SAN JOte POST OFFICE DQX V -^ wALNVT CRC CK WALNUT CREEK.CALIFORNIA 94d*4.450E AFFILIATCO OfFICt TELCPMONE(510)037-8000 SANOKOK FAC5IHILC(510)976.6360 September 2, 1994 DIRECT OIAL NUMBE 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 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 LCE Proceediags�= 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 N4111s, objecting to a host of procedural and substantive errors in connection with the Mayor Linda Moulton- a erso n 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 115 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 2 Loveladies Harbor, Inc. and Loveladies Harbor, Unit D, Inc. v. United Stares, 1994 \VL,259489 (Fed Cir.). Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 120 L. Ed. 2d 798 (1992)• : s a 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 Senteniber 6. 1994 rezardint;Code Amendment No.93-91. MCCUTCHEN, DOYLE. BROWN 6. ENERSEN SAN/AANC-SCO COUNSELORS AT LAW WASN/NOTON,O.C. Loa ANOCLCS 133I NORTH CALIFORNIA 004ULCVARO O^IrCI SAN JOSC POST Ofr#CC BOX V WALNUT CRCCR WALNUT CREEK.CALWORNIA 04500 AeF1LIATCO or/ICC TCLCPNONC(51o)037-0000 •ANpRoK FACS114ILC(540)975-5300 May 8, 1992 0111CCT OIAL NUMo[1k 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 3each 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 1 • 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_ wirthoti-t-:any rel-_axion..--t-o the environmental impact of a proposed^deveJl opment . Both the state and federal constitutions require a sufficient "nexus" MCCUTCHEN, DOYLE, BROWN & ENERSEN :• COUNSELORS AT LAW SAN rRANCISCO 11131 NORTH CALIFORNIA BOULCVARO WASNINGTOK D.C. LOS ANOCLCS POST OFFICE BOX V SNANGNAI •AN JOSC WALNUT CREEK.CALIFORNIA 04506 TAIPEI VsALwjT CRCCK TELEPHONE(415)037-6000 • FACSIMILE(415)075-5300 AFFILIATCO OFFICE COSTA MCSA 0^"GKOK • July 11, 1991 DIRECT DIAL NUIMBCR 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 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, DEG depictions, which appear to be the sole basis 1 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 - rdtec-tive<=�!Conserv-atiori" -- - - - --- Thomas W. Gwyn, Chair r 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 7 other designated parcels, be impressed with a "conservation overlay. " As to these parcels -onl , 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, supe-rficial ._"st-udies" were a:primary 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 -•uly 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 Exhibit 1 Exhibit 2 Exhibit 3 Exhibit 4 } fecal 940 t 1994 . COASTAL CONIAIISSION ALTERNATIVE Lv•, Ca'lt� ORDINANCE NO. a�S1� •,�...� P coo's� AN ORDL'r'ANCE OF THE CITY OF HUTTUiGTON BEACH ANIENDLWG THE HUNTINGTON BEACH ORDriANCE CODE BY ANIENDING 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) «'etland she 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 conseM•ation 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 su W f TtlKiMISS&IONS 'fir> 4yN0�d whheMk Ar�9o2,9�1,969.sroE/Z4�94 C DAdlKaAAC- -, NO. 32,57-6 PAGE OF 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 parcels) 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 l (Beach Blvd. to Newland Street) and Section 6, EmiTonmentally 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— RernOV21 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. COASTAL. COWOMISSMN 4VIO-Ord:wi,;tchoro Am&902.942,969.910"414 2 EXHir 1T ----•--1 r........ PAGE —raZ... OF ...(P.- 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 b. 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 9422.66)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. R: A. 3 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 shaU 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 C0 .5 T At sc t /bed /-.Cp ` 4 a—9/7 4,g\o-ord:%%Uelwo)e Aind902.942,%9.90LWM4 EX !JZ-!iT ..... ---------I PAGE _ .. G"r .4a ... 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 Zday of cp, 1994. Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: j( City Clerk City Attorney REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVED: r - ry Administrator Director of CorrAunity Development ¢�/�►�,�.cPv Gam. 4WQ,0rd:VV dwhole Amd.902.942N9.9404/94 Ord. No.3251-B STATE OF CA'IX'CI NM4 ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) as: CITY OF HU TINGTON BEACH ) I, COIIfiIM BROCKWAY,the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of Wd ,City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of rrr 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 S ptember. 1994. and was again read to said City.CouncU 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 TOES: Councilmembers: Silva,RobitaMe ABSENT: Councilmembers: Moulton-Patterson City Clerk and ex-off@@ Ark of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California . oc � C� I Ole! ORDINANCE NO. 3033 ZONE CHANGE NO. 88-18, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF OCj 4 1994 HUNTINGTON BEALri A14ENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH ORDINANCE c'�;�;•-�RNIA BY AIfENDING THE SECTION 9061 THEREOF TO PROVIDE FOR AC@AL?r � OF ZONING WITHIN VARIOUS DISTRICTS WITHIN THE "WHITEHC�--$17F� �MM►SSI OF THE COASTAL ZONE ST DtStR. 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.H.H. & 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 as "A" on Exhibit 01" (overlay to District Map 14 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code) , is hereby changed from RA-O-FP2 (Residential .X Agricultural within an Oil District within a Flood Plain) to v1;A-C7-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. fi 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 01" (overlay to District Map 14 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code) , is hereby changed from RA-0-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 Dl-2, that portion of the southwest 1/4 of Section 13, Township 6 south, Range it 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 01" (overlay to District Map 14 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code) , is �(��nj �•, V1 -2- �. x,IS, hereby changed from Ml-A-0-FP2 (Restricted Manufacturing within an Oil District within the Flood Plain) to M1-A-0-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 Pacif3c•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 DI-Is 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.H. L 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 D1-2, that portion of the northeast -3- . 3033 • ��f 1r8 t T D,3 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 01" (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 overla5( 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 At -4- W C� - , V � 7/177 Order of Condemnation (State Parcel A1788) , filed in Superior Court Case No. 123366, a certified copy of said final order being recorded Apzii 29, 19065 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 S. 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 Dl-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 it West, S.B.B. & M. in the Rancho Las Bolses, per map recorded in Book 51, Page 14 of Miscellaneous Maps in the Office of the Recorder of said County, designated as OH" on Exhibit 01" (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) to M2-O-CZ-FP2 (Industrial District within an Oil District within the Coastal Zone within a Flood Plain) . / 5' 3033 SECTION 9. The following described real property consisting -tely 26 serest generally located northwest of the intersection of Magnolia Street and the Orange County Flood Control District Dl-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 Boisas, City of Huntington Beach, County of Ordhge, 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 "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) and from Ml-A-FP2 (Restricted Manufacturing within a Flood Plain)- to MI-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 "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 T the Coastal Zone within a Flood Plain) . E7*113- /T Z) -6- - 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: City Clerk C};t� �� l� v 11v REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVED: w► � ;i�tyy Administrator Director of Community Development 1 - -7- ' ;�r3033 - cvl�tl�v moth ,• FCTIONAI DISTRICT MAP 13-6-11 ' - � -~- l�+O+C CITY r f.r�.rwwf• in �.... �� p„ tw•tf� e!w•!•tt K ,t• MOW QSf. if-toot1 f11 0" � r•r 411- •r.ti r- � 'I�II�rGTON BEACH N...� „ ,.. ..rf.f�.1,,, •.�.- .r�..�• 1•t•tr rY e11 ••pen era Ian ••'••'••• •-"'• let. 1 I!f ,••e I.f•M M•1.•►t Q •�• r••r• gm�• me- VANGE COUNTY CALIFORNIA � " ''" "" �- - •- • ..� 1•n.1. 1� wr /•w• tn1► �... ....... ...• :I1••riir � t•rT.t• w M!, • .•f, 11••ff•• . ..-.r f.•r. 1.1•61 w fees ••n •1 f/1Y/nt a +-rf -7 r ••err•.• t.•.tf ••t felt r••1••• • t: ,/f r1M t'rw,, es.. r•..•f•.•.•r• t•r►N NI •001 • f•M Ir!I t•A t'7 :r••••..•.., r•rrr t•r►t• ••• Yfe /•t41 •►• nw .••a••.�•r1 • . C a! no, .... ...r.. I I M •.. I•e• free fw rr.. � .4. •�.r.rrf fr+1•. fI 43 Ott M a ult ,• R) ( R. R.1 iRI RI R ot ..%C- 43 / at ) _ w!!r' lot R R) r,a.. let i RI • RI fl as .. 1 i `- f�f. R ) . ' �r: .r• RI I' R3 �l 43 ' RI a..0 (• I`J RI 03 .. u R4-28 I"3 2R) 11i RI ill ' �..•R1 ;� V NJ 1 � ` eels R3.. ( . J• RI :s;. Rl.t % RI " I RI i �`F•R oil U MI-A-oAl Q .. cc 8. ME) - isli t rp io CD MI-A•0 C MI.4•0-C7 o I ` - —•-- LUD-o'-CZ Lam/ • 's .� �. F P42 `��'l jam^ � :mow•, • lb i ;,.� ,.. MH CZi. P� •�//i f��• M Z— M,�,;O : *wf:trtc OCCRy / '_L?- 1r L P% fir N• :// N 7/V ! /`� rtj twill, ty�tnu DM Z�. ECTIONAI DISTRICT MAP 24.6-11 • SOT[• Lot - ►. r��r� a-wY• CITY OF - W' _ _._ol . tA. ttwiN M....•K tt �►. L[Gt M D 1 ol @@�j .r as•.ram.•.•�•w AXIW r^ a v• i i'LT•'i�TTt•�" ':'ON sw. . to .. '"«�.`- � BEACH w �._�.. .� . �.� ..1. / "r M• •1. ••i•r.• RANGE COUNTY. CALIFORNIA 1••N. +1•.J .• Y` -eta .V.�.��• M•M M� i•M LUD-FP2 f r LUD-FP2 � f � /l Clomp .•. ti J ' X I�1T 7)A tV•w�V •• y.•f �,.. :CTIONAI DISTRICT MAP • . 19=5.10 ' • .O•t CITY OF sft. tr+.ca .ar•..at .s tt• oiMO .•64,1 •r•• ra•fr•fM•• r.rf •.�••'r fon 40 •w• # fr r w •w• .• .•..� •1/••N..w •..a•.,, ••.w M f•n a�•.r ff--� •••• T ► 'It air :: arc_ ...- � �� 1 lG roe BEACH :: ` �. .�.._� . •4'N M ;rl a.rf•Y•^f IMI"'m �••• 0.4# •r•q ••• •fR •mow• r•Y. 1t I1 ll NGE COUNTY. CALIFORNIA �. .•• .. •• w.M. •. '+frf•.f..v. IL It st •.q f.« .•f• •r.f•.�.w �•1•N fM� �• • ffy= w•► II• ••�•.ffq.ir w.•+f wf ..•.. RR (mil ti• !� 1 Al RI i•1.� ..{�� • 1 i0 ' 1 u � a► c• •� n �''RI �0.\UR�LS :� Jt I Its Rl em— R1 •�. RI RI •. / /� •. •� •.ram_• � � Al ,a �1 V IYrRl Ri /+ 1 �L � Vi. . f• {7 s t4 �� . f 4q, Lti r of , ./��// Fop 'c �: T``� i�•� �� ; Ire lov Cv lam`� '• ,�� •f_� r cDi = a 00 tr i n \ Pr '^ d !� y o �' d r� 10 muILMI, r�.:n►n ItltwlrLrt.4Mf NOT A '.::: _ /ART 'r.-t: ..:./ %� .•r�• i:,: ,... 1:; .. r.. 1 •;./. �/ _I•U1II.6.U•Slp WA i 8 14 vtsitoa SEWI G L'01 REIAL Approved Land Use Plan constsrvnttat ZONE CHANGE NO. 88-18 ,,�, C � tm�usattnt. C+�aGY Paoouctton COASTAL AREAS Itr•+1.f•Id/ OWN c"Oft" Area Map } IRD. E:F_aGY PRM./ COICcRVAtION Noy.1, ZONING HISTORY BY AREA (ZONE CHANGE NO.88.18) •.r:�5�j' .)r'•►:' AREA I �r• • ::P�'>.. i,�_ �i.,�•.. , - A C t=A r; • 7 acres 0 NIERSMP: CalTrans . GENERAL PLAN 141 STORY. 1975 -Destination Resort •• 1977-Plarning Reserve •• 1982-"Wh9tehole" 1986-Visitor-Serving Commercial ' ZONTNG HISTORY: Pre-1964 -RI (Single Family Residential) 1964 -RA-0 (Residential Agricultural wl0il Production) 1983 -RA-0-FP2 (Residential Agricultural wlOil Production within a Floodpwn) 1990-VSC-CZ-FP2 (Visitor Serving Commercial v%ithin the Coastal Zone and a Floodplain) ` EXISTTNG 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 comer 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). COASTAL CO AMISSION ,I-Ch —�`7 EXHIBIT *.......F............ PAGE --.. ... OF ..../..© --- . fiov f dr ':' .,A�EA•2~ - J.w.�..i, ;:lam• i.:'�%'"---`i i� .,. a,-&E 28 acres 01x?NERSHLP• Mills Land and Water-7.15 acres CalTrans-21 acres OFINTRAL PLAN 1975 -Destination Resort ti g 1977-Planning Reserve 1982-"Whitehole" 1986-Conservation ZQNM7 G HI STORY: 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 Floodplain) 1990-RA-0-CC-CZ-FP2 (Residential Agricultural District combined w/Oil Production, Coastal Conservation, Coastal Zone and Floodplain Overlay Zones). EM$ TNG 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 Whey 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 Floodplain 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. COASTAL COININIISSION 06'L44J'5e4' c.2 - 7V EXh1B1T #......... --..... PAG F .. ... OF ..� - „ r— 6 A 13 acres 0)iN IERIZMP: Mills Land and Water f2ENTER ATE,PLAN HISTORY, 1975-Light Industrial 1977-Light Industrial f 1982-"Whitehole" • 1986-Conservation ?ON1N'G HISTORY: Pre.1961-RI (Single Family Residential) 1961 -M 1 (Light Industrial) 1964 -M1-A-0 (Restricted Manufacturing w/Oil Production) 1983 - MI-A-0-FP2 (Restricted Manufacturing w/Oil Production within a Floodplain 1990-M1-A-0-CC-CZ-FP2 (Restricted Manufacturing District within an Oil District with a Coastal Conservation Overlay within the Coastal Zone and a Floodplain) )(1S TIN G 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 MI-A-0-CC-CZ-FP2 (Restricted Manufacturing District within an Oil District with a Coastal Conservation Overlay within the Coastal Zone and a Floodplain). COASTAL COM«PESsIQr Na t6aA_ - a9 EXHIBIT .. ..... ..- PAGE ..J... OF .f -3 !Q 4.0 - ��r f.. �. AREA 4 e:' AC EAGF; 17 acres QWNERSHIP: Southern California Edison Company GENERAL PLAN HISTORY! 1975 -Industrial Public Utility 1977-Industrial Public Utility •�• 1983 -"Whitehole" 1986-Industrial Energy Production/Conservation Z,ON NG HISTORY- Pre-1961 -R1 (Single Family Residential) 1961 -M1 -A (Restricted Manufacturing) 1962 -M2-0 (General Industrial w/Oil Production)/M I-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- M2-0-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 rroven necessary in the future. C 0 A S T AL ff V0rl� IF."'I v�LiQ �irl`/ EXHIBIT #.......�.......... _ _ PA GE .�F .��... 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). COASTAL CC ;fit; McfoO Ley �0, �.CPa, EXI srr ... . ... ..._.._, PAGE _..5�.... OF AV .-- AREA 6' ACTIZAM 56 acres QANE.RSHIP: Coastal Magnolia Group-56 acres (Formerly owned by Daisy Piccirelli ORNTERAL PLAN HISTORY: 1975 -Planning Reserve 1977-Planning Reserve 1983 -"VNtehole" 1986-Conservation ZONING HISTORY: Pre-1960-RI (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 ,�Arithin 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). CC 5STAL C119� ElH13°T #.... .......... PAGE ...&... OF .l.O,-•.. -6- 31AP11i N:i; �,I ,•r•••tt' 't•i::'s.Ji I?� ;a .r"•:5 �1 � iWA 7 .' .� ,t•a'r .j. !-its-'J• +�:/.:�'•i.- •. ACELEAryF' 16 acros ©WTv'ERSHIP: H.B.Wetlands conservancy CENTRAL LAN HISTORY: 1975 -Planning Reserve 1977-Planning Reserve 1983 -"Whitehole" 1986-Conservation ZOMNG HISTORY: Pre-1960 -RI (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 isbeing 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). E a'i T ......�---....... PAGE _...I... OF J9 • 'i r Via. - :i� ` =�rri:i_ 'yy�r :a± 3 ! ~� JLU8-ter�.; �.j,. Att'AfZ acres QY—TNjRSH1P: Southern California Edison Company fjENER_AL PLAN HISTORY: 1975 -Industrial Public Utility . 1977-PubIic/Quasi-Public 1983 -Public/Quasi-Public 1986 -Industrial Energy Production ZONING HISTORY, Pre-1961-R1 (Single Family Residential) 1961 -M1-A (Restricted Manufacturing) 1962 - M2-0(Industrial w/Oil Production 1983 -M2-0-FP2 (industrial w/Oil Production within a Floodplain) 1990 - M2-0-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 M2-0-CZ-FP2 (Industrial District combined with Oil Production within the Coastal zone and a Floodplain). COASTK! EXMiGIT .---- ._......�_ PAGE ..0--- Op •/L?.. �— lob rk AWN -8- _ .;c::��j .wa.�`'li.h� �'J:�':Y.e� 't ♦��•,��+ . z;. .1-_.� S`,. _. ! �1�.•'•��::•r::'C' '- `(: i. A AQ; 28 acres DINNERSEUPe Southern California Edison Company SENERAL• PLAN HISTORY: 1975 -Industrial Public Utility 1977-Public/Quasi-Public 1983 -Public/Quasi-Public r 1986-Industrial Energy Production ZONING HISTORY: Pre-1961 -R1 (Single Family Residential) 1961 -MI (Light Industrial)/Ml-A (Restricted Manufacturing) 1962 - M2-0 (Industrial w/Oil Production)/Ml-A(Restricted Manufacturing) 1983 -M2-0-FP2/M1-A-FP2 1990-M2-0-CZ-FP2/M1-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 M2-0-FP2 (Industrial District combined with Oil Production, within the Coastal Zone and a Floodplain) and MI-A-FP2 (Restricted Manufacturing District within the Coastal zone and a Floodplain). AA I��.R<f�""Al A A C ASPUL C'CIM" l i EXH1,51T r.... .P._..�_._. PAGE Y.. Or • Oka • V� -9- . .;y s,.z AREA 10: -*,^nr A ,1 .- Z acres _ Q NERSHIP: City of Huntington Beach SEVERAL PLAN " HI STORY: 1975 -Industrial Public Utility 1977-Public/Quasi-Public 1984 -Public/Quasi-Public 1986- Conservation ZONING HISTORY: Pre-1961 -R1 (Single Family Residential) 1961 - M1-A (Restricted Manufacturing) 1983 - M1-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) EXISTTNIG 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. t:Wipl% F01-1'bSTAL Weir&-NIS+�3.E� �L EXHi£lT r..... ....... PAGE -.1 _ OF -10- Ares Three MI-A-0-FP2 to Area Nine m` Mi A-O-CC CZ-FP2 �o M2-0-FP2 to M2-0-C7,-FI'2 and °' , '• m` M 1-A-F1'2 to T �/ 4A..e MI-A-C7.-FI'2 \° �. 'sue •� ,• 'A ��•/ � • • i ` a• 'Are:t lcn ; �• �•• .'�'�' (Q)R0S-FP2 to ` . ..•' (Q)R0S-CC-CZ-FP2 lye NOT A ��t �_� . : • `-_�.•_� r r_ Y__'Y PART I + r r is .r_'-r_' �L�J jr-`'.x..`jr- �t1-A--j • . • • _ • A 1' t � �- r_ t �r_AL t tJL I'ACIrIC C � ._ son CFO foe Area One 11,11i::11,41rea Eight p RA-O-FP2 to M2-0-M P2 to Area Five Area Scvcn VSC-C7,-FP2 M2-0-CZ-FP2 LUD-FP2 to LUD-FP2 to Area Four LUD-CC-CZ-FP2 LUD-CC-CZ-FP2 and Ares Two LUD-FPi to RA-O-FP2 to M2-O-FP2 to Area Sit LUD-CC-CZ-FPI RA-O-CC-CZ-FPZ M2-O-CC-CZ-FP2 and LUD-FP2 to RA-FP2 to LUD-CC-CL•FPZ n RA-CC-CZ-FP2 UA rn - .e�e, C-j ZC 93-03 / CODE AMENDMENT 93-08 1R1Im o z• -^ IIUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DIVISION •b t� S+ ►s fa • c • • O 'e M O O ^ tII •J�.JO.�.� O" QE)) • c? - N ?.16�C. �• �C� O ` 06sSS : ti 8 �•�E• fw r/S 4 0.C./.c.0. 10AC. ffw.er �s•d 1 At Lme N �l��• !t/c. • A:j/i • ._ �. a.os Ac Q AF y� It�Irj ,< Nz'�' f �•: �• - . AC. • ._�#• � 72 Si .e Y - oil — z J , - Tat G`� ;� • %10N EXHIBIT .......:�I.......,.. _ PAGE ....I..... OF ...1.:... if ate of cofiiernit, , Ti a Rase abet i 141`0'morand m 1%cl zO Fischer. Executive Director Z:ubruary 4 . 19S3 California Coastal Cmmmission 631 Howard Street , 4th Floor San Frrucisco, CA 94206 ,I. • lfl+ — itrrt+ i Opecrt,t:enl of fish end GewM �j SC��► '"Z '� .ve400 �L •% •'1 Dor:irtme:it c1f FIRI, and Gamy Detvi•min:+T=e -4T 1.hE SI atus of Lhi. }:�r..iu;;tun Ts,•acl'a Kctlands In re%;pc:w:c to your requcst , the Dcrart.rcwnt Iles c•c,��:p;ct:•ci tf�s• vtt:tchod 1•c1wrt concrt•ninc the status 01 the lluntirl.^.trn 111•:10) WotIand�. Our r,purt nddregst•s those speLi 1 is consi dorai i mis , rr.yuirvi of tilt- 1)cpartjncnt pursuant to Cuu-stal Act Sce-titau 30411 . PIcae:e• coat act Don 14+3300; , Chief. 1:11%•i1•011110•nIai fcos l:r:+n03 . or rxtu }•::<lsc•r.%• M olu,;i::t , L'nviornmc•atal 5c:rti i r.:•, 1:: anvh • t it (ATS; 4dfi- ; ati3 , ,:huu3d t•ou , ;•our t:t :c1t cti• m:srl�t�r� c�T tilt, Cos^.--i scion h:i%•t• tj;jvst i one rc,:arcl i nr our Di ruct or cc: ?il+ntSllt;ton 13�•ac11 Plannini; I):•partrcnt U. S. I•iwa t t.31411 i 1'L Survi t:c - Laguna Fi Cw•1 Am:ro:- Der Fiulsa Chica - Lorraine Faber. Frt•,.idtnt Fi ,c•d V,,rth3ey, Earl Lauppo. Kit 2:ovi ck - DFG-Rv.-Jon :i Cal i lorl,l a/ConNull Comm)ss;ion - South Coast Ha•pi on.,0 u: l i ve COASTAL CONzINUSS10 EYHIMT #..... ........ DFpA uzn OF FISH AND CAME DETERMINATION • Oi Tiff STATUS OF TM HUNT I NGTON S EAC H WETIAND S • Introduction In siaVing the subject determination, the Department of fish and Came has responded to those specific considerations mandated by Section 30411 of the California Coastal Act of 1976. This act acknowledges the Department of Fish and Came and the Fish im d Came Cox ission as the principal state agencies responsible for the • establishment and control of wildlife and fishery management programs. Coastal Act Section 3D411(b) stipulates that the Department , in consultation with the Coastal Co=ission and Department of Boating and Waterways, any study degraded wetlands and • identify those which can be most feasibly restored in conjunction with a boating facility, or whether there are "other feasible ways" to achieve restoration. Thia report represents the Departments' determinations regarding the Huntington tooth Wetlands pursuant to Coastal Act Section 30411(b). This report includes the following sections: Sum*eary of !major Findings; Central history; Extent of listorical Wetlands; !resent Status, Designation of Wetlands and Criteria and Definition Applied; Determination of Degraded Wetlands; Restoration of Wetlands. within the study area; and feasibility of Restoring and tnhancinS Wetlands within the study area. - c - '4L COh'�Rm Err;�tT #....;z:...... ..... PAGE ..A._. OFjA--- • • f art of Kajor Findings Based upon examination of historical supping, existing biological data, and upon the definitions and triteris outlined herein, the Department finds that of the 162.4!acres within the study area, 149.9 acres art historic wetland and 12.7 are Distoric upland (Table 1). We find that of the 149.9 acres of historic wetland within our study area, 114.7 acres (76.St) continue to function viably as wetlands. The Department finds that all 114.7 acres of wetland identified are degraded •pur— scant to the definition established herein. Rowever, we also find that 113.9 of these 114.7 wetland acres (99S) 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 is this report. Some historic wetlands (31.2 at) located southeast of 3each Soulevard have been so severely degraded that they no longer function viably as wetlands. These former wetlands however, provide am excellent potential opportunity for restoration. Most of the former wetlands (17.6 at.) in this area may be feasibly restored with Iess than sajor effort while only 10.7 acres are trot feasibly restorable. Historic wetlands (4.8 ac.) located vest of leach Boulevard have also undergone severe degradation. Of these historic wetlands only 0.e acres continue to function as wetlands. However. aver forcer wetlands CIA at.) adjacent to this site could be restored to create a 2.2-acre freshwater sarsh. s COASTAL { �l stPSrkLCPaw EXHISIT .. ........... PAGE .3... OF _.�.�0.. La acdiiion, the Department finds that 8.7 acres of coastal dune habitat and 2.9 acres of important upland habitat (fora rly wetlands) are environmentally sensitive porsusnt to Sections 30107.5 and 30240 of the Coastal Act. Additionally, for the purposes of Coastal Act Section 30411(b)(2) the Department finds that a boating facility can be of sufficiently small site that a restored wetland area meeting the minimum 75Z requirement of Section 30411(b)(2) can be maintained as a highly productive vetland in conjunction with such a project. Sotwithstsnding this finding, the Department specifically finds that wetland s restoration is not most feasibly accomplished through establishment of a boating facility in the study area. The Department finds that the most feasible means of enhancing wetland values in the study area is through consolidation of development , management of existing wetlands by public and private landowners or the transfer of privately—owned wetlands to a public agency or private organisation for wetland management purposes. The Department finds that, minimally a 126.3-sere wetland/upland system. comprised of 114.7 acres of existing wetlands and 11.6 acres of existing environmentally sensitive upland, can be feasibly maintained and enhanced in the study area. Lastly, and as is sore fully discussed in our response to Coastal Act Section 30411(b)(3). the Department finds that a wetland/upland system as large as 145.3 acres in site consisting of 133.7 acres of wetland and 11.6 acres of eaviro1nentally sensitive uplands say be feasibly maintained, s��sett'., rd ••restored vithin the study area if development of the remaining 17.3 acres of the • study area proceeds consistent with the five recommendations made on pages 26 and 27 of this report. Central History The study area is a remnant of a once extensive wetland area which existed at the mouth of the Santa Ana liver (Figure 1). This vetland vas historically connected to Newport fay by the meanderieg Santa Ana Rivet. The present wetland (114.7 ac.) r is all that remains of approximately 2,000 acres of historic wetlands which existed upcoast (northwest) from what is now the Santa Ana liver flood Control Channel. This reduction in area of nearly 952 has occurred primarily due to the thannelisation 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 sres has bean formally classified as wetland by the State of California since at least 1971 (Radovich 1980; Appendix 3). 2xttnt of Historical Wetlands in the Studv Arcs Our study area consists of those essentially non—developed parcels within the Coastal tone boundar; of the City of Runtington Reach bordered by Beath boulevard. Pacific Coast lighway (PCH), the Santa Ana River, and the Orange County flood Control Channel. Additionally, the study area includes that area bordered by the flood control channel, Newland Street. and the fuel Storage Tacility and another small area (5.0 acres) generally west of beach boulevard (Figure 2). based upon eareful eonsiderstion of historic sapping in the study areal we have eoncluded that 12.7 acres isssedistely adjacent to PCX were historically upland in the form of eoa n d dunes and that the remaining 349.9 acres of the 162.6 acre study area were historic wetlands (figure 1. Table 1). Of these historic wetlands, 25.2 acres have { ►een so severely degraded that they so longer function as wetlsnds, but 21.9 of TABLE 1. Historic wetlands and uplands within the Huntington beach wetlands• ��,� city of Southern State of Mills Land Ilunting ton Californii Class California Thorpe A Muter Co. Ileoch : Edition* Total 1. historic Wetlands (acres) A. Non-degraded wetlands - - - - .. O 0. Degraded but vinbly functioning wetlnnds. i. Providing documented 38.8 44.6 15.3 - 15.2 11169 high and wodernte hnivIt"t value to . wetinud-associated avirounn. • 2. Providing low value - - - 0.8 - 068 for wetland-associated avi faunn and areas not yet thoroughly evaluated. Subtotal 38.8 44.6 1503 . 0.8 t5eg 114.9 C. historic wetlands no longer viably functioning as wetlands. 1. Restorable 9.6 o.6 8.3 104 2.0 21.9 2. Not Restorable 5.9 .. 2.9 296 1.9 13.3 Subtotal 15.5 0.6 11.2 4.0 3.9 55.2 CIO r YC=WHistoric Wetiand Total 54.3 45.2 26.5 408 19.1 149.9 (acres) -' Al. Historic Uplands (acres) 12.5 - .. 012 - 12.l a GRAND TOTAL 66.8 45.2 26.5 5.0 f9.! 162.6 0 VA x (acres) U tbtat acres are restorable from a biological and technical standpoint while 13.3 acres are not. Of these 21.9 acres, 2.9 acres imaediately vpcosst (northwest) from the intersection of irookhurst Street and PCX are now important as uplands and abould be considered environsentally sensitive pursuant to Coastal Act Section Y 3024 . Thin upland is dominated by goldenweed. Rsplooaryus venutus. Although these 2.9 acres are readily restorable as wetlands, their contribution to the overall ecosystem in terms of habitat diversity, their high quality. and their location leads us to believe that they would be most advantageously maintained and +. savaged for their upland values. The remaining 19.0 acres of restorable former wetlands are essentially devoid of habitat value for wildlife, and consist primarily of filled, scraped or highly disturbed areas. Lastly. 13.3 acres of historic wetland are not feasibly restorable by virtue of their adjacency to active development, the magnitude of fill deposition. and/or their size and shape. These areas are not vegetated by wetland species nor do they provide significant habitat value for wildlife (Table 1 and Tigure 2). !resent Status Tbare presently grist 114.7 operas of viably functioning wetlands in the study arts. These wetlands are son-tidal in mature. They are primarily a combination of vegetated and non-vegetated wetland flats. and sanifest various salinity regiw.s. Dosifinat plant species include pickleweed (Solicornia vit inis). alkali beath Qrsn�_ k�' s_di f_ ol! and Galt grass (Distiehlis soi__t s) it salt earth cress; spiny lush (Ju_ oc_ u_ tut) and bulrush (Sts- $pp.) in.brockish voter sarsh �7 N �,;•• LEOF" •� �oRAnFn ws'n.AMn� MAttAt IIAlt Vint • pit, AeRIMIwA . ream wane= µMe• ` � r �.. MID*vi •eelerefiA i • ..-': .• `��ea - �� . . N N :� � Io! R•elerefiA � � :. °n Ate ��•� .••', • � "' ' .��,, .�� M��ttt' .j t+�+� t •r• aIAfTAIIOgtbllNo�I1Ar � _ ^ GLP.lfAtt tte • vb IN Wy ilk see lot— ftft f _ r vst to r vttl.Alm-AssoclAttb si ns '°'• '-+• '—.�' .' '.•:::.'L = •� eoo' UPL �•R�„ /I«ere roAltleA by the Dept. or Plate .tee can*. ftm not airier WETLANDS As Depicted tt* The Beal. r' UGM , A COMIAL 0140►LAt - iy PO•LwMuidnOwA"M ti LMQw • � � •'' ® teetetesl• � . Plot 1169tete0le dp /. 00 eo.�Is •�� i eer• NbAMAL ttMt b1>MOAet► , too ` / " �, e ••• ram' �Ms... I • a �f,.��r,r�'' _ , . ♦,oar __ � , , . .- ow" CAURMA""RIMACNI •` • • . . r ti��/ r • .41 SMIATO SIPWJ Xmrj OfIiN11Ati ' I • , O UPLA t'1-11 r• r nlre�u�nMn No br.t. .t fish .w sow. � • WETLANDS u,�cn usoRP� MOM AS bpnirlA•# Ow TMw tow-" /'►� �-+-° i. � ••• sreJ's. 01-4 c:::::: (Typhs app.) in freshwater marsh areas. Salicornio virtinia an -obligate hydrophytes is clearly the predominant plant species in the .study area. Common vetland plant species present are listed in Appendix I and in Soule (1990). Won-vegesated flats (salt flats) are wetland areas which, becsuse of their lower elevatipn, sre subject to more drastic water level fluctuation than are vegetated mars%*s. This factor, in combination with high concentrations of salt in the substrate of these areas. serves to severely restrict the growth of rooted hydro- - phytes. Brine shrimp. a>Dphipods, and ostracods are present In many salt flat areas. Additionally. aquatic inseets are found seasonally in these salt flat y areas. Insects collected and/or observed in these salt flat areas include back- swimmers (Kotonectidat). water scavenger beetles (Corizidse). mosg4ito larvae = (Culicidae). and salt flies and larvae (Fprydr__). . The invertebrate population in the subject wetland area is either directly or indirectly dependent upon seasonal algal blooms in the salt flat areas. These algal blooms are, in turn, dependent upon the seasonal water regime as well as outrients which are produced is vegetated aattmarsh tress. The invertebrate population provides a forage base for an abundant and diverse complement of votland-oriented bird species. At least 13 bird species have been observed in the Nuatington Beach Wetlands (Appendix 2). Of the 13 species. 33 species are wetland-associsted 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 conducted by Department personnel and others indicate that of the 114.7 acres of existing wetland its the study was 113.9 of these acres (99S) provide either high or moderate habitat values for wetlas3d-associated birds. •10- Of the 12.7 acres of historic upland, 8.7 acres adjacent to !CH and dovncoast (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. ?hose 8.7 acres provide desitable habitat diversity to the overall study area, and constitute approximately Y 33Z of all remaining coastal dune habitat in northern Orange County (the remaining roughly 652 being located primarily in the Bolts Chica Teologiesl Reserve) (See DFC • 1982). The 4 acres of historic upland Iocated upeosst (generally northwest) from the power plant are not environmentally sensitive nor do they operate as effective buffers to the wetland system because they exist primarily between fCK and .active development such as the power plant and mobile home parks. 41 Definition+ of yetlanes and Criteria for Identification Wetlands are defined in Section 30121 of the Coastal Act as follows: r "lands within the coastal zone which say be covered periodically or permanently with shallow water and include saltwater marshes. freshwater marshes, open or closed brackish water marshes, svemps, sudflata, and fens." We consider the Coastal Act definition of "wetlands" to be compatible with the V.$ fish and Wildlife Service Wetland Classification tystem and wetland definition. ?be latter definition and classification system have the advantage of being more '1readily usable in field analysis because the system is both hierarchical and dichotosous in nature. and because the same set of biological and physical criteria •11- Ls consistently spplied. We concur with the interface between the Coastal Act "wetland" definition and the DSFWS definition as discussed is Appendix D of the 'statewide 2nterpretstive Cuidelines for Wetlands and Other Lnvironaentally Sensitive N abitat Areas" (adopted by the California Coastal Commission, iabtuary `. 19di}. The 17. S. Fish and Wildlife Service definition is as follows: "Wetlands are lands transitional between terrestrial and aquatic systems where the water table is usually at or near the surface or the land is covered by shallow water. For purposes of this classification, wetlands ■ust have one or sore of the following three attributes: (1) at least periodically, the land i supports predominantly hydrophytes ; (2) the substrate is predominantly undrained hydric soil; (3) the substrate is nonscil and is saturated with water or covered by shallow water at some time during the growing lesson es each year. Wetlands as defined here include lands that are identified under other categories in some land-use classifications. for example, wetlands and faral ands are not necessarily exclusive. Many areas that we define •as wetlands are faraed during dry periods, but if they are aot tilled or planted to crops, a practice that destroys the natural vegetation, they will support bydrophytes. COASTAL CuR 1MISS10 EXHIBIT �......z......... • 3.t4 ' PAGE .I.�.-- OF �32• breired hydric soils that are now incopsble of supporting hydrophytes because Of a change in water regime are not considered wetlands by our definition. These drained hydric soils furnish a valuable record of historic wetlands. as sell as an indication of areas that say be suitable for restoration. ..+ r ' r r The upland limit of wetland is designated as (1) the boundary between land- -with predominantly hydrophytic cover and land with predominantly sesophytic or xerophytic cover; (2) the boundary between soil that is predominantly hydric and soil that is predominantly nonhydric; or (3) in the case of wetlands ; without vegetation or soil. the boundary between land that is flooded or saturated at some time each year and land that is not." (Covardin et al . . For reasons involving its scientific soundness and field tested nature$ we have used the fish and Wildlife Service definition and classification system in the preparation of our sap. The sap (figure 2) is essentially the sane as the map prepared for our initial report "An Assessment of Wetland kesources Vithin the City of Huntington leach Between leach louleverd. and the Santa Ana River" (Radovich. 3980; Appendix 3). This sap was prepared by careful analysis of aerial photographs, end extensive on-site investigation. In our initial report. we utilised the appropriate VSFWS wetland Classification code as an element of each definition for the various wetland types defined. The tersinology and definitions of wetlands applied in our initial report Coastal Saltsarsh. Coastal Saltflat. mesh/Brackish Water Marsh- remain the same in this report for ease of t interpretation. clarity and Consistency. It should be acted that representatives 13 -13- of the Los Angeles District Corps Office, the USTWS field office in Laguna Niguel . the DSFYS Regional Headquarters in Portland; California Coastal Commission staffs and the Department of fish and tame unanimously agreed that the definitions applied is our initial report were compatible with the various wetland definition& and eltsiificat.ion systems utilised by these agencies. This unanimity was represented at several meetings between the agencies and Huntington Bosch Planning Departrent staff and City Council members. These wetland types as defined by the Coastal Act and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, are distinguished as follows: Coastal Salt Marsh - A wetland, as previously defined, exhibiting a water and f salinity regime which maintains vege:stion characteristic of an estuarine system. For the purposes of this report , the "coastal salt marsh" designation includes areas which are at least 30Z vegetated and where salt marsh indicator plants predominate. Salt marsh indicator plant species include pickleweed(Sol icornia virginics and S. subtervinalis),alksli heath (Frarikenis grandifolia) salt grass (Distichlis •pts) and others (Z2ZXIX3 dhg).* Coastal Salt Flat — w wetland, as previously defined, where vegetation is lacking (00Z coverage) and soils we poorly developed as a result of frequent or relatively drastic surface rater fluctuation and/or high concentrations of salts in the wafer or substrate (Z2FL3KI/3 dhg)*. GOA13ii l G ::j .►1 010 • p1��i8etti�a.«�- *VSFVS classification system EXHISCf #._..- ...._�., PAGE J.q.. OF .IiA 7. .,,,'y:.ckish Water NsrsA• A wetland, as previously defined, exhibiting a water regime which maintains vc getation which is typically adapted to fresh or brackish water conditions. for the purposes of this report, the fresh/brackish water marsh designation includes areas which are at least 301 vegetated and where fresh lW ackish water plants predominate. Trash/brackish water marsh indicator plant species include spiny rush Ouncus &tutus), sedge (Cv erus esp.), bulrushes (Sci_us esp.), cattails (Tv�h a sop.) and others. (EI/E2EKIVE(XVD(K2/3•dh)+� We again refer to the Coastal Act wetland definition: "Lands within the Coastal. Zone which may be covered periodically or permanently with shallow water and include saltwater marshes, freshwater marshes, open and closed brackish water marshes, swamps , mvdflats and fens." Clearly, wetlands classified in this report and an the accompanying map as "coastal salt marsh" and "fresh/brackish water Sarah" are vetlands by explicit inclusion in the Coastal Act definition. "Coastal Salo Flat" areas designated in this report and an the accompanying sap are periodically inundated and saturated on a seasonal basis and are, therefore, also wetlands by Coastal Act definition. Additionally, it is reasonable to conclude that periodicity, as it is referred to in Coastal Act Section 30121 sears often enough to support a dominance of plant species adapted to, or tolerant of inundation, and often enough to largely preclude the growth of plants which are not so adapted. All areas designated as wetlands in this report and an the accompanying sap exhibit ecologically dominant plant species which are both .401erant of and dependent upon periodic inundation or substrate saturation. . *USfVS classification system 15 . •1S- Azers shown in solid black or figure 2 ware referred to as riparian in nature in our iotital report (Radovich 1980) due to outcroppings of willows which occur in this area (generally immediately adjacent to PCX). As has been previously discussed, these areas are more properly referred to as coastal dune habitats lnoder alteration to our initial sap involves the loss of 4.3 acres of coastal salt marsh adjacent to and upcoest (generally west) from 17ew1and Street and inland from -the flood control channel (Mills Land and Water Company property). This area was illegally filled and scraped in 1981 by unknown persons leaving only 8.3 acres of wetland vegetation remaining and is depicted in figure 2 and Table 1. In July, 1982, the remaining 8.3 acres were bulldozed and disted by the landowner, entirely eliminating wetland vegetation on this .16-scre parcel. This latter activity resulted in the Coastal Commission initiating an enforcement action, and the matter is 'presently involved in litigation. For this reason, and because recolonization of.it least 8.3 acres by wetland vegetation and/or periodic inundation is likely,. the Department determines that these 8.3 acres should be sapped and treated as wetlands in this report. The last significant alteration of our initial map Involves roughly 3.73 acres of restorable former wetlands and and 0.25 scres .of coastal salt marsh which were located between the rotary ■ud dump and the light industrial use inland from the flood control channel. These approximately 4.0 acres were converted to light industrial sue. Based on the definition amd discussion above, the Department finds that there are 114.7 icres of wetland, 35.2 acres of former wetland which have been so severely ,Degraded that they so longer function as wetland, and 12.7 acres of historic upland in our 162.6 acre study area (figure 2 and Table 1). •2h berereinstion of Deg•aded Wetlands Seitser Section 30121 of the Coastal Act nor the U.S. fish and Wildlife Service Wetland Classification System define or discuss "degraded wetlands." However. TRC Section 30233(s)(3) recognises the existence of such tress; and states that these areas shall be identified by the Department of fish and Came. Implicit in this mandate is that the Department must define "degraded wetlands" since *andefined areas cannot be identified. . _ t The word "degrade" has several definitions. Somme of these definition# are extremely negative and, therefore, inadequate to enable this Department to emphs— gist the significant wildlife values which exist in many "degraded wetlands." Therefore, from the various definitions available, we have concluded that the following definition of the term "degraded wetland" is as ecologically accurate a definition as is possible: Degraded Wetland — A wetland which has been altered by tan through impairment of some physical property and in which the alteration has resulted in a reduction of biological complexity in terms of species diversity of wetland— associated species which previously existed in the wetland area. We emphasise that this definition is to be applied only when the alteration is induced by •an. and is not slant to apply to eatural succession from a complex to a r *sort simplified wetland community. i •17- Is b as been previously discussed, 149.9 acres in our study arts (92S) were bistoritally wetland. This historic wetland area was tidal in nature. These wet2snds were once populated by a highly diverse compliment of organisms which iabsbited a diverse assemblage of ecological communities similar to those present .r :odap in the wetlands of Anaheis Bay. Dols& Chico and Vpper Newport Bay. Today, existing wetlands in the study arras are essentially non-tidal in nature. Tish, molluscs, and other msrine and estuarine organisms have been largely eliminated. The 114.7 acres of existing wetl"d is populated by a less complex group of , organisms than that which previously existed due to the impairment of tidal and freshwater flow by construction of dikes and ?CH (in the study area). We find that these 114.7 acres of wetlands are degraded. This degraded wetlands determination is not scant to isply that these non-tidal wetlands do not provide significant wildlife values nor that they are not highly productive. In fact, pickleveed-dominated salt marshes are among the most productive natural plant communities on earth. Although we have not conducted ,extensive measurements of productivity in the study area, preliminary seasuroswents conducted by Department personnel in 1979 indicated a not annual productivity on the order of 1500 S. dry wt/mZ/yr is the pick leveed—dominated salt ssrsh 'of the study area. we emphasise that this figure is tot definitive due to the cursory *stare of the study. Nowever, this figure is compatible with the findings of other wetland ecologists on the west coast. In general. Sol i corn ia•dominated high salt farsh in restricted or non-tidal wetlands exhibit& a scan annual productivity of between 1000 and 2500 S. dry wt/s2/yr (Filers 1930) depending upon the method of 1 calculation used. :u rooitivn to the fact that the subject wetlands appear to exhibit high productivity. the Department has documented high and moderate habitat values for vetland-associated birds on 313.9 (992) of the 114.7 acres of degraded wetlands. The methodology involved in this finding consisted of utilising data accumulated tbrovgh field survey by Department personnel and other sources (Soule, 1980; Cal ?rent, undated; City of Nuntington Beach Final EIR 77-9; Hassey. 1981; Hassey. 1977) to evaluate degraded wetland habitat in terms of species richness/ diversity for wetland-associated birds. Since these degraded wetlands presently provide significant value to vetland-associated birds, and in terms of annual net productivity appear to be highly productive, the Department finds that these , degraded wetlands are not so severely degraded that major restoration efforts are required. 1 Restoration of Wetlands within the Studv Area Restoration and enhancement statures in the study arts v-%uld involve reestablishing tidal influence to the area. The methodology would be to place culverts with selective water control structures (flap gates. slide gates or flashboard risers, etc.) between the wetland areas and the tidally-influenced flood control channel wbieh tuns the full length of the study area. Kinor isprovesents to perietter levees and sinor channel excavations, to istprove water circulation in the restored Brea0 would be highly desirable and necessary in some areas. A new levee of sinor • weight say be needed to protect the WW corner of the Mobile lose park if controlled -tidal voters are allowed into the adjacent area. �19 Conelusive evidence of the feasibility of establishing tidal influence to the study area was demonstrated on the 16-acre parcel between B rookhurst Street and the $ants Asa River. Within six sonths after this area was exposed to tidal action, a large and surprisingly diverse complement of fish and invertabrat:s recolonized this area%"Tho California least tern fed extensively on forage fish such as sosquitofish (Carte �b� aff_ i_'_) and topsmelt (Atherinoas aff__n_). Other fish collected free the site included: California killifish (Fvn� dulus parviyinnus), sta=horn sculpin (Leptocotrus arsetus). longjsv mudsucker (Cillichthvs n+irsbtlis). yellowfin goby (Acanthocobius flsvimanus), arrow goby (CIevelandia _); kelp bass (Paralsbrax clathratus), barred sandbass (Psrslabrex nebu_); California halibut (Paralichthvs californicus); Opaleye W r�ells nitricarls.) and shiner surfperch (Cnestotaster swea+). Tnvertebrotts included ghost shrimp (Calliansssa californiensis), jacknife clams (Tam eT_ califorrisnus). little eu cockles (Lsevicardium substristum). bay mussels (Mvtilus edulis), bent-nosed clam (Maw com na.�a). common littleneck clam (Protothscs sts i_n_ess), striped shore crab (?achypraosus crassices) and a crab of the genus Cancer. Additionally, this area was a valuable feeding and resting site for shorebirds and waterfowl. Reestablishment of tidal flushing to other areas through installation of ,eulverts between the flood control channel and wetland areas to be restored, would result in rapid colonisation by the above mentioned species and others as well. Care ant be exercised during the evolution of such a restoration plan to minimise any negative impacts upon the endargered gelding's savannah sparrow. This could be arcomplished by maintaining a sufficient complesent of Salicornis-dominated high salt marsh. Idditionally, the existing role of salt flat areas in the production of food for •20• . wster•sssocisted birds should be maintained. That is to say that some seasonally flooded wetlands should be maintained or created. The portion of the study area (3.0 at.) vest of :each Boulevard, consists of 0.9 acrds of fresh/brackish water marsh and &.2 acres of former wetland and upland, of Which 1.Z acres are restorable as vet land. The 0.8-scre pocket of freshwater wetland has been degraded because of its reduced site, configuration, location and overgrown condition. In order to effect restoration of this vetlsnd such that wildlife values sre improved, it would be necessary to both expand its site and decrease the ratio of vegetsted to non-vegetated vetlsnd. In this regard, it would ' be highly advantageous to create not-vt=etated open-caster are& of roughly a &•foot depth. This &-foot depth would be adequate to largely preclude invasion by cattails. Lastly, the wetland in this arts should be fenced. This freshwater wetland could feasibly be restored to 2.2 sc (0.1sc of existing wetland and 1.4 ac of restorable historic wetland). Bowever, if offsite mitigation is deemed neeessary for this freshwater pocket , the following conditions must be set: (1) Continue to allow freshwater urban runoff from the trailer park to flow to the wetlands southeast of Death Boulevard. (2) The my mitigation site should result in creation of at least 2.2 acres of wetlands which is presently the potential restoration acreage onsite. (3) . The site chosen must be non-wetland in its present condition. (4) Ths vetland design, location and type (i.e. freshwater) must be approved by the Department. Possibility of Restoring and tnhancint Wetlands within the Buntirgron Beach Study Ares Pursuant to Coastal Act Section 3061I(b) this Department is authorised to study degraded wetlands. Once this study is initiated, we are required to address essentially three considerations. These considerations are discussed below. • 1 A. Section 30411 (b)(1) This Coastal Act Section requires the Department to determine whether major restoration efforts would be required to restore the identified degraded wet- leads. We find that major restoration efforts are not required for the 113.9 acres of existing wetland located south of Beach Boulevard. These wetlands eould easily be enhanced by reestablishing controlled tidal flushing due to their existing low elevation (less than 2 ft. KSL), 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. Vith respect to the 0.8 *ergs of existing wetland located vest of Beach j Boulevard, the Department has found tow use by wetland•associated birds on this parcel. Dowever, we find that it still functions as * freshwater marsh. Tt eppears ths: its relatively low wildlife use is associated primarily with its small size and its avergrown condition. This wetland area could be enhanced by increasing -both its site and the ratio of open-water to vegetated wetland areas. Ve find that these restorative measures are all minor. and ;berefore, can be feasibly accomplished. We note that the study area affords a tremenduus opportunity for restoration of historic wetlands. Of the 31.2 acres of former wetlands located southeast of Beach Boulevard, the Department finds that soot of these (17.6 acres).-could be restored in conjunction with enhancement of the existing wetlands and would not entail a sajor restorative effort. Tor the above reasons., the Department finds that 114.7 acres of wetland can be restored without sajor restoration activities. In addition, a potential opportunity exists to restore approxisately 19 acres (17.6 ac. southeast and 1.4 ac. west of Beach Blvd.) of former wetlands. B. Section 20411(b)(2) • The consideration mandated of this Department pursuant to Coastal Act Section 30411)b)(2) speaks in terms of minim® and maximum. It is obvious to us that a bating facility can be of sufficiently small also that a restored wetland siea meeting the minimus 75Z area requirement of Section 30411(b)(2) can be saintsined as a highly productive wetland its conjunction with such a project . 1 Notwithstanding this finding, the Department believes that a boating facility is act a feasible same within the study area, and thit a boating facility is •Z3- not the least environmentally damaging means of enhancing or restoring the wetlands due to their proximity to the flood control channel and the apparent ease with which they say be restored. rr r C." Section 30411(b)(3) Pursuant to. Coestal Act Section 30411(b)(3), the Department is .required to determine how restoration and enhancement of degraded wetlands can most feasibly be achieved. Zhe term "feasible" is defined in Coastal Act Section 30108 as follows: !ea • Capable of being accomplished in a successful sanner within a reasonable period of time taking into account economic. environmental . social and technological factors. As indicated previously. it is our conclusion that from a technological as well as environmental 'perspective it is os� sible to swiftly restore and enhance the ,existing wetlands as described. In addition, Coastal Act Section 30109 requires the consideration of social and economic factors. Since the analysis of the fessibility of restoration activities in degraded wetland areas is required of this Department pursuant to Section 30411(b)(3), it follows that the Department crust fake feasibility determinations eased on social and economic factors as well as *vvironsental and technical factors. -What is scant by "social factors" is not precisely clear to this Department , i bowever, after careful consideration are conclude that the only potentially negative J and artusb:y social effects of wetland restoration in the study area appear to relate to flood problems and mosquito production problems. Considering the existing potential problem of flooding. the Department . believes that if culverts with selective water control structures as veil as dikes were constructed to protect the trailer park. TCH, where necessary. and perhaps Reach ioulevard, the existing threat of flooding could actually be decreased. These dikes would be constructed in association with a restoration project and would effectively and safely increase the potential storage capacity of water- in the 4 subject area. This increased storage capacity could involve several hundred acre-feet of water which under existing conditions sight cause damage not only to the areas identified above, but also to residential and commercial uses located inland from the flood control channel. If appropriate diking and selective water control structures and culverts are used. the Department finds these restoration activities feasible taking into account the social factors associated with flood threat. The Department finds that the restoration project outlined above (which incorporates increased tidal flushing end the establishment of a considerably more complex group of marine and estuarine-oriented organisers) would effectively decrease mosquito production. The combined effect of increased "Unities AM a &ore constant water regime would allow the presence of year-round active mosquito predators (California killifish. topsmelt. Cambus ,, etc.) and would tend to j eliminate those environments wherein most mosquitoes thrive (Reynolds. 1983). Tberefore. the Department finds that the restoration activities outlined above are •23- feasible taking into account the social factors associated with mosquito production. ttgardip g the economic feasibility of wetland restoration, the Department concludes r� that activities specifically related to restoration would be relatively inexpensive to accomplish. Such activities could, as previously indicated. include such minor restorative measures as the placement of Culverts. limited channelisation, and erection of necessary peripheral dikes. To summary. based upon the stated reasons. the Department concludes that the restoration plan outlined above is feasible as the term feasibility is defined in • Section 30108 of the Coastal Act. to addition to determining the feasibility of wetland restoration, Section 30411(b)(3) requires this Department to determine if the most feasible means of restoration involves a boating facilities project or whether there are other feasible means of restoring wetland values. to responding to Coastal Act Section 30411(b)(2), the Department has already determined that a boating facilities project is not the most feasible means of effecting restoration. This is based upon the demonstrated ease of restoring wetlands by utilising the adjacent tidally-influenced flood control channel in conjunction with selective water control structures. Therefore, the following discussion shall consider other &sans of restoring and enhancing wetland values in the study area. Fecusiag upon that portion of our study area between =each Soulevard and the Santa Ana liver, there are (as previously indicated) 17.6 acres of restorable former �� •2b• wetlands (taking into account the environmentally sensitive nature of the 2.9 act adjacent to Brookhurst Street and our desire to retain these 2.9 acres as upland). Of these 17.6 acres. 6.7 acres are owned by the State and 10.9 acres are in prival emsefship. Of the 14.5 acres of non-sensitive, non-restorable property located .I Utvten Beach Boulevard and the Santa Ana River, 6.8 acres are in private ownershi and 9.7 acres are awned by the State. Of the 10.9 acres of restorable former wetland in private ownership, 5.1 acres do not appear to be developable since they are scattered throughout the study area. consist of stall parcels. and are generally contained within existing wetland areas. Additionally, there is a 5.5 sere area adjacent to Newland Street* of which 4.3 acres were filled and scraped in 1981. Although these 5.8 acres are not presently wetlands, they are nonetheless easily restorable as wetlands. On the other hand, all 9.7 acres of non-sensitive. son-restorable property owned by the State appears to be developable and desirably located for development because these 9.7 acres 'front directly on Pacific Coast highway. for these reasons, the Department recamends the following means of feasibly restorivkg and enhancing wetlands values in the area betwten beach Boulevard and the Santa Ana River: 1. Restore and enhance 113.9 acres of existing wetland. Specifies of this restoration concept were previously discussed. 2. Restore the 6.7 acres of restorable former wetland owned by the State. This a acreage could be easily restored as a function of the restoration plan outlined previously. f f I -27- • ' 2. tetain and enhance the existing 11.6 acres of environmentally sensitive upland habitat all of which is presently in State ownership. 4. Arrange to exchange the 9.7 acres of state-owned, non-sensitive. �;on-restorable. and apparently developable property for all or portions of the 10.9 acres of restorable former wetland in private ownership. these 10.9 acres would, by virtue of their elevation and location, be almost effortlessly. restored in conjunction with restoration and enhancement of other restorable and existing vetland areas. 4 5. Permit development of the 4.8 acres of non—sensitive, non-restorable property in private ownership. Shifting focus to the portion of our study are& vest of Beach Boulevard, there are 0.8' scres of existing wetland and an additional 1.4 acres which may be easily restored as wetland. As previously indicated, the Department considers on—site restoration of these 2.2 acres to be feasible. In summarys establishment of an uplandlvstland ecosystem of 126.3 acres consisting of 114.7 acres of wetland and 11.6 acres of environmentally sensitive gpland is feasible since this system is presently functioning within the study area. It appears that it is feasible to establish on upland/wetland ecosystem of as such as s 145.3 acres in six* consisting of 133.7 acres of wetland and 11.6 acres of -environmentally sensitive upland if the five steps listed above are followed. This course of action would additionally result in private development of 14.5 acres r + • between beach Boulevard and the Santa Ana liver and 2.8 acres of City development within the 162.6 acre study area (Figure 3). Lastly, regarding the 16.4 acre area bounded by Newland Street, the flood control channel, and the fuel storage facility, this area involves special considerations. As previously mentioned. 8.3 of these acres were recently tilled and are involved to litigation. A further 4.3 acres of wetland were filled and scraped in 1981 without benefit of a Coastal Development Permit. Assuming that this 4.3 acre area is not recolonized by wetland vegetation, or does not otherwise reestablish itself as a vetland in the future, and further assuming development of all or portions of the 5.8 acre area near Newland Street (of which the 4.3 acre area is part), then restoration of the balance of the 16.k acre parcel should be required as a condition of any Coastal Development Permit approved for development of all or portions of the 5.8 acre area. This concludes our formal determinations for this area pursuant to Coastal Act Section 3D411(b). Please know the Department remain available to answer any question concerning this report. 4 i �a�••.�wre,.a�.••v��r•r•••r•M•••1.� .• •sear•as•••.•r• . a.. .••• �.• ..r • •..• . •. •.�•. • avow • .,_ • • . . . • ..� .•a •A N/��r..��r•r�'�essss•�N.� • L!'O[MO • •' Cal Items • • pill* Lamb • Water • • • � Nclrtc•t i . fig" Coolies lolotirl" • �i•�� 1 ie. c.ttf. tAlsaw •..•sl • • t \ P otp• �' l,,,�.• '� tF•city of ItmwtlwAtes 9000% ' • • 0.0 c •+coastal tom• 000mAet! . � � 11[Il'lA1At)1.! ACtA! ��••11� e� A • `:1; • 1 16004 dF SJ Lo z MOBILME PAR0,1 �L ..•• •OM MGM !N 1r>M •e• • � tr,auu•��. .. tF•p �.w...•-. •tw ta•t ••i•N C�.w CF 11 40 IN MAt title b Bolt. of flab M! some ftAHHW JWS"GtO""� Ownership Paltttrns •• -30- REFBRFNCES Ca::fc,"bis Department of Fish and Came, "Environmentally Sensitive Areas at bolas- Chica", submitted to California Coastal Commissions. June 3, 1992. Corps of tngineers, V. S. Army, "Preliminary Guide to Wetlands of the Vest Coast States; U. S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Environmental Laboratory, Vicksburg, Mississippi; April 1973. Covar¢in, Levis, Virginia Carter, Francis Colet and Edward Woe, "Claisifirarion #."of Wetlands and Deet)-taster Habitats of the United States": U. S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Flsh and Wildlife Service, FWS101S- 9/31 December 1979. tilers, H. P., "Production in Coastal Saltmarshes of Southern California", U.S. 'Environmental Protection Agency. - 1980. bu'ntington Beach, City of, "final LIR 77-9, Central Plan Amendment 78-1" (Prepared by Wtstec Services, Inc., 1978) Huntington Beach, City of, "Huntington Desch Central Plan - Coastal Element ., , August 1980. Rimple, Steve, Wildlife Manager/Biologist , California Department of Fish and Came, . Bird censuses, 1978, 1979, 1980'0 Mansfield, T. M., "Evaluation of Wetlands and Natural Resources Values Adjacent to the Southern California Edison Plant, Huntington Beach, California," Department of Fish and Came Report , 1979. Massey, Barbara, "A Census of the Breeding Population of the Belding's Savannah Sparrow in California." Submitted to California Department of Fish and Come; Final Report E-1-2, Study IV, Job 1.2. , 1977. Massey, Barbara, "Proposed Mitigation for Loss of California Least Tern Feeding Habitat During Construction of Flood Control Improvements on the Santa Ana liver" .Orange Coounty Environmental Management Agency, 1978. Xassey, Barbara, Personal Communication, January 1982. Natelson, Role", "Preliminary Environmental Study of Excess Parcels is Huntington Beach California"; Department of Transportation, undated. Navigation and Ocean Development. California Department of "Comprehensive Ocean Area Plan, Land Use - Coastal"; Shoot Humber 99 of 127v August 1971. Novick, Harold, Wildlife Manager/Biologist, California Department of Fish and Cate, Species Inventory, 1982. tsdovich, Robert A. , "An Assessment of Wetland lesourcts Within the City of Huntington Beach Between Beach Boulevard and the Santa Ana liver, "Department 1 of Fish and Case, 1980. 5- •31— 1<•-�-lie, Cary, Biologist, Orange County Vector Control District, Personal Casaounication, TeDruary 1983. Soule and Associates. "An ecological study of certain properties awned by Bills Land and Water Co. and the State of California in the City of VuFstington Uach, California", for Mills Land and Water Company. 1980. Speth. J. W., •t al. , "no Natural Resources of Anaheim Bay"; California Department wpf Tish and Came, Coastal Wetland Series No. 18, 1976. Sully, John, Biologist, CA Department of Transportation, Personal Communications. January 1982. - Appendlse 1• List of Wetland giant Species 1 sent 'Within the Wantingten teseh Wetlsnde i Wetland Species Landowner w Location present (See Legondl % State of California 1. Santa And River to Brookhuret St. 1 6 10 Vtrg{n{oe 2. Brookhurat St. to Hagnolia St. 1 1 4 6 d it 2 gat{eorntd subtetn(mUe S. Cast of Beach Blvd. 1 ) • 9 12 1) 2 rhmkari{e {fotte city of Nuntin`ton Beseh 1. hest of Beach Blvd. i ? s 6 2 A ! Juneua acutus southern California Edison 1. West of Magnolia Ste i e S Seripus otney( thorpa 10 fast of Kagnelts St. 1 ) A 6 Seripme eat{foredeus • 2. West of Magnolia St. 1 ) 6 12 7 OAwrue op. !lilts Land t Water Co. 1. North and east of the flood a A ptR!{eht{s control channel 1 ) aptealo 2. West of the flood control 1 ) 6 rypho op. channel 10 lhgfpta mr(tow 11 Jamed emmee 12 Sertpue rdbuetus 12 Cbtute aoronipi fot{e Into list is not intended to be exhaustive but rather represents the most common wetland indicator species present on August 239 1962. *Mostly dead vegetation as a result of discing. •• -»- • AY?rIDIR 2 Bins or THE RUNTINCTON BEACH WETLANDS These bird species are known to occur in the subject wetland area. The following list is not intended to be exhaustive. The list is based on actual field obserwetfon by the Department and other reliable sources. wading birds: .. Crest blue heron Aries herodiss r� Crest egret Ca i�i rod i us bus Snowy egret £ retta thuls Cattle egret Eubulcus ibis Black-crowned night heron Myciicorsx`ticorax Surface ducks , mallard Ana# Iletyrhvnehos Northern lintail Anal #cut& —� Green-,ringed teal Anas crcrrecca Blue-winged teal A- disc ors Cinnamon teal Anas eya�-n�o4 era American wigeon Ana( americans Northern Shoveler Amos clyp+ea-ri Divine ducks Lesser scaup Av�thya affini: Surf scoter Kelanittts peroieillata Buf f lehead Euc.._. e a l b_ ems. -� Stiff-tailed ducks Ruddy duck to Jimsicenais Rite: hawks. falcons (observed foraging in wetland areas) R Black-shouldered kite Slanus eseruleus Red-tailed hawk u� t—ja1na"-censis 11orthern harrier Circus a a� n_eeuss American kestel F-alco sparver:us Shorebirds Semipalsated plover Charodrius sewioalmatus Killdeer Cheradrlus vociferus Black-bellied plover tluviali: squat~—fro s Long billed curlew Numenius emericanus ' Whin►bral Nun R+e-n�i*u 1phacopus (fillet Cates ooptrophorus semipalmatus Greater yellowlegs Trio me'lennleucus 3 �• 3y• thorebirds Least sandpiper Calidris minutille Ounlio 61� idrii alai! �ns . Western sandpiper Callidr usurt Marbled godwit Moss Tedos American avocet Reec—iro�a imeriesna- Black-necked stilt icantcous rhoxica� nu-s— Red-necked phalarope Phslaropus Jositu-s Dovitcher *pp. Litrnodror+us app. Wilson's phalarope Phalaropes frieolrr •' tanderling Cal �dris albs-� Lesser yellowlegs Tri�la-v ves Lesser golden plover 7 1uV)a1 d-o+�inica Spotted sandpiper . Ac�it ma:ula_ • Calls and terns Western gull Lerus oceidentalis HerrinS gull arua sr¢entstu+t California gull Larus californicua flint-billed gull Larus deiawaron%is Sonsparte's gull Larus phO sdelphia Beerman's gull Larus heermanni rorster's tern Sterns forstr California least tern Sterns ant- illarrum browni Caspian tern Sterns cs4tIP34 --! Miscellaneous wetland-related species American coot Tulics a+rericans gelding's savannah sparrow asserculu ichenxis eel_ d__nnttii Bed-winged blackbird ARe� phoenier;% tared Crab* Podicers nitricollis Double-created cormorant PhalArrovorex suritus Belted kingfisher Ce. ryle alcvon r Marsh wren Cistothoru: vale_ s_t� Miscellaneous species not direetly related to vetlsnd habitat Mourning dove tensida useroura American crow Cow brae— h-vshvnehos Morthern mockingbird M_ polvtlottus turopean starling Sturnus vultarls tnglish sparrow Pam dame— s- titicus • Western tseadowlark Sturw ne_ l is nets 3_ ems. Souse finch Carpodscus roxicanus American goldfinch Carduelis tristtis Lesser goldfinch Card! u�el sawn ttria - i Song sparrow a1^os_ met_ o_ois Cliff swallow Hi^ r,u_ndo ovrrhonots tarn swallow Hir_ rus_�: violet-green swallow - Tachvcinets thalessins S -'S- - lforthern Rough-winged swallow Ite2 idootervx serripennis Bank swallow s. p+ris ricssia .. Lo==erhead shrike Lanius ludo— v—i anus . Northern flicker Co!limes auratus - Anne's hwuninpbird Ca• lrannr a Black phoebe savornis nitricens Rock dove Columba 1iv�a .Maven Co~ r�vus for"aax r ' white—crowned sparrown to^ no ri chhi s leucoohrvs water pipit Anthus sainoletts - . Yellow rumped warbler Deneroiea coronata lrewer's blackbird Euphacua evanoc tnalus Drown towhee r" +pilo fuscus 4 a PLANNING MISCELLANEOUS DISTRICTS S. 969.10 ARTICLE 969.7 'CC' -COASTAL -CdNSERYATION DISTRICT r , - , 2753-4185) V S. 969.7.0 Purpose S. 4 69.7.1 Definitions S. 969.7.2 Permitted Principal Uses and Structures S. 969.7.3 Uses and Structures Subject to a Conditional Use Permit S. 969.7.4 Prohibited Principal Uses and Structures S. 969.7.5 Required Permits/Agreements S. 969.7.6 Performance Standards S. 969.7.7. Required Findings S. 969.7.0 PURPOSE. The purpose of the Coastal Conservation (CC) District Is toTmplement the General Plan land use designation of Open Space: Conservation; and provide for the protection, maintenance, restoration and enhancement of wetlands and environmentally sensitive habitat areas located within the Costal Zone while allowing for appropriate utilization to occur. S. 969.7:1 DEFINITIONS. (a) Energy Facility: means any public or private processing, producing, generating, storing, transmitting, or recovering facility for electricity, -. natural gas, petroleum, coal, or other source of energy. n (b) Environmentally Sensitive (Habitat) .Area: means 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: means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, social, and technological factors. (d) Functional Ca acit : means the ability of an environmentally sensitive area" to T5e self-sustaining and to maintain natural species diversity. (e) Significant Disruption: means having a substantial adverse effect upon the functional capacity. (f) Wetland: means lands within the Coastal Zone which may be covered periods ally or permanently with shallow water and include saltwater marshes, freshwater marshes, open or closed brackish water marshes, swamps, mudflats and fens. (2701-7/84) S. 969.7.2 PERMITTED PRINCIPAL-USES AND STRUCTURES. The following Trincipal uses and structures shall be—permitted in the CC District where no feasible, less environmentally damaging alternative exists and ti where feasible mitigation measures have been provided and are subject to issuance 1� of a use permit by the Board of Zoning Adjustments. Said permit shall insure that the uses are developed in a manner compatible with the purpose of this District. Such permitted uses are: JAYJlbck (a) Incidental public service projects such as, but not limited to, L-C,P A-m. burying cables and pipes. +A c1h�'�'11 4185 �,� , �7 S. 969:7:2(b) MISCELLANEOUS DISTRICTS PLANNING (b) Maintenance of existing streets and utility structures (2701-7/84) S. - -969.7:3 USES-AND STRUCTURES SUBJECT TO A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. The 0 owing uses an structures may a permitted in t e C District subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit where there is no feasible less ervircnmcntally damaging alternative and where feasible mitigation measures have been provided. (a) New or expanded energy and coastal-dependent industrial facilities where no feasible, less environmentally damaging alternative exists (b) Diking, dredging and filling which are necessary for the protection, maintenance, restoration or enhancement of the environmentally sensitive habitat area's functional capacity Y � (c) (1)Y Maintenance of existing modified flood control facilities where the primary purpose is to maintain existing flood control capacity and where such maintenance is necessary for public safety or to protect existing development where there is no other feasible method for protecting structures in the flood plain. No maintenance activities shall be permitted which have the effect of draining wetlands. Maintenance activities may include: Maintenance dredging of less than 100,000 cubic yards within a 12 month period; lining of existing in-place artificial channels; increasing the height of existing levees; or changes in the cross section of the I interior channel to accommodate the design capacity of existing channels when no widening of the top dimensions or widening of the outer levees is. required. (2) Only in conjunction with restoration plans, new flood control V f facilities where necessary for public safety and to protect existing development where there is no other feasible method for ' protecting structures in the flood plain. (d) Mineral extraction, including sand for restoring beaches, except in environmentally sensitive areas (e) Pedestrian trails and observation platforms for passive nature study; ie., bird watching and the study of flora and fauna native to the site. Such uses may be located within an environmentally sensitive habitat area provided that said use(s) are immediately adjacent to the area's peripheral I edge. (f) Maintaining existing, or restoring previously dredged depths in existing navigational channels, turning basins, vessel berthing and mooring areas, and boat launching ramps. (g) In wetland areas only, entrance channels for new or expanded boating I 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 I productive wetland. The size of the wetland area used for boating facilities, including berthing space, turning basins, necessary navigation v channels, and any necessary support service facilities, shall not exceed 25 I percent of the degraded wetland. 4/85 � v� (� —16— zla� P�,ANNING MISCELLANEOUS DISTRICTS S. 969.7.3(h) (h) Nature study, aquaculture, or similar resource dependent activities. (2701-7184) , S. 969.7.4 PROHIBITED PRINICIPAL USES AND STRUCTURES. Any principal use . or structure not expressly permitted s prohibited herein. 96967.5 REQUIRED PERMITS/AGREEMENTS. Before the application can be considered complete,te,tKe project shall receive the following state and federal regulatory permits/agreements or a statement from the regulatory body that said permit/agreement is inapplicable. The required regulatory permits/agreements shall be forwarded to the Director prior to the submittal of said project to a decision making body. (A) Unitkd 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 alit Control Board (permit depends on the operation); ( ) 9 Quality (P P P ). (E) A permit from the California State Lands Commission may also be required. . S. 969.7.6 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS: (A) Before the application can be considered complete, the project shall comply with the following standards to the satisfaction of the Director: (2753/4/85) IL (1) All feasible mitigation measures shall be incorporated into projects to minimize adverse environmental effects. (2753/4/or% (a) If the project involves dredging, mitigation measures must include the following: (2753/4/85) (i) dredging and spoils disposal must be planned and carried out to avoid significant disruption to wetland habitats and to water circulation; (2753/4/85) n (ii) 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; (2753/4/85) (iii) dredge spoils suitable for beach replenishment shall, where feasible, be transported to appropriate beaches or into suitable longshore current systems; (2753/4/85) (iv) other mitigation measures may include opening up areas to tidal action, removing dikes, improving tidal flushing, or other restoration measures. (2753/4/85) 1 (b) 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 shortest feasible time. (2753/4/85) , 1 4/85 — j V3 S. 969.7.6(A)(M b)(i) MISCELLANEOUS DISTRICTS PLANNING (i) 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 may proceed. (2753/4/85) 01) 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 veto habitat areas but may become so, if such areas were opened to tidal action or provided with other sources of surface water. (2753/4/85) (iii) If no appropriate restoration sites under options (a) and (b) 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. (2753/4/85)- ' (c) The third option above 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 co-applicant 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) . (2753/4/85) (2) 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. (2753/4/85) (3) Pedestrian trails, observation platforms and other incidental structures shall be designed to reduce disturbance of wildlife and vegetation; examples of improvements so designed would be elevated walkways and viewing platforms, and vegetative and structural barriers to decrease disturbances from permitted uses and inhibit internal access. (2753/4/85) (4) Passive nature study uses shall include a program to control litter; examples include litter containers and "no littering" signs posted in the project area. (2753/4/85) 4/85 PLANNING MISCELLANEOUS DISTRICTS S. 969.7.6(A)(5) (5) Environmentally-sensitive habitat areas shall be restored and enhanced . to lessen the risk of flood damage to adjacent properties. (2753/4/85) `.• (6) Any construction, alteration or other improvement shall generally be :r carried out between September 15 and April 15 to avoid disturbing ad 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; e.g., migratory waterfowl and shorebirds. (2753/4/85) ■/ (7) ,iConstruction/maintenance activities shall be carried out in areas of minimal size. Preconstruction topography shall be restored subsequent to the conclusion of the project unless such topography is to be altered to conform with an approved restoration project. (2753/4/85) (6) The applicant shall demonstrate that the functional capacity is maintained or- augmented through the criteria set out below unless relieved of any one or more of these requirements by the California Department of Fish and Game, and that the project does not significantly: (2753/4/85) (1) 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; (2753/4/85) (2) harm or destroy a species or habitat that is rare or endangered; - (2753/4/85) -(3) harm a species or habitat that is essential to the natural biological function of a wetland or estuary; (2753/4/85) (4) reduce consumptive (e.g., fishing, aquaculture and hunting) or nonconsumptive (e.g., water quality and research opportunity) values of a wetland or estuarian ecosystem. (2753/4/85) (C) 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. 2753/4/85 S. 969.7.7 REQUIRED FINDINGS. It is the intent of this section to ensure an environment which is suitable for the self-perpetuation of environmentally sensitive habitat areas. (A) Prior to energy production facilities being approved, the approving authority shall make the Poll wing finding with statement of facts: t Provision has been made for enhancement of a significant portion of the project �# area, to ensure preservation of plant and wildlife species. (6) For any other project the applicant shall establish and the approving authority shall find that the functional capacity of the environmentally sensitive habitat area is being maintained. 4/85 .00 -19- 9421 .1-4422 9421 . 1 Permitted uses. (a) The following u s shall be pe iited: B. eaches P. Pri to boat ramps, slips, docks, antilevered decks, win screens and boat hoists in onjunction with adja nt single family dwelli gs Public b t ramps and piers rr, ( b) Conditiona use permit. T e following public and semipublic uses shall a permitted subject to the approval of .a conditional use pe mit by t - planning commission: B. Boat related activity Boat slips D. Docks M. Marine fueling ocks S. Sight-seein vessels Sport fish • g W. water t i service (Ord` 2862, Oct 66; Ord. 2752, 4/85; Ord. 27 4, 7/84; Ord . 2659, 12/83) 9421 . 2 evelo ment standards. ( a ) No u shall be sited or designe so as to obstruct public access to ny sandy beach or public use area. (b) No deck or structure shall extend more tha five ( 5) feet er or in front of any bulkhead in any channel xcept for a la ing or brow for access to a gangway for a dock. No str -tune shall extend beyond I:he bulkhead in an area i enti- fi d as environmentally sensit- ve such as, but not limit to, e 19 - ss beds and mudflats. (card. 2862, 2 Oct 86; Ord. 752, /85; 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- nervation, and provide 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) 7/67 _� Q�►r� a-9l . Not C i � a Ex44161T � • 9422. 1--9422. 3 9422. 1 Definitions. The following words and phrases shall be construed as define herein unless the context clearly indi- cates 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 we�,land or i a any area n which plant or animal l or their' hibitats 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 t 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 suffTx__(_-_C_CT 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--removal 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- t 7/87 9422. 4--94'2. 6 cordance with the policies, standards and provisions of the •r 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. (Ord.-__7888, 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 r' 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 artificial channels; increasing the height of existing levees; changes in the cross section of the interior channel to accommodate the aesign capacit} of channels when no widening of the top dimensions or widening of the outer levee is required. 7/87 Exk4- 9422.7--9422.8 (d) New flood control facilities in conjunction with glans ` where necessary for public saiety and to protect existing de- velopment in the flood plain. (a) 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- atrely 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 may be permitted if a su stantidl portion of the degraded wetland is restored and maintained as a biolug- icaliy 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. 2688, 31 Dec 86; Ord. 2862, 20/86 ) 9422 .7 Prohibited uses. Any use or structure not ex- pressly permitted shall be prohibited. (Ord. 2888, 31 Dec 86; Ord. 2862, 10/66) 9422 . 8 Required permits and agreements. Before any appli- cation is accepted for processing, proo 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 S . 10 permits; (b) California Department of Fish and Game: 1601-1603 agreement; 7/ 87 t J 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) ; (e) California state lands commission permit. (Ord. 2868, 31 Dec 66; Ord, 2862, 10/86) 09422 .9 Development standards--Miti ation measures. Before any application is accepte3 for 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) 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 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. (Ord. 2888, 31 Dec 66; Ord. 2862 , 10/86) 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 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 7/87 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 suX.face 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 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 imposes 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 { 7/67 v �x Lt 9422.14--9422.17 tion are elevated walkways and viewing platforms, and vegeta- tive and. structural barriers to lessen disturbances from permitted uses and inhibit internal access. (Ord. 2886, 31 Dec 86; Ord . 2862, 10/66) 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) 9422 . 15 Mitigation measures--Flood control . Environ- mer4tally 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 im rove- _ 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, V . i-n 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 endangered. 7/87 9422. 18--9422. 19 (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 66; 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 satin action of the director. (Ord. 2886, 31 Dec 86; Ord. 2862, 10/66) 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. %wo, (b) For all other projects, a finding shall be made that the functional capacity of the environmentally sensitive habi- tat area is maintained. (Ord. 2888, 31 Dec 86; Ord. 2862, -10/86) (Prior law: Ord. 2655, 12/83; Ord. 2657, 10/83; Ord. 2700, 7/84; Ord. 2701, 7/64; Ord. 2702, 7/84; Ord. 2716, 9/64 ; Ord. 2751, 4/85; Ord. 2753, 4/85; Ord. 2862, 10/86) 7/87 E#�t L� �� ' R PROOF OF.PUBLICATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA) SS. County of Orange ) am a Citizen .of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid; I am over, the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the below entitled matter. I am a principal clerk of the HUNTINGTON BEACH INDEPENDENT, a newspaper of general circulation, printed and published in the City of Huntington PUBLIC'NOTICE 7 ing Code,.to-be consimbrit with.Coastal Commissiori's Beach, County of Orange, State of LEGAL NOTICE suggested modifications to ORDINANCE NO."3325 Local Coastal Program;' California, and that attached Notice is a ',AN ORDINANCE OF Amendment No.2-94.- THE CITY OF Also,Resolution No.96-24 true and complete copy as was. printed HUNTINGTON BEACH an Resolution March 96.25 i adopted on. March 18;, and published in - the Huntington Beach. AMENDING-THE five and one in the Of- HUNTINGTON BEACH fits of the CityClerk, indi- ZONING AND cates agreement-and ac- and Fountain Valley issues of said SUBDIVISION ceptance by the City Coun-- ORDINANCE BY cil of the modifications rec- _ newspaper to wit the issue(s) of: AMENDING THE ommended by the Coastal' ZONING MAP Commission.as part .of their approval of- Local PURSUANT.TO Coastal Program: Amend SECTION SECTION 201.04E' ment No. 2-94 and Indica- TO PROVIDE FOR I tion to the Coastal-Com- A CHANGE OF mission that the modifica- ZONING WITHIN tions of Local Coastal Pro- April 11 , 1996 -VARIOUS DISTRICTS " arertto bendment codified oIn2094 the -WITHIN THE City's : pending Local "WHITEHOLE" AREA.l Coastal•Program Amend- OF,THE COASTAL ment-No. 1-95 for the Zon- ZONE" ing Code rewrite. ORDINANCE NO.3326 These.. ordinances shall "AN ORDINANCE OF take-effect thirty days after . I declare, under penalty of perjury, that their passage. r THE CITY OF THE-FULL TEXT OF THE. the foregoing is true and correct. HUNTINGTON BEACH ORDINANCES"IS AVAIL- AMENDING THE ABLE IN -THE 'CITY HUNTINGTON BEACH CLERK'S.OFFICE_ ORDINANCE CODE BY ADOPTED- by the,-City AMENDING ARTICLE 'Council of the City of Hun- 969.7 THEREOF TO tington Beach at a regular Executed on April 11 1996 CONFORM LOCAL meeting held Monday,-April / COASTAL PROGRAM 1; `1996, by the tolllowmg at Costa Mesa California. AMENDMENT NO.2-94" roll call vote: / AYES: Councllmem- TO MODIFICATIONS bers: Harman, Leipzig, MADE BY THE,.: Bauer, Sullivan, Dot- " CALIFORNIA COASTAL tloff,Green,Garofalo ". COMMISSION". . NOES: :Councilmem- SYNOPSIS bers:None. Ordinance No. 3325 and ABSENT: Council- Oidinance No. -3326 Council- amends 1he Huntington members:None - Beach Zoning rezoning varl- C 1 G T• O"F H U N- sion Code by rezoning vCC T I N G T O N BEACH, �--"" ous' parcels to a CC CONNIE ,BROCKWAY, -�- (Coastal. Conservation) CITY CLERK Signature base zone, and to amend "published Huntington Article 969.7 of the Hun tington. Beach. Local Beach-Fountain Valley In Coastal Program and Zon- dependent April 11,1996. 042-356 , Council/Agency Meeting Held ��/�'�� 00, Deferred/Continued to: proved ❑ Conditionally Approved ❑ Denied City Clerk's SignatVe Council Meeting Date: March 18, 1996 Department ID Number: CD 96-18 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS SUBMITTED BY: MICHAEL T. UBERUAGA, City AdministratorOW PREPARED BY: MELANIE S. FALLON, Community Development Director`�11G ,rf�.� SUBJECT: TWO RESOLUTIONS RELATIVE TO LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. 2-94 Re� IfPs �6 9j�-v2S lFsta-tementofissue,Funding Source,Recommended Action,Alternative Action(s),Analysis,Environmental Status,Attachments) Statement of Issue: Transmitted for your consideration are two resolutions relative to Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 2-94. The first resolution indicates agreement and acceptance by the City Council of the modifications recommended by the Coastal Commission as part of their approval of Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 2-94. The second resolution indicates to the Coastal Commission that the modifications of Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 2-94 are to be codified in the City's pending Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 1-95 for the Zoning Code rewrite. Funding Source: Not applicable. Recommended Action: Motion to: 1. "Approve Resolution No.33a 7 which indicates agreement and acceptance of the modifications recommended by the Coastal Commission of Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 2-94 and forward to the Coastal Commission;" and 2. "Approve Resolution No. 33P� which transmits communication to the Coastal Commission to incorporate Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 2-94 (Zone Change No. 88-18/Code Amendment No. 93-8) into Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 1- 95 (Zoning Ordinance rewrite) pending before the Coastal Commission." REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: March 18, 1996 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD 96-18 Alternative Action(s): The City Council may take the following alternative action: "Do not approve Resolution No. 96 a q and Resolution N06--5(a consequence of this action will void the Coastal Commission's approval of Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 2-94)." Analysis: On November 16, 1995, the Coastal Commission approved Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 2-94 (Zone Change No. 88-18/Code Amendment No. 93-8) with suggested modifications. Section 13537 of the California Code of Regulations states that the local government must accept and agree to the modifications by resolution within six (6) months or their action expires. Two (2) ordinances have been prepared that comply with the suggested modifications. The first one represents rezoning eight (8) areas in the Coastal Zone to be base zoned Coastal Conservation. The second adds new language to the Coastal Conservation text of the Zoning Ordinance. Staff recommends the Coastal Commission accept and agree to the suggested modifications by the Coastal Commission because they are necessary to carry out the policies of the Certified Land Use Plan (Coastal Element). In 1994, the City Council adopted the comprehensive update to the City's Zoning Ordinance and forwarded it to the Coastal Commission for certification as part of the City's Local Coastal Program. That certification request is Local Coastal Program Amendment no. 1-95 and is pending before the Coastal Commission. Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 2- 94 for the "white hole" area commenced processing before the Zoning Ordinance rewrite and thus reflects Article numbers that do not correspond with the recodified Zoning Ordinance. This resolution will communicate to the Coastal Commission the City's request to recodify the section numbers of Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 2-94 (Zone Change No. 88-18/Code Amendment No. 93-8) to be consistent with Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 1-95. Environmental Status: The Coastal Commission is the lead agency in terms of meeting CEQA requirements for local coastal programs. The Commission, as part of their approval in November 1995, determined that Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 2-94 is in full compliance with CEQA. CD9618.DOC -2- 03/06/96 1:54 PM ' REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: March 18, 1996 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD 96-18 Attachment(s): City Clerk's Page Number .................. 1. Resolution No. ��"�y Accepting and agreeing to the Coastal Commission's modific ations cations recomme nded ended by the Coastal I Commission C on Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 2-94 2. Resolution No.96-a,5: Transmitting communication to the Coastal Commission to integrate and renumber Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 2-94 to be consistent with Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 1-95 (Zoning Code rewrite) pending before the Coastal Commission. CD9618.DOC -3- 03/06/96 1:54 PM ATTACHMENT 1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA—THE RESOURCES AGENCY PETE WILSON, Govemor CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION SOUTH COAST AREA 245 W. BROADWAY, STE. 380 P.O. BOX 1450 LONG REACH, CA 90802-A416 (310) 590-5071 November 29, 1995 1995 Mr. Howard Zelefsky F Planning Director Department of Community Services 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 2-94 Pacific Coast Highway Area of Deferred Certification Dear Mr. Zelefsky, You are hereby notified that Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 2-94 was approved with suggested modifications by the California Coastal Commission at their November 16, 1995 public hearing in Los Angeles. The LCP amendment will not be fully effective until the Commission' s suggested modifications are adopted by the City Council , and the Executive Director certifies to the Commission that the City has complied with the Commission' s action. Certification of the Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 2-94 is subject to the attached modifications which reflect the changes made at the hearing. These changes are found on pages 5 and 6 of the attached suggested modifications. Pursuant to Section 13537 of the California Code of Regulations, the Commission' s certification with suggested modifications will expire six months from the date of Commission action if not adopted by the local government. Thank you and your staff for your efforts and cooperation with this project. Please call Meg Vaughn at the above number if you have any questions regarding this matter. Sincerely, G" Charles Damm South Coast District Director cc: Scott Hess enc. 580OF E51 T A STATE OF CALIFORNIA THE RESOURCES AGENCY PETE WILSON, Governor CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION SOUTH COAST AREA 245 W. BROADWAY, STE. 380 P.O. BOX 14M LONG BEACH, CA M024416 (310) 5M5071 HUNTINGTON BEACH LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT 2-94 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY AREA OF DEFERRED CERTIFICATION IMPLEMENTATION SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS Certification of the Implementation Plan Amendment is subject to the following modifications: (deletions indicated by strike—out, additions indicated by underscoring) A. MODIFICATIONS TO PROPOSED IMPLEMENTATION ZONING All parcels which contain a land use designation of conservation, in whole or in part, shall be base zoned Coastal Conservation district and shall be subject to the requirements of Article 969.7, as modified below. The area land use designated Industrial Energy Production/Conservation shall be base zoned Conservation and shall be subject to the requirements of Article 969.7. , as modified below. Revised zoning district maps, adopted by the City Council , reflecting the above zone changes to Coastal Conservation District and Industrial Energy Production/Conservation shall be submitted for Executive Director review and approval and Coastal Commission concurrence. B. RECODIFICATION OF ARTICLE The City may submit the Coastal Conservation District provisions recodified as Article 9422 in response to the Commission's suggested modifications, as long as the Article has been otherwise amended to reflect all the Commission' s suggested modifications. The City shall definitively state, as part of its adoption of the suggested modifications, whether this recodified Article is being submitted to the Commission as a response to the suggested modifications. This recodified Article shall not become effective, however, unless and until it has been reviewed and approved by the Executive Director, and this approval has received the concurrence of the Commission. C. DELETION OF PROPOSED ADDITIONS BECAUSE THEY ALREADY EXIST IN THE COASTAL CONSERVATION DISTRICT TEXT If the City chooses not to submit the recodified Coastal Conservation District Article 9422 to the Commission, and instead chooses to implement Article 969.7, the following proposed additions will be unnecessary. 1 . Delete proposed addition described in Section 1 of Ordinance No. 3251—B which proposes to modify the definition, of wetland in the Coastal Conservation District. f Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 2-94 Suggested Modifications Page 2 2. Delete proposed addition described in Section 4 of Ordinance No. 3251-B which proposes to replace the word "practical " with "feasible". 3. Delete proposed addition described in Section 6 of Ordinance No. 3251-B which proposes to add a new allowable use. 4. Delete proposed addition described in Section 8 of Ordinance No. 3251-B which proposes to replace the word "moderate" with "minimize". D. Delete Proposed Change to Article 969.9.21 described in Ordinance No. 3251-B which references the Coastal Conservation suffix proposed by the City. E. MODIFICATIONS COASTAL CONSERVATION DISTRICT TEXT 1 . Delete Reference to Article 902, which is not certified by the Commission as part of the Implementation Plan; add the following similar text to end of 969.7.0: 969.7.0 Purpose. The application of the coastal conservation district 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 grogerty 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. 2. Delete proposed new Section 9422.2. 1 in its entirety as well as reference to Section 9422.2.1 contained in proposed addition to Section 969.9.21 . 3. Delete proposed Section 9422.3 in its entirety. 4. Modify Section 969.7.3 by adding the following: Add subsection (A) after title and before the first sentence. Add to the end of 969.7.3 (a): (a) New or expanded energy and coastal-dependent industrial facilities where no feasible, less environmentally damaging alternative exists and where consistent with the study titled 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 (re-adopted by the California Coastal Commission December 1985) . Add the following language to Section 969.7.3 immediately after subsection (h) : (i) Habitat Restoration Projects. LU For the portion of any parcel which is not designated Conservation under the certified land use plan, any use authorized by and in conformance with the Visitor Serving Commercial zoning district. Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 2-94 Suggested Modifications Page 3 (B) In addition to the above uses coastal dependent industrial facilities shall also be allowed even where inconsistent with other provisions of the certified LCP if: (1 ) To locate elsewhere is infeasible or causes greater environmental damage and. (2) To do otherwise would adversely affect the public welfare and. (3) Adverse environmental effects are mitigated to the maximum extent feasible and (4) Where findings consistent with in 969.7.7 can be made. 5. Add to 969.7.1 (g) Coastal-dependent development or use means any development or use which requires a site on or adjacent to the sea to be able to function at all 6. Add the Following Language to Section 969.7.1 .1 : 969.7. 1 .1 Designation of the project area. Development or subdivision of any parcel in whole or in part within the coastal conservation district shall be permitted only pursuant to an overall development plan for the entirety of all parcels that are geographically contiguous and in common ownership at the time of Application, For purposes of determining common ownership pursuant to this Article, parcels which are owned in fee. as well as parcels subject to existing purchase options. shall be treated as commonly owned. Consistent with Government Code section 66424. property shall be considered as contiguous pursuant to this Article even if separated by roads. streets. utility easements or railroad rights of way_ 7. Add the following to Section 969.7.3: 969.7.3.1 Application for economically viable use determination. Any applicant that proposes a use other than one permitted in the coastal conservation district based on the contention that the uses permitted in this district will not provide an economically viable use of his or her property shall apply for an economic viability determination in conjunction with their coastal development permit application. The application for an economic viability determination shall include the entirety of all parcels that are geographically contiguous and held by the applicant in common ownership at the time of the application Before any application for a coastal development permit and economic viability determination is accepted for processing the applicant shall provide the following information: Sal The date the applicant purchased or otherwise acquired the property, and from whom. LL The purchase price paid by the applicant for the propgrty. Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 2-94 Suggested Modifications Page 4 The fair market value of the property at the time the applicant acquired it, describing the basis upon which the fair market value is derived. including any appraisals done at the time. The general plan zoning or similar land use designations applicable to the property at the time the applicant acquired it, as well as any changes to these designations that occurred after acquisition. S� Any development restrictions or other restrictions on use. other than government regulatory restrictions described in (d) above. that applied to the property at the time the applicant acquired it. or which have been imposed after acquisition. Any change in the size of the property since the time the applicant acquired it. including a discussion of the nature of the change, the circumstances and the relevant dates. M A discussion of whether the applicant has sold or leased a portion of, or interest in. the property since the time of purchase. indicating the relevant dates. sales prices. rents, and nature of the portion or interests in the property that were sold or leased. Any title reports. litigation guarantees or similar documents in connection with all or a portion of the property of which the applicant is aware. Any offers to buy all or a portion of the property which the applicant solicited or received. including the approximate date of the offer and offered price. The applicant's costs associated with the ownership of the property. annualized for each of the last five calendar years. including property taxes. groperty assessments. debt service costs (such as mortgage and interest costs). and operation and management costs. W . Apart from any rent received from the leasing of all or a portion of the property, any income generated by the use of all or a portion of the property over the last five calendar years. If there is any such income to report it should be listed on an annualized basis along with a description of the uses that generate or has generated such income. 9697.3.2 Economically viable use determination. The decision-making authority shall hold a public hearing on any Application for an economically viable use determination Prior to Approving a coastal development permit for a use other than one provided for in the coastal conservation district the decision-making authority shall make the following findings: SA2 used on the economic information provided by the applicant as well as any other relevant evidence each use provided for in the coastal conservation district would not provide an Rconomically viable use of the applicant' s property. Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 2-94 Suggested Modifications Page 5 Restricting the use of the applicant' s property to the uses provided for in the coastal conservation district would interfere with the applicant' s reasonable investment—backed expectations. The findings adopted by the decision—making authority shall identify the evidence supporting the finding 969.7.3.3 Economically viable use. Where the decision—making authority finds that the uses provided for in the coastal conservation district would not provide an economically viable use. and that restricting the use of the applicant' s property to these uses would interfere with their reasonable investment backed expectations, the uses provided for in the visitor serving commercial zoning district may be allowed as a conditional use and in planning area 3 only. the uses provided for in the Limited Manufacturing zone of the Industrial District may be allowed as a conditional use. A specific development proposal for a visitor serving commercial use or limited manufacturing use. may be denied. however, if a feasible less environmentally damaging visitor serving commercial or limited manufacturing alternative also would provide the applicant with an economically viable use. In addition to the other Performance Standards of 969.7.6 applicable to projects in the coastal conservation district. such a visitor serving commercial or limited manufacturing use shall be subject to the following development standards: The area in which visitor serving commercial or limited manufacturing uses shall be permitted shall be the minimum amount necessary to provide the applicant with an economically viable use of his or her 1Lperty_ S� The portion of the project involving visitor serving commercial or limited manufacturing uses shall also be subject to the standards of the visitor serving commercial district or the limited manufacturing zone. SsZ Access through wetlands or environmentally sensitive habitat areas to an area proposed for visitor serving commercial or limited manufacturing uses shall only be allowed if necessary to provide an economically viable use of the overall development plan area. 8. Add the following language: 969.7.5.1 Required Consideration of Alternatives. Before any application is accepted for processing. the applicant shall provide topographic vegetative hydrologic and soils information prepared by a qualified professional which identifies the extent of the wetlands on the property. This submittal shall also include an analysis of alternatives to the pro op_sed project and an assessment of how the proposed project is the least environmentally damaging alternative The analysis of alternatives shall include an assessment of how the proposed project will impact all adjacent wetlands and environmentally sensitive habitat areas. including those within the overall development plan area Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 2-94 Suggested Modifications Page 6 9. Modify Section 969.7.6 as follows: 969.7.6 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (A) Before the coastal development permit can be issued, the project shall comply with the following standards to the satisfaction of the Director: (1) Wetlands and environmentally sensitive habitat areas that are designated for preservation after a permit hearing granting �j ect approval on the property shall be preserved through a conservation easement, deed restriction or other similar mechanism consistent with Public Resources Code Section 30010. Such easements or restrictions need not authorize any public right of access or use. Exclusive use and possession of the area may remain with the applicant. L&I All feasible mitigation measures shall be incorporated into projects to minimize adverse environmental effects. L, If the project involves dredging, mitigation measures must include the following: L dredging and spoils disposal must be planned and carried out to avoid significant disruption to wetland habitats and to water circulation; 2 limitations may imposed on the timing of the operation, the type of operation, the quantity of dredged material removed, and the location of the spoil site; 3—. dredge spoils suitable for beach replenishment shall , where feasible, be transported to appropriate beaches or into suitable longshore current systems; other mitigation measures may include opening up areas to tidal action, removing dikes, improving tidal flushing, or other restoration measures. Jj-U If the project involves diking or filling of a wetland, the following minimum mitigation measures shall apply. (renumber existing 969.7.6 text accordingly) 10. Add new Section 969.7.2. 1 regarding Hamilton Avenue Extension 969.7.2.1 Extension of Hamilton Avenue_ The extension of Hamilton Avenue shall be permitted between Beach Boulevard and Newland Street. The precise alignment of Hamilton Avenue shall not be approved without documentation that the least environmentally damaging feasible alternative is the chosen alternative: Before the precise alignment of Hamilton Avenue can be approved an EIR shall be certified which addresses the alternative alignments for Hamilton Ave and the mitigation needs generated from each alternative The alternatives analysis shall include -t a minimum, the following: (1) placing the roadway in an alignment which Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 2-94 Suggested Modifications Page 7 is most protective of wetland habitats, including the construction of the road on pilings or bridging the road over the wetlands and (2) limiting the width of the roadway by narrowing lanes and eliminating shoulders. and (3) reauiring full mitigation for any impacted wetlands. No net loss of wetland shall 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. 11 . Add the following language to Section 969.7.7: (A) Prior to energy production facilities being approved, the approving authority shall make the following finding with statement of facts: ]1 Provision has been made for enhancement of a significant portion of the project area, to ensure preservation of plant and wildlife species. (B) Prior to coastal dependent industrial facilities being approved, the approving authority shall make the following_ finding with statement of facts: 1) Alternative locations are infeasible or more environmentally damaging. 2) To locate the construction or expansion elsewhere would adversely affect the public welfare. 3) Adverse environmental effects are mitigated to the maximum extent feasible consistent with 969.7.6. 4) Siting is consistent with the study titled 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 (re-adopted by the California Coastal Commission December 1985) . 5) For expansion of the Southern California Edison Plant within the area designated Industrial Energy Production/Conservation only: Not less than two and one half acres of wetlands south of Magnolia are permanently Drotected by conservation easements. dedications or other similar mechanisms for each acre of wetlands filled. and a program acceptable to the Department of Fish and Game is implemented to assure long term habitat enhancement or restoration of these protected wetlands. Vehicular access shall be prohibited in the wetland mitigation area protected by conservation easement or similar mechanism. and I The infeasibility of expanding inland to the area known as the Rotary Mud Dump site (also known as the Ascon Landfill ) , or other inland location. unless the Energy Commission has determined such expansion infeasible during or before the Notice of Intention proceeding, Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 2-94 Suggested Modifications Page 8 For any other project the applicant shall establish and the approving authority shall find that the functional capacity of the environmentally sensitive habitat area is being maintained. 5799F ATTACHMENT 2 f• } }. REQUEST FOR LATE SUBMITTAL OF RCA v�:;> ....:::....:::::............... ::::,.:. D artment: . RCA -("WD w-nc S - = GPD Title �-A Z -qLf .. ..........::::. ........::.... ...................::::....:...:: , Meeting = Date of This_R uest:-fi t '7Date:xunc' vy•.'::::•:'r•:i:i•:E.:{(i:i.'{:..':..:T:::::'-:'ter::::.,..:{.. ...............:} •�, ' r.Yi; iirr'i':-: ':4:i: x-i,•::{: :i>i :=' iiisiv:::i: .................... Y. .v�n: :•.,v:....v.....4.-.. .::.4..........rT}v::..�:,...,..n�SL�......v.+w:.:.:::}r�:Jrr..::A,�Ox.-..4:}:s..::.:. ...:..}��Y ..A,v ..:::iTi:�: ,�•V6�MVP:4 , .,,,,4-r:-S�+A4... : _.ON h is this RCA being submitted late? . . . ......... . . . .....• A oEXPLANATION is this RCA necessary to this agenda?): 15 � _ -�rM, ... ... yCQNSEQUENCES How shall delay of this RCA adversely impact the City?): iT VAU— DqY bt✓ � � (aN.S C�.�3S�E »: .......... Signature: p,*ffroved O Denied M-Approved O Denied � — Initials Required �G?� DeOartment Head Ray Silver Michael Uberua a -e� ;::<.; �i ♦ � -- nnn�no�s n� a :. x_ Request for Late Submittal _ _ 'Requests for Council Action (RCA's) are due and considered late after ` -the.City Administrator's deadline which is 5:00 P.M. Wednesday ten _ days-prior to the Council meeting at which the item is to be heard. This ~^eadline reflects the time needed prior to Agenda Review for �--- .Administration staff and the City Administrator to review all RCA's and their support material prior to forwarding them to the City Clerk for _= f placement on the preliminary agenda. It also provides time for the City Clerk's office to review-the item and add proper wording for the item to the preliminary agenda for discussion at Agenda Review the following zm=f=_ Monday. The Request for Late Submittal form provides a vehicle for RCA's to be submitted after the Wednesday, deadline when there are extenuating -T-T-circumstances which delayed the-item and when action on the item is .-. necessary at the.upcoming Council meeting. 3 Late items can agendized only with signed authorization on the Request =- for Late Submittal form by the Assistant City Administrator or the City Administrator. _ '.j,F7,_ - .-.�..—....�.. .c i RCA ROUTING SHEET INITIATING DEPARTMENT: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: TWO RESOLUTIONS RELATIVE TO LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. 2-94 COUNCIL MEETING DATE: March 18, 1996 RCA ATTACHMENTS STATUS Ordinance (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Not Applicable Resolution (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Attached Tract Map, Location Map and/or other Exhibits Not Applicable Contract/Agreement (w/exhibits if applicable) (Signed in full by the City Attorney) Not Applicable Subleases, Third Party Agreements, etc. (Approved as to form by City Attorney) Not Applicable Certificates of Insurance (Approved by the City Attome Not Applicable Financial Impact Statement (Unbudget, over $5,000) Not Applicable Bonds (If applicable) Not Applicable Staff Report (If applicable) Not Applicable Commission, Board or Committee Report (If applicable) Not Applicable Findings/Conditions for Approval and/or Denial Not Applicable EXPLANATION FOR MISSING ATTACHMENTS REVIEWED RETURNED FORWARDED Administrative Staff Assistant City Administrator Initial -City Administrator Initial City Clerk EXPLANATION FOR RETURN OF ITEM: Space . Only) RESOLUTION NO. 96-24 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. 2-94 AS MODIFIED WHEREAS, the California Coastal Commission reviewed and approved Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 2-94 as modified at the November 16, 1995, Coastal Commission hearing; and Section 13537 of the Coastal Commission Regulations requires the local government to accept and agree to the modification by resolution within six (6)months, or the certification will expire; and Upon the City Council action staff will forward Resolution No.96-24for final Coastal Commission certification; NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby resolve as follows: 1. That the City Council accepts and agrees to the Coastal Commission's approval of Local Coastal Program Amendment 2-94 by amending the Zoning District Maps and modifying the Coastal Conservation District as suggested by the Coastal Commission in the letter dated November 29, 1995, attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated by this reference as though fully set forth herein. Said suggested modifications shall become effective 30 days after adoption of Ordinance No. 3325 and Ordinance No. 3326 , or upon final Coastal Commission certification, whichever occurs latest. 1 4\PCD:Reso1ut:Amd.294 3/6/96 RLS 96-154 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting held on the 18th day of March , 1996. Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk j P/City Attorney REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVED: City AdSinistrator Director of Community Development 2 4\PCD:Resolut:Amd 294 3/6/96 RLS 96-154 Res. No. 96-24 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 18th of March, 1996 by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers: Harman, Sullivan, Dettloff, Green,Leipzig,Bauer, Garofalo NOES: Councilmembers: None ABSENT: . Councilmembers: None City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City-of Huntington Beach, California G/resoluti/resbkpg RESOLUTION NO. 96-25 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH TO AMEND THE TEXT OF LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. 1-95 TO REFLECT ADOPTION OF COASTAL COMMISSION SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS TO LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. 2-94 WHEREAS, Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 2-94, consisting of Zone Change No. 88-18 and Code Amendment No. 93-8, was adopted by the City Council on September 6, 1994 and referred to the Coastal Commission for Certification; and After the adoption of L.C.P. Amendment No. 2-94, the City Council adopted Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 1-95, consisting of an entirely new Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance on January 3, 1995, with a new numbering system for each section of zoning text, and referred it to the Coastal Commission for certification; and On November 15, 1995, the Coastal Commission reviewed and approved Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 2-94 subject to suggested modifications; and By Resolution No.96-24 adopted on March 18 , 1996, the City Council accepted and agreed to amend Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 2-94 by incorporating the Coastal Commission suggested modifications; and The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach desires to amend Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 1-95 to include all provisions of LCP Amendment No. 2- 94 as amended to incorporate the Coastal Commission suggested modifications; and The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach desires to renumber the zoning text contained in Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 2-94 to conform to the new system of chapter and section numbering contained in Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 1-95; 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, 1 4\s\PCD:Res01ut:Renumber RLS 96-154;03/12/96 NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby resolve as follows: i SECTION 1. That Huntington Beach LCP Amendment No. 1-95 is hereby amended by incorporation of Huntington Beach LCP Amendment No. 2-94 as amended by City Council t Resolution No.96-24, which reflects the City Coundil's adoption of Coastal Commission suggested modifications.to LCP Amendment No. 2-94, and by deletion of all portions of Huntington Beach LCP Amendment No. 1-95 that are inconsistent with Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 2-94 as amended by City Council Resolution No-96-24. SECTION 2. That the Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 2-94, consisting of Zone Change No. 88-18 and Code Amendment No. 93-8, is hereby renumbered to conform to the Chapter and Section numbering system previously approved by the City Council as part of Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 1-95. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 18th day of March , 1996. G�— Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: r City Clerk City Attorney INITIATED AND APPROVED: RE ,WED AND APPROVED: G - Director of C mmunity Development 'City Administrato 2 4ls1PCD:Reso1ut:Renumber RLS 96-154;03/12/96 Res. No. 96-25 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 18th of March, 1996 by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers: Harman, Sullivan, Dettloff, Green,Leipzig,Bauer, Garofalo NOES: Councilmembers: None ABSENT: Councilmembers: None City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California G/resoluti/resbkpg . , qro .a0 H. B. INDEPENDENT PUBLISH DATE: 4/11/96 LEGAL NOTICE ORDINANCE NO 3325 "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH ZONING AND SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE BY AMENDING THE ZONING MAP PURSUANT TO SECTION 201.04E TO PROVIDE FOR A CHANGE OF ZONING WITHIN VARIOUS DISTRICTS WITHIN THE"WHITEHOLE"AREA OF THE COASTAL ZONE" ORDINANCE NO 3326 "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH ORDINANCE CODE BY AMENDING ARTICLE 969.7 THEREOF TO CONFORM LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. 2-94 TO MODIFICATIONS MADE BY THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION." SYNOPSIS: Ordinance No. 3325 and Ordinance No. 3326 amends the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Code by rezoning various parcels to a CC (Coastal Conservation) base zone, and to amend Article 969.7 of the Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program and Zoning Code,to be consistent with Coastal Commission's suggested modifications to Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 2-94. Also, Resolution No. 96-24 and Resolution No. 96-25 adopted on March 18, 1996, and on file in the Office of the City Clerk, indicates agreement and acceptance by the City Council of the modifications recommended by the Coastal Commission as part of their approval of Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 2-94 and indication to the Coastal Commission that the modifications of Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 2094 are to be codified in the City's pending Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 1-95 for the Zoning Code rewrite. These ordinances shall take effect thirty days after their passage. THE FULL TEXT OF THE ORDINANCES IS AVAILABLE IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting held Monday, April 1, 1996, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers: Harman, Leipzig, Bauer, Sullivan, Dettloff, Green, Garofalo NOES: Councilmembers: None ABSENT: Councilmembers: None CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CONNIE BROCKWAY CITY CLERK • r r Council/Agency Meeting Held:3!k 9 L Deferred/Continued to: Approved ❑ Conditionally Approved ❑ Denied City Clerk's Signfure Council Meeting Date: March 18, 1996 Department ID Number: CD 96-17 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS SUBMITTED BY: MICHAEL T. UBERUAGA, City Administrator (04f PREPARED BY: MELANIE S. FALLON, Director Community Developmen Z—x- -- - SUBJECT: LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. 2-94 (ZONE CHANGE NO. 88-18/CODE AMENDMENT NO. 93-8) WHITE HOLE AREA CI Z) '0'33-�S 4- 60-D *-,Y.f A 6 F atement of Issue,Funding Source,Recommended Action,Alternative Action(s),Analysis,Environmental Status,Attachment(s) Statement of Issue: Transmitted for your consideration is Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 2-94 which represents Zone Change No. 88-18 and Code Amendment No. 93-8 referring to the "white hole" area. The "white hole" refers to 232 acres located along the inland side of Pacific Coast Highway between Beach Boulevard and the Santa Ana River. The City Council approved Ordinance No. 3033 as part of Zone Change No. 88-18 rezoning ten (10) areas in the "white hole" area of the Coastal Zone on April 2, 1990. The City Council approved Ordinance No. 3251-B as part of Code Amendment No. 93-8 amending the "CC" (Coastal Conservation) language of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code on September 6, 1994. On September 6, 1994, the City Council also approved Resolution No. 6628, which forwarded Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 2-94 to the California Coastal Commission. The California Coastal Commission, at their public hearing on November 16, 1995, approved Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 2-94 with suggested modifications. The recommended modifications by the California Coastal Commission require two (2) new ordinances which are attached to this report. a Funding Source: Not applicable Recommended Action: Motion to: "Approve Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 2-94 (Zone Change No. 88-8/Code Amendment No. 93-8) incorporating the suggested modifications recommended by the California Coastal Commission based upon the findings outlined in Attachment No. 1 by adopting Ordinance No. 3Z (Attachment No. 3) and Ordinance No.33�A6 (Attachment No. 7)." REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: March 18, 1996 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD 96-17 Alternative Action(s): The City Council may take the following alternative action: Motion to: `Deny Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 2-94 with findings (a consequence of this action will void the California Coastal Commission's approval of Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 2-94)." Analysis: There are two components of a Local Coastal Program that need to be completed to achieve certification of the White hole"area. They are: (1) adoption of a Land Use Plan (LUP); and (2) adoption of an Implementation Plan (IP) that consists of Zoning District Maps and text. City Coastal Commission General Plan Land Use Plan Coastal Element LUP Zoning Ordinance Implementation Plan (IP) Local Coastal Program (Zoning District Map (Zoning District Maps (LCP) and Text) I and Text The Land Use Plan was approved in 1986. This LCPA represents the Implementation Plan and is the final step of completing certification for the White hole"area. The following is a summarized history of the White hole" area, a discussion of the Coastal Commission's recent modifications to Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 2-94 and summary of staff's recommendation. 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. 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. CD96-17.DOC -2- 03/07/96 10:02 AM REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: March 18, 1996 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD 96-17 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 11). 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 11). 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 northeast 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 (Attachment 5). 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. CD96-17.DOC -3- 03/07/96 9:20 AM REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: March 18, 1996 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD 96-17 Subsequently, the Planning Commission approved and in February, 1990, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 3033 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. A resolution with the adopted ordinance was sent 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 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. The six (6) months time period elapsed. In 1993, the City Council directed staff to complete certification of the City's Local Coastal Program for the "white hole" area. Thus, Ordinance No. 3251-B (Code Amendment No. 93- 8) was adopted by the City Council in 1994 which amended the Coastal Conservation language as suggested by the Coastal Commission in their 1992 action. A resolution representing Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 2-94 was transmitted to the Coastal Commission again seeking final certification of the "white hole" area. Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 2-94 included Zone Change No. 88-18 and Code Amendment No. 93-8 and was intended to be adequate to carry out the goals and policies of the certified Land Use Plan. Coastal Commission's Modifications: On November 16, 1995, the Coastal Commission adopted Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 2-94 (Zone Change No. 88-18/Code Amendment No. 93-8) with modifications (Attachment No. 8). The City has six months from Coastal Commission approval to accept the modifications or they will expire. If they expire, the City must re- submit an entirely new application to seek certification of the "white hole" area. If the City chooses to accept the modifications, two ordinances are required and a resolution accepting CD96-17.DOC -4- 03/07/96 9:20 AM REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: March 18, 1996 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD 96-17 the modifications must be adopted. Staff has prepared an ordinance reflecting the changes to the Zoning District Maps (Attachment No. 3), and an ordinance reflecting the changes to the CC (Coastal Conservation) District language of the Zoning Code (Attachment No. 7) pursuant to the modifications. The modifications are necessary in order for the LCPA to be in conformance with and adequate to carry out the certified Land Use Plan. The following is a summary of the changes: A. Zoning Map (Implementation Zoning) Changes The 1990 zone change added a CC suffix to all parcels that have a land use designation of conservation. The Coastal Commission felt the CC suffix is not consistent with the requirements of the Coastal Act and Land Use Plan because the suffix combined with non-conservation base zoning allows a variety of uses that are in conflict with the standards of the Land Use Plan and are not protective of the wetlands. The suggested modifications include deleting the CC suffix and rezoning all parcels which contain a land use designation of conservation, and energy production/conservation, in whole or part, to be base zoned Coastal Conservation District (Attachment No. 2). The proposed ordinance (Attachment No. 3) amends eight (8) areas (identified as Areas A-H) on the zoning maps. Attachment No. 4 provides a history of zoning and description of each area. The base zoning is being changed while the various overlay zones (O, CZ and FP) are retained. B. Coastal Conservation (CC) District Language (Implementation Plan) Changes The modifications made by the Coastal Commission include revisions to the CC District as follows: 1. Adopt language so it applies to all CC zoned parcels requiring an overall development plan, providing wetland studies and alternative analysis at the time of coastal development permit application, requiring permanent preservation if wetland areas and prohibiting further subdivision of parcels containing wetlands. 2. Add new language requiring specific information at the time of the coastal development permit application if the property owner contends that the uses provided for in the CC District are not economically viable. This suggested modification establishes a process by which a property owner may submit an application for economically viable use determination. As part of the application, information relative to the purchase price, fair market value of the property at the time of acquisition, the general plan designation and zoning of property at the CD96-17.DOC -5- 03/07/96 9:20 AM REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: March 18, 1996 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD 96-17 time of acquisition, any development restrictions on the property, any sale or lease of the portion of property since time of purchase, any offers to buy subject property, applicant's costs associated with ownership of the property (including property taxes, property assessments, debt service costs, maintenance costs, etc.) over the last five (5) years, and any income generated by the use of the property over the last five (5) years. 3. Add new language which specifies the findings that must be made if deprivation of all economic use is determined. There would be two (2) findings the decision making authority must adopt prior to approving a coastal development permit. The first is that based upon the economic information provided by the applicant, each use allowed by the CC District would not provide an economically viable use of the applicant's property. The second finding is that restricting the use of the applicant's property to the uses provided for in the CC District would interfere with the applicant's reasonable investment-backed expectations. 4. Add new language to provide allowable uses and development standards if deprivation of all economic use is determined. Should the decision making authority adopt the findings listed in No. 3 above, then the uses provided for in the Visitor Serving Commercial District may be allowed as a conditional use. However, prior to approval of a coastal development permit, there are performance standards that must be met and it must be shown that there is not a feasible, less environmentally damaging Visitor Serving Commercial alternative which also would provide the applicant with an economically viable use. A greater discussion of the modifications can be found on Pages 33-40 of the Coastal Commission Staff Report dated October 26, 1995 (Attachment No. 9). SUMMARY: The Coastal Commission recognizes this area of Pacific Coast Highway presents a unique situation. The Department of Fish and Game made a determination that the majority of the area is wetlands. Over the past several years, the property owners have questioned whether the uses permitted in the CC District will provide them with an economic use of their property. The suggested modifications allows them to challenge the economic viability of the permitted uses. Staff recommends the City Council approve Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 2-94 (Zone Change No. 88-18/Code Amendment No. 93-8) as modified by the Coastal Commission for the following reasons: — It is in conformance with and is adequate to carry out the policies of the Certified Land Use Plan because it maximizes the possibility that wetland areas can be protected in their entirety. CD96-17.DOC -6- 03/07/96 9:20 AM REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: March 18, 1996 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD 96-17 — It provides a mechanism for determining whether uses other than those specified in the Coastal Conservation District should be permitted in order to ensure that property owners have an economically viable use of their property. — It does not conflict with other components of the Coastal Element of the City's General Plan because it will preserve wetland areas to the maximum extent possible. Environmental Status: The Coastal Commission is the lead agency in terms of meeting CEQA requirements for local coastal programs. The Commission, as part of their approval in November 1995, determined that Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 2-94 is in full compliance with CEQA. Attachment(s): City Clerk's. Page Number 1. Findings for Approval - Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 2-94 (Zone Change No. 88-18/Code Amendment No. 93-8). 2. Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 2-94 Zoning Map. 3. Ordinance No.3,VS Amending District Maps 14Z, 22Z, and 29Z. 4. Discussion of Zone Change by Area. 5. Certified Land Use Plan. 6. Legislative Draft of Article 969.7 of the Zoning Ordinance. 7. Ordinance No3326 Amending Article 969.7 (Coastal Conservation). 8. California Coastal Commission's Suggested Modifications Letter Dated November 29, 1995. 9. California Coastal Commission Report for Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 2-94 Dated October 26, 1995. 10. Letter Dated November 13, 1995, from Maria P. Rivera of McCutchen, Doyle, Brown & Emersen. 11. 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). CD96-17.DOC -7- 03/07/96 10:03 AM ATTACHMENT 1 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: March 18, 1996 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD 96-17 FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. 2-94 (ZONE CHANGE NO. 88-18/CODE AMENDMENT NO. 93-8 FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. 2-94: 1. Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 2-94 is in conformance with and is adequate to carry out the policies of the Certified Land Use Plan because it maximizes the possibility that wetland areas can be protected in their entirety. 2. Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 2-94 provides a mechanism for determining whether uses other than those specified in the Coastal Conservation District should be permitted in order to ensure that property owners have an economically viable use of their property. 3. Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 2-94 does not conflict with other components of the Coastal element of the City's General Plan because it will preserve wetland areas to the maximum extent possible. 4. Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 2-94 reconciles the inconsistency between the Land Use Plan and Implementation Plan by base zoning those areas designated a Conservation by the LUP as Coastal Conservation District. CD96-17.DOC 03/07/96 9:20 AM ATTACHMENT 2 .y� 1 � 1 f \ %yam �!�� • /��. • , �� i,,.. . MIEN CDP COD rn cp • I •i ii-,••-•'y��'�•� ♦t-�i•�•• t•ice• TI•i��'j� t♦t`j��i •. or ON01, AK + ♦•'• �'f• 'yip �'♦`��`•i4�• �� ♦,�••♦•i • t♦ • �`�_• �� . �t �� fit' t 50-4 11,00 jaw-ARON Arose km i � �• ••I111111111 ATTACHMENT 3 ORDINANCE NO. 3 3 2 5 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH ZONING AND SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE BY AMENDING THE ZONING MAP PURSUANT TO SECTION 201.04B 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 Laws, the Huntington Beach City Council has held a public hearing relative to Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 2-94 wherein all information presented at said hearing was carefully considered, and after due consideration of the findings and all evidence presented to the City Council, the City Council found that such zone change to the Zoning Map was proper, and consistent with the Huntington Beach General Plan and Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program; and • Pursuant to the California Coastal Act, Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 2-94 was referred to the Coastal Commission for its consideration and certification; and The Coastal Commission has certified Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 2-94 with suggested modifications; and The City Council wishes to accept and approve said modifications in accordance with the provisions of the California Coastal Act, NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION 1. The zoning designation of the following described real property consisting of approximately 4.8 acres, generally located on the inland side of Pacific Coast Highway beginning approximately 435 feet southeast of the northeast corner of the intersection of Pacific Coast Highway and Beach Boulevard and extending southeast approximately 2,070 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 as "A" on Exhibit "1" (overlay 1 4ls:PCD:0rdinance:Whithole 316196 RLS 96-154 to District Map 14Z of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance), is hereby changed from VSC-CZ-FP2 (Visitor Serving Commercial with Coastal Zone and Floodplain • overlays) to CC-CZ-FP2 (Coastal Conservation with Coastal Zone and Floodplain overlays). SECTION 2. The zoning designation of the following described real property consisting of approximately 33 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 1,110 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 14Z of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance), is hereby changed from RA-O-CC- CZ-FP2 (Residential Agricultural with Oil, Coastal Conservation, Coastal Zone, and Floodplain overlays) to CC-O-CZ-FP2 (Coastal Conservation with Oil, Coastal Zone and Floodplain overlays). SECTION 3. The zoning designation of the following described real property consisting • of approximately 16.37 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 14Z of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance), is hereby changed from M1-A-O-CC-CZ-FP2 (Restricted Manufacturing with Oil, Coastal Conservation, Coastal Zone, and Floodplain overlays) to CC-O-CZ-FP2 (Coastal Conservation with Oil, Coastal Zone, and Floodplain overlays). SECTION 4. The zoning designation of 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 D1-1, in the City of Huntington Beach, County of Orange, State of California, being that portion of fractional • 2 4\s:PCD:0rdinance:Whithole 3/6/96 RLS 96-154 \ T , +j 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"1" (overlay to District Maps 14Z and 29Z of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance), is hereby changed from M2-O-CC-CZ-FP2 (Industrial District with Oil, Coastal Conservation, Coastal Zone , and Floodplain overlays) and RA-CC-CZ-FP2 (Residential Agricultural with Coastal Conservation, Coastal Zone, and Floodplain overlays) to CC-O-CZ-FP2 (Coastal Conservation with Oil, Coastal Zone, and Floodplain overlays) and CC-CZ-FP2 (Coastal Conservation with Coastal Zone and Floodplain overlays). SECTION 5. The zoning designation of 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 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 14Z and 29Z of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance), is hereby changed from LUD-CC-CZ-FP2 (Limited Use District with Coastal Conservation, Coastal Zone, and Floodplain overlays)to CC- CZ-FP2 (Coastal Conservation with Coastal Zone and Floodplain overlays). SECTION 6. The zoning designation of 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 22Z and 29Z of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance), is hereby changed from LUD-CC-CZ-FP2 (Limited Use District with Coastal Conservation, Coastal Zone, and Floodplain overlays) to CC- CZ-F2 (Coastal Conservation with Coastal Zone and Floodplain overlays). SECTION 7. The zoning designation of the following described real property consisting • of approximately 16 acres, generally located on the inland side of Pacific Coast Highway between 3 4ls:PCD:0rdinance:Whithole 3/6/96 RIS 96-154 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 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 22Z of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance), is hereby changed from LUD-CC-CZ-FP2 (Limited Use District with Coastal Conservation, Coastal Zone, and Floodplain overlays) and LUD-CC-CZ-FP 1 (Limited Use District with Coastal Conservation, Coastal Zone , and Floodplain overlays) to CC-CZ-FP2 (Coastal Conservation with Coastal Zone and Floodplain overlays) and CC-CZ-FP1 (Coastal Conservation with Coastal Zone and Floodplain overlays). SECTION 8. The zoning designation of 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 Channel D1-1, 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"H" on Exhibit"1" (overlay to District Map 29Z of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance), is hereby changed from ROS- Q-CC-CZ-FP2 (Recreational Open Space with Qualified Classifications and Coastal Conservation, Coastal Zone, and Floodplain overlays) to CC-CZ-FP2 (Coastal Conservation with Coastal Zone and Floodplain overlays). . SECTION 9. The Community Development Director is hereby directed to amend Section 201.04B, District Maps 14Z, 22Z, and 29Z (Section District Maps 13-6-11, 19-6-10, 24-6-11)to reflect Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 2-94 described in Sections 1 through 8 hereof. Copies of said District Maps, as amended hereby, are available for inspection in the Office of the City Clerk. SECTION 10. This ordinance shall take effect thirty days after its adoption. • 4 41s:PCD:ordinance:whithole 3/6/96 RLS 96-154 • PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 1st day of April , 1996. Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: e:;C� P—t� City Clerk Pal-City Attorney - P .3/f./Fg REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVED: City Adfhinistrator Director of Comm pity Development • ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit 1 - Areas of Zoning Map that are part of Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 2-94 Page 1: DM 14Z - Areas A, B, C, D and E Page 2: DM 29Z - Areas D, E, F and H Page 3: DM22Z - Areas F and G Exhibit 2 - Composite map identifying areas with existing and proposed zoning 5 4ls:PCD:0rdinance:Whithole 3/6/96 RLS 96-154 PLANNING EXHIBIT DM 14Z NOTE: SECTIONAL DISTRICT MAP 13-6 aNww4Nrorr•. tT, o ` FELT LEGEND CITY • CITY OF ADOPTED MA 7, 1960 COUNCIL ORDINANCE NANCE N0.764 0 wIroR ._ L -- Uw RISNMLNTRMLLL L� I` RI I"D[RTT "s""" AMENDE S� R AM NVE � Q• ® kow 0[NITY Rt9RRTl4*S'W' HUNTINGTON BEACH to.3-9.60 6-61131 794 IaI7 Ra R[SIDMU D.T.ILTuuL DT 1R 3-6-61 151 621 8-19-67 68-681330 Mt0 MDwiRILL DaTRKT 5-7-62 237 900 7-I-68 68.17 1426 . L a wooRRIAL aRRKT 6.18.62 253 904 9-3-68 68-26 1440 O RISTRKT[D MMUr4CTURwa *2TRCT _ 8-5-63 340 t92 I-6-69 68-431461 „D„oe"sn RtLOp1}ML DISTRCT ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA C 10_7-64 390 1031 8-16 P71-3 1632 MIDR.•wDN DENS Y [SD[NTaL DarRCT W[D[D 4i wo No. 1-20-64]90 10l1 5.20-71 PP71-!1752 wcNwRr CDMY[ROLL MfTRICT o-ll�as Rood 20N[2a04 .II-•I1a-92 9i1--If+ a11xT 2-17-64 404 65-72 -11 1748 M91LN [DISTRICT p -Msiws 10l7 12-I -77 77•S2272 tOSWN[D WITH oe_ CEM a.Ra[CRn[1o3-2.64 402 9• 4- 05 t2-16Y3 o33 3 78TB-27 236 MMwrtT rca.lnuawn0TrtI ROMR 6.15-64 4456 -80 80-2 2425 AMWNITT WILITi[! 8 555 6-19.64 464 1079 1-6-82 80.4 2 u oarRKT 1- 6 66-53234 LL IDIITRKT 5.17-82 82.5 2557 m sN' WE WTRICr 11-1-82 82-0 2561 © CDa9iLL 2oN[urns 7-2.84 84-7 2706 COVT4[ON[9IXwpLRY I I 12 .- DEN—TES"WE E STREETS 12 7 -- uTILIX LINE 1+1] ® wlrl«nmo zoN[-rre 3 le R3 R3 - RI 6 RI RI RI g I R3 r :R3- u F ::- i R3 R3 i RI R3 1:� R3 i'? R3 J y RI RI V 1?1 > R I RI C4 RI R3 R3 5 --�2 � a,R2 RI RI u4unw�r l R 2 �'R2 .¢v.T oDRs1 T it3 R3 .trt_. , I RI RI RI R�}3L -�S oerDv 1jR2 !;0, RI CF-E R N.NIKIaDD.[• uc 4 iI R3 C;�R3 RZ r RI tw-L:.!AME. RI RI RI .�W►.410:_. .� -=�8 RI S r � KEr.LER RI R3 R3 :: RI ?R2_i0 s.e 3 , RI lRztrol =7EL' l RI Q 1 acDN1 a " RI sr1Lr roR. R3 R3 ZC 3n RI — R3 R4-28D R3 i; R3 '•. RI RI .a.Rl 3 3 +O � DD,D RI R3 '°°�;- • R3 = RI 3 RI RI RI CF-R e RA RI CO • w n.c tl R4 ,t , 1'�i3CN !M!'KI Y PA.RKI RI iE 6 ? (RE) `s 1 1 rL O I N4ncw v. I;F-C MI- -0 RI ter. RI E�IsoN Riw RA p Rl a maE = I NRMLrON - Q © / I s i LL m MI-A-O-CC-CZ-FP2 MI-A-O CR!FP2 0 RA-O-CC-CZ-FP2 i 0. C F- C. D. 1 MAGNOLIA PACIFIC 0. SPECIFIC PLAN M2-0-CZ-FP2 C r.la ar 0_ C170.13 <ti %/;;,�A2 A MH CZ FP2 a I�.�.:. K LINE S.Iv s[vi o-6.11 �5G 4:. �, .9��42 E M2-0-CZ-FP2 a 0 �. PAT;zG z rKL%7 M2-0-CZ-FP2 a J PACIFIC OCEAN .�,S VSC-CZ-FP2 p A y 1012-0-CZ-CC-FP2 t / c ] 18 Page I of 3 �P PLANNING EXHIBIT I DM 29Z SECTIONAL DISTRICT MAP 24-6-II NOTE* L MNcslo+s ..c..ruT CITY OF A°OPTED YpRCN 7 1960 ii ui[.oco To tiT:soT TO Dr ITa ci lrti. or suc, D 1 a CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 7e6 LEGEND1 ®LD.0[—T RE-CNTK DISTL[T AN A ORD.NO. AMENDED ORO.NO. ® INDuf rleue Dlf t.ler ENDED Su4[ ®CDafral SOK furrlS HUNTINGTON BEACH o-11'CTED 1TH ODTD.INf DISTAI[T 5.20-61 156.156 626 —r r.o E-01u MfTDCT 6-to.62 253 906 conl,[D mN on r.00ucnoN 6y7.67 7-13 2251 CDrEaraTT Fa Ct IAEDKaTE•auhl MfTRCr 12-21-77 77-5 2251 D L..TED uSE DISTRICT 2-2-04 6l-7 26e1 1-1?61 OOD 2606 -0 WE .I D M DKN NaCE Dor.cT ORANGE COUNTY CALIFORNIA :-2- FLOOD ZONE 3oa o DUaLIr6Dtla!wu."DN 5 - -�CoaSTAI SOK f0"NDaIIY ®FLOOO —DWRCT L E y ' la :� A MI-A ,c�: M2-0-CC-CZ-FP2 gi- AQ RI-CZ-FP2 's E H o UD-CC-CZ-FP2 c �f LUD-CC-CZ-FP2 Aq C'/- Ile Si CZ� hw,. 2 14IN J OC F,y ti Page 2 of 3 PLANNING EXHIBIT 1 DIM 2 2 Z SECTIONAL DISTRICT MAP . 19-6-10 ! NOTE• CITY OF ..is o10 C.c ♦DOVTEO 61ARCn 7.1960 s u[.uo o[.*ao ro r.[c[.*[• u suc, c,T a.. c1Tr Counca oRDlnanCE Ro.7e4 LEGEND- zo,[ zorc © so•OOerr�wnr°urea .Yz,ua ux omw ua O •... oon © oma r.outn..�oanKr HI�NTINGTON BEACH 6•ta•f0 ! ,.. .a r4aata< . ©.[fr.cr G'=Ayt^.o oare<r u-a.so ua u-u waa )1a-ai H!M !t6 Gs'7,n-n Ca.K.CYL•o16rR¢r 9J•!) It60LMA�.aYaLTI/1al 46iwCf } b�i! all 1�1 ati (�.Q4M De9rr IC m.O asnecr i:I 1 A. 1�11 ®16{MNOI lllmrY 1@OnY.aaT10CI o•n•r0 44-$ D6 L�wr[D YII a)r.CT ORANGE COUNTY, 3 CALIFORNIACALIFORIIA ))' '�) l� 7 r T •-n•n ri-u w ® cn)u.to.[Burn[ n-w.M. _. :•�r•rr T-)6 it11 5[T6att�m -r-n n-s zzn -o- oo.sr[o oa e•thU Go- zv! 7•2•6a ws zTos E�li.a �6\j� .�ru.nooazo,[--vn.na iaxo ,/� e. we —r-- CsLLGiRi i�///////////// i i i5 .1 I RI RI RI _ N :C). ,w t.. r tD a c, N ner.oa RI RI V RI - °1'RI.01 R�-OI" ,,,,N RI a _ -RI MOLOM r RI RI cNt R1 u,au C1l M cp RI c RI CS Q r RI RI Rl a�. q R 2 RI 3 RI RI ,tr ff Q ee RI[F ! RI lff'' @ RI RI R RI ccc� �ti RI / o • oa co cc ° ,. 2 z a o I Si q 0 oC i Fq� � /%4 H c••c .J ti e[ac%. O?O =r • p`• 4 � 9 O O[. ' aj �40N l Page 3 of 3 • I . . 1 ram, �'�1�r�► • • 40 co MA COA Cp � �.•i•,-''i�yam•.,•. ��:%�••'�:•.,'��-ice �y�•��`,, ��`��`�♦�: 17, �KM KIN FoAlp I� �-i -Q� I�•,�� vv �Ov�•• ♦•�•P�ter• ..I►a i�� Zat•••�t•'L�� -ice iLv�Il:Ili ' �� a.11111111tt t � I.1 ' M ATTACHMENT 4 ZONING HISTORY BY AREA (LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. 2-94/ ZONE CHANGE NO. 88-18) March 1, 1996 AREA A(ter Area 1) ACREAGE. 4 8 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 with Coastal Zone and Floodplain overlays) 1996 -Proposed CC-CZ-PF2 (Coastal Conservation with Coastal Zone and Floodplain overlays) EXISTING USE Vacant This is an approximately 4 8 acre site which was designated by the Coastal Land Use Plan for Visitor Serving Commercial. The site is a narrow strip of land which runs along Pacific Coast Highway in front of Cabrillo Mobilehome Park between Action Boat Brokers on the corner of Beach Boulevard and Pacific Coast Highway to the northwest and Newland Avenue to the southeast The Department of Fish and Game identified this site as non-restorable wetlands The existing zoning is VSC-CZ-FP2 (Visitor Serving Commercial within the Coastal Zone and a Floodplain) The area is being rezoned because it is a portion of a larger parcel that is designated "Conservation" by the Land Use Plan. APN'S. 114-150-51 (Portion) 114-150-53 (Portion .-.AREA B(or Area 2) ACREAGE 33 acres OWNERSHIP Mills Land and Water- 7 15 acres CalTrans - 25 85 acres GENERAL PLAN HISTORY 1975 -Destination Resort 1977 -Planning Reserve 1982 - "Whitehole" 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 Floodplain) 1990 -RA-O-CC-CZ-FP2 (Residential Agricultural District combined w/Oil Production, Coastal Conservation, Coastal Zone and Floodplain Overlay Zones) 1996 -Proposed CC-O-CZ-FP2 (Coastal Conservation with Oil, Coastal Zone and Floodplain overlays) EXISTING USE Vacant This is an approximately 33 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 Floodplain 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 APN'S 114-150-51 (Portion) 114-150-53 (Portion) 114-150-58 (All) 148-011-01 (All) 148-011-02 (All) -2- (KL479) r ARFA C(or Are.3) ACREAGE 16 4 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 -MI (Light Industrial) 1964 -MI-A-O (Restricted Manufacturing w/Oil Production) 1983 - M1-A-O-FP2 (Restricted Manufacturing w/Oil Production within a Floodplam 1990 - M1-A-O-CC -CZ-FP2 (Restricted Manufacturing District within an Oil District with a Coastal Conservation Overlay within the Coastal Zone and a Floodplam) 1996 -Proposed CC-O-CZ-FP2 (Coastal Conservation with Oil, Coastal Zone and Floodplam overlays) EXISTING USE Vacant This is an approximately 16 4 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 Floodplam) APN'S 114-150-59 (All) -3- (KL479) r' r: AREA D(or Area 4) 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)/M1-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 -M2-0-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) 1996 -Proposed CC-O-CZ-FP2 (Coastal Conservation with Oil, Coastal Zone and Floodplain overlays) and CC-CZ-FP2 (Coastal Conservation with Coastal Zone and Floodplain overlays) 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 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 APN'S' 114-150-63 (Portion) 114-160-56 (Portion) -4- (KL479) +t AREA E (or Area 5) ACREAGE 10 acres OWNERSHIP Coastal Magnolia Croup (Previously owned by Daisy Piccirelli) GENERAL PLAN HISTORY 1975 -Planning Reserve 1977 -Planning Reserve 1983 - "Whitehole" 1986 - Conservation ZONING HISTORY Pre-1961 -RI 1961 -R5 (Office Professional)/M1-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) 1996 -Proposed CC- CZ-FP2 (Coastal Conservation with Coastal Zone and Floodplain overlays) 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) APN'S 114-150-64 (Portion) 114-160-68 (All) 114-160-70 (All) -5- (KL479) dT AREA F(or Area C) ACREAGE 56 acres OWNERSHIP Coastal Magnolia Group - 56 acres (Formerly owned by Daisy Piccirelli GENERAL PLAN HISTORY 1975 -Planning Reserve 1977 -Planning Reserve 1983 - "Whrtehole" 1986 - Conservation ZONING HISTORY Pre-1960 -RI (Single Family Residential) 1960 -R5 (Office Professional) 1977 - LUD (Limited Use District) 1983 -LUD-FP2 (Limited Use District within a Floodplarn) 1990 -LUD-CC -CZ-FP2 (Limited Use District with a Coastal Conservation Overlay within the Coastal Zone and a Floodplarn) 1996 -Proposed CC- CZ-FP2 (Coastal Conservation with Coastal Zone and Floodplarn overlays) 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 Floodplarn) APN'S 114-160-69 (All) 114-160-71 (All) -6- (KL479) rt AREA G(or Area 7) 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 -RI (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) and LUD-CC-CZ-FP I (Limited Use District with a Coastal Conservation Overlay within the Coastal Zone and a Floodplain) 1996 -Proposed CC- CZ-FP2 (Coastal Conservation with Coastal Zone and Floodplain overlays) and CC-CZ-FP 1 (Coastal Conservation with Coastal Zone and Floodplain overlays) 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) APN'S- 114-160-72 & 73 (All) -7- (KIA79) F AREA H(gr Area 9- previously Area 19 ACREAGE: 2 acres OWNERSHIP City of Huntington Beach GENERAL PLAN HISTORY 1975 - Industrial Public Utility 1977 -Public/Quasi-Public 1984 -Public/Quasi-Public 1986 - Conservation ZONING HISTORY Pre-1961 -RI (Single Family Residential) 1961 -MI-A(Restricted Manufacturing) 1983 -Ml-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) 1996 -Proposed CC- CZ-FP2 (Coastal Conservation with Coastal Zone and Floodplain overlays) 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 APN'S• 114-481-33 (Portion) -8- (KL479) ATTACHMENT 5 qp T. q ,r,, ...;.�•.:�;, � � � '�/�' ,.gip_,/•',•);- .�, \ 'fi r,T1, �, 7 �'.'Gqp:�• Uly L'-� Q�oc TREATYERPIAXT •\ GIGS ,,\: .;, l;^ .'/ JJ�,,:�• , , . ; ' . " ' , �)i.�`Z'._ ,,• :;. �. si:i;'f.) i/'•'"., il• ,.'i i'J" Y✓' �• :i.�s:...^• �J J 55 olcvtes I D plcv�$ 1 &oIC✓L°S 7Or'�s 17 acr>os �� acres VISITOR SERVING COMERCIAL -----11MILTON EXTENSION CONSERVATION A?F7P0\ SD I—AW? jefti, NONCERTIFIED INDUSRTIAL ENERGY PRODUCTION COASTAL AREAS PI.MTIG OEPARiMFM 1ND. E,IERGY PROD./ CON-2RVAT10N (Z3Z am'S-blAI C� ►era 1 b� CaAstol LomeAt) :; 1 IACIHiva r Nlu.. ATTACHMENT 6 (LEGISLATIVE DRAFT) ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH ORDINANCE CODE BY AMENDING ARTICLE 969.7 THEREOF TO CONFORM LCP AMENDMENT NO. 2-94 TO MODIFICATIONS MADE BY THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION 1 . Article 969.7 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 969.7.0 Purpose 969.7.1 Definitions 969.7.1 .1 Designation of the Project Area 969.7.2 Permitted Principal Uses and Structures 969.7.3 Uses and Structures Subject to a Conditional Use Permit 969.7.3.1 Application for Economically Viable Use Determination 969.7.3.2 Economically Viable Use Determination 969.7.3.3 Economically Viable Use 969.7.4 Prohibited Principal Uses and Structures 969.7.5 Required Permits/Agreements 969.7.6 Performance Standards 969.7.7 Required Findings 969.7.0 Purpose. The purpose of the Coastal Conservation (CC) District is to implement the General Plan land use designation of Open Space: Conservation; and provide for the protection, maintenance, restoration and enhancement of wetlands and environmentally sensitive habitat areas located within the Coastal Zone while allowing for appropriate utilization to occur. The application of the coastal conservation district 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 1 G*96ordina:amd969-a.doc RLS 95-757 03/06/96 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. 969.7.1 Definitions. (a) Energy Facility: means 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: means 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 distributed or degraded by human activities and developments. (c) Feasible: means 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: means the ability of an environmentally sensitive area to be self-sustaining and to maintain natural species diversity. (e) Significant Disruption: means having a substantial adverse effect upon the functional capacity. (f) 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. (2701-7/84) (g) Coastal-dependent development or use: means any development or use which requires a site on, or adjacent to, the sea to be able to function at all. 969.7.1 .1 Designation of the project area. Development or subdivision of any parcel in whole or in part within the coastal conservation district shall be permitted only pursuant to an overall development plan for the entirety of all parcels that are 2 GA96ordina:amd969-a.doc RLS 95-757 03/06/96 geographically contiguous and in common ownership at the time of application. For purposes of determining common ownership pursuant to this Article, parcels which are owned in fee, as well as parcels subject to existing purchase options, shall be treated as commonly owned. Consistent with Government Code section 66424, property shall be considered as contiguous pursuant to this Article even if separated by roads, streets, utility easements or railroad rights of way. 969.7.2 Permitted Principal Uses and Structures. The following principal uses and structures shall be permitted in the CC District where no feasible, less environmentally damaging alternative exists and where feasible mitigation measures have been provided and are subject to issuance of a use permit by the ref Zoning Administrator Adjustments. Said permit shall insure that the uses are developed in a manner compatible with the purpose of this District. Such permitted uses are: (a) Incidental public service projects such as, but not limited to, burying cables and pipes. (b) Maintenance of existing streets and utility structures. 969.7.2.1 Extension of Hamilton Avenue. The extension of Hamilton Avenue shall be permitted between Beach Boulevard and Newland Street. The precise alignment of Hamilton Avenue shall not be approved without documentation that the least environmentally damaging feasible alternative is the chosen alternative. Before the precise alignment of Hamilton Avenue can be approved, an EIR shall be certified which addresses the alternative alignments for Hamilton Ave. and the mitigation needs generated from each alternative. The alternatives analysis shall include, at a minimum, the following: (1 ) placing the roadway in an alignment which is most protective of wetland habitats, including the construction of the road on pilings or bridging the road over the wetlands, and (2) limiting the width of the roadway by narrowing lanes and eliminating shoulders, and (3) requiring full mitigation for any impacted wetlands. No net loss of wetland 3 GA96ordina:amd969-a.doc RLS 95-757 03/06/96 r� shall 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. 969.7.3 Uses and Structures Subject to a Conditional Use Permit. A. The following uses and structures may be permitted in the CC District subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit where there is no feasible less environmentally damaging alternative and where feasible mitigation measures have been provided. (a) New or expanded energy and coastal-dependent industrial facilities where no feasible, less environmentally damaging alternative exists and where consistent with the study titled 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 (re-adopted by the California Coastal Commission December 1985). (b) Diking, dredging and filling which are necessary for the protection, maintenance, restoration or enhancement of the environmentally sensitive habitat area's functional capacity (c) (1) Maintenance of existing modified flood control facilities where the primary purpose is to maintain existing flood control capacity and where such maintenance is necessary for public safety or to protect existing development where there is no other feasible method for protecting structures in the flood plain. No maintenance activities shall be permitted which have the effect of draining wetlands. Maintenance activities may include: Maintenance dredging of less than 100,000 cubic yards within a 12 month period; lining of existing in-place artificial channels; increasing the height of existing levees; or changes in the cross section of the interior channel to accommodate the design capacity of existing channels when no widening of the top dimensions or widening of the outer levees is required. 4 GA96ordina:amd969-a.doc RLS 95-757 03/06/96 (2) Only in conjunction with restoration plans, new flood control facilities where necessary for public safety and to protect existing development where there is no other feasible method for protecting structures in the flood plain. (d) Mineral extraction, including sand for restoring beaches, except in environmentally sensitive areas. (e) Pedestrian trails and observation platforms for passive nature study; i.e., bird watching and the study of flora and fauna native to the site. Such uses may be located within an environmentally sensitive habitat area provided that said use(s) are immediately adjacent to the area's peripheral edge. (f) Maintaining existing, or restoring previously dredged depths in existing navigational channels, turning basins, vessel berthing and mooring areas, and boat launching ramps. (g) 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. (h) Nature study, aquaculture, or similar resource dependent activities. (2701-7/84) (i) Habitat Restoration Projects. (j) For the portion of any parcel which is not designated Conservation under the certified land use plan, any use authorized by and in conformance with the Visitor Serving Commercial zoning district. 5 G:4:96ordina:amd969-a.doc RLS 95-757 03/06/96 B. In addition to the above uses, coastal dependent industrial facilities shall also be allowed even where inconsistent with other provisions of the certified LCP if: (1 ) To locate elsewhere is infeasible or causes greater environmental damage and, (2) To do otherwise would adversely affect the public welfare and, (3) Adverse environmental effects are mitigated to the maximum extent feasible and (4) Where findings consistent with in 969.7.7 can be made. 969.7.3.1 Application for economically viable use determination. Any applicant that proposes a use other than one permitted in the coastal conservation district based on the contention that the uses permitted in this district will not provide an economically viable use of his or her property shall apply for an economic viability determination in conjunction with their coastal development permit application. The application for an economic viability determination shall include the entirety of all parcels that are geographically contiguous and held by the applicant in common ownership at the time of the application. Before any application for a coastal development permit and economic viability determination is accepted for processing, the applicant shall provide the following information: (a) The date the applicant purchased or otherwise acquired the property, and from whom. (b) The purchase price paid by the applicant for the property. (c) The fair market value of the property at the time the applicant acquired it, describing the basis upon which the 6 G*96ordina:amd969-a.doc RLS 95-757 03/06/96 •`i fair market value is derived, including any appraisals done at the time. (d) The general plan, zoning or similar land use designations applicable to the property at the time the applicant acquired it, as well as any changes to these designations that occurred after acquisition. (e) Any development restrictions or other restrictions on use, other than government regulatory restrictions described in (d) above, that applied to the property at the time the applicant acquired it, or which have been imposed after acquisition. (f) Any change in the size of the property since the time the applicant acquired it, including a discussion of the nature of the change, the circumstances and the relevant dates. (g) A discussion of whether the applicant has sold or leased a portion of, or interest in, the property since the time of purchase, indicating the relevant dates, sales prices, rents, and nature of the portion or interests in the property that were sold or leased. (h) Any title reports, litigation guarantees or similar documents in connection with all or a portion of the property of which the applicant is aware. (i) Any offers to buy all or a portion of the property which the applicant solicited or received, including the approximate date of the offer and offered price. (j) The applicant's costs associated with the ownership of the property, annualized for each of the last five calendar years, including property taxes, property assessments, debt service costs (such as mortgage and interest costs), and operation and management costs. G:4:96ordina:amd969-a.doc RLS 95-757 03/06/96 (k) Apart from any rent received from the leasing of all or a portion of the property, any income generated by the use of all or a portion of the property over the last five calendar years. If there is any such income to report it should be listed on an annualized basis along with a description of the uses that generate or has generated such income. 969.7.3.2 Economically viable use determination. The decision-making authority shall hold a public hearing on any application for an economically viable use determination. Prior to approving a coastal development permit for a use other than one provided for in the coastal conservation district the decision-making authority shall make the following findings: (a) Based on the economic information provided by the applicant, as well as any other relevant evidence, each use provided for in the coastal conservation district would not provide an economically viable use of the applicant's property. (b) Restricting the use of the applicant's property to the uses provided for in the coastal conservation district would interfere with the applicant's reasonable investment-backed expectations. The findings adopted by the decision-making authority shall identify the evidence supporting the findings. 969.7.3.3 Economically viable use. Where the decision- making authority finds that the uses provided for in the coastal conservation district would not provide an economically viable use, and that restricting the use of the applicant's property to these uses would interfere with their reasonable investment backed expectations, the uses provided for in the visitor serving commercial zoning district s GA96ordina:amd969-a.doc RLS 95-757 03/06/96 may be allowed as a conditional use and in planning area 3 only, the uses provided for in the Limited Manufacturing zone of the Industrial District may be allowed as a conditional use. A specific development proposal for a visitor serving commercial use or limited manufacturing use, may be denied, however, if a feasible less environmentally damaging visitor serving commercial or limited manufacturing alternative also would provide the applicant with an economically viable use. In addition to the other Performance Standards of 969.7.6 applicable to projects in the coastal conservation district, such a visitor serving commercial or limited manufacturing use shall be subject to the following development standards: (a) The area in which visitor serving commercial or limited manufacturing uses shall be permitted shall be the minimum amount necessary to provide the applicant with an economically viable use of his or her property. (b) The portion of the project involving visitor serving commercial or limited manufacturing uses shall also be subject to the standards of the visitor serving commercial district or the limited manufacturing zone. (c) Access through wetlands or environmentally sensitive habitat areas to an area proposed for visitor serving commercial or limited manufacturing uses shall only be allowed if necessary to provide an economically viable use of the overall development plan area. 969.7.4 Prohibited Principal Uses and Structures. Any principal use or structure not expressly permitted is prohibited herein. 969.7.5 Required Permits/Agreements. Before the application can be considered complete, the project shall receive the following state and federal regulatory permits/agreements or a statement from the regulatory body that said permit/agreement is inapplicable. The 9 G*96ordina:amd969-a.doc RLS 95-757 03/06/96 required regulatory permits/agreements shall be forwarded to the Director prior to the submittal of said project to a decision making body. (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 the operation; (E) A permit from the California State Lands Commission may also be required. 969.7.5.1 Required Consideration of Alternatives. Before any application is accepted for processing, the applicant shall provide topographic, vegetative, hydrologic and soils information prepared by a qualified professional which identifies the extent of the wetlands on the property. This submittal shall also include an analysis of alternatives to the proposed project and an assessment of how the proposed project is the least environmentally damaging alternative. The analysis of alternatives shall include an assessment of how the proposed project will impact all adjacent wetlands and environmentally sensitive habitat areas, including those within the overall development plan area. 969.7.6 Performance Standards. (A) Before the applaeatien ean be eensideFed eemplete coastal development permit can be issued, the project shall comply with the following standards to the satisfaction of the Director: (1) Wetlands and environmentally sensitive habitat areas that are designated for preservation after a permit 10 G*96ordina:amd969-a.doc RLS 95-757 03/06/96 hearing granting project approval on the property shall be preserved through a conservation easement, deed restriction or other similar mechanism consistent with Public Resources Code Section 30010. Such easements or restrictions need not authorize any public right of access or use. Exclusive use and possession of the area may remain with the applicant. (a) All feasible mitigation measures shall be incorporated into projects to minimize adverse environmental effects. (i) If the project involves dredging, mitigation measures must include the following: 1 . dredging and spoils disposal must be planned and carried out to avoid significant disruption to wetland habitats and to water circulation; 2. limitations may imposed on the timing of the operation, the type of operation, the quantity of dredged material removed, and the location of the spoil site; 3. dredge spoils suitable for beach replenishment shall, where feasible, be transported to appropriate beaches or into suitable longshore current systems; 4. other mitigation measures may include opening up areas to tidal action, removing dikes, improving tidal flushing, or other restoration measures. (ii) 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 bound or other evidence of financial responsibility is provided to assure that restoration will be accomplished in the shortest feasible time. (2753/4/85) 11 G:4:96ordina:amd969-a.doc RLS 95-757 03/06/96 1 . 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 may proceed. (2753/4/85) 2. 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 such areas were opened to tidal action or provided with other sources of surface water. (2753/4/85) 3. If no appropriate restoration sites under options (a) and (b) 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. (2753/4/85) (M) The third option above 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 co-applicant 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 12 G:4:96ordina:amd969-a.doc RLS 95-757 03/06/96 region (e.g., within the same stream, lake, or estuary where the fill occurred). (2753/4/85) (b) 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. (2753/4/85) M Pedestrian trails, observation platforms and other incidental structures shall be designed to reduce disturbance of wildlife and vegetation; examples of improvements so designed would be elevated walkways and viewing platforms, and vegetative and structural barriers to decrease disturbances from permitted uses and inhibit internal access. (2753/4/85) (d) Passive nature study uses shall include a program to control litter; examples include litter containers and "no littering" signs posted in the project area. (2753/4/85) (e) Environmentally-sensitive habitat areas shall be restored and enhanced to lessen the risk of flood damage to adjacent properties. (2753/4/85) (f) 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 lease disturbance to wetland dependent species; e.g., migratory waterfowl and shorebirds. (2753/4/85) (9) Construction/maintenance activities shall be carried out in areas of minimal size. Preconstruction topography shall be restored subsequent to the conclusion of the project unless such topography is to be altered to conform with an approved restoration project. (2753/4/85) (2) The applicant shall demonstrate that the functional capacity is maintained or augmented through the criteria set out below unless relieved of any one or more of these requirements by the California Department of Fish and Game, and that the project does not significantly: (2753/4/85) 13 G:4:96ordina:amd969-a.doc RLS 95-757 03/06/96 (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; (2753/4/85) (b) harm or destroy a species or habitat that is rare or endangered; (2753/4/85) (c) harm a species or habitat that is essential to the natural biological function of a wetland or estuary; (2753/4/85) (d) reduce consumptive (e.g., fishing, aquaculture and hunting) or nonconsumptive (e.g., water quality and research opportunity) values of a wetland or estuarian ecosystem. (2753/4/85) (3) 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. (2753/4/85) 969.7.7 Required Findings. It is the intent of this section to ensure an environment which is suitable for the self-perpetuation of environmentally sensitive habitat areas. (A) Prior to energy production facilities being approved, the approving authority shall make the following finding with statement of facts: 1 ) Provision has been made for enhancement of a significant portion of the project area, to ensure preservation of plant and wildlife species. (B) Prior to coastal dependent industrial facilities being approved, the approving authority shall make the following finding with statement of facts: 1 ) Alternative locations are infeasible or more environmentally damaging. 2) to locate the construction or expansion elsewhere would adversely affect the public welfare. 14 GA:96ordina:amd969-a.doc RLS 95-757 03/06/96 3) Adverse environmental effects are mitigated to the maximum extent feasible consistent with 969.7.6. 4) Siting is consistent with the study titled 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 (re- adopted by the California Coastal Commission December 1985). 5) For expansion of the Southern California Edison Plant within the area designed Industrial Energy Production/Conservation only: a) 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, and a program acceptable to the Department of Fish and Game is implemented to assure long term habitat enhancement or restoration of these protected wetlands. Vehicular access shall be prohibited in the wetland mitigation area protected by conservation easement or similar mechanism, and b) The feasibility of expanding inland to the area known as the Rotary Mud Dump site (also known as the Ascon Landfill), or other inland location, unless the Energy Commission has determined such expansion infeasible during or before the Notice of Intention proceedings. (C) For any other project the applicant shall establish and the approving authority shall find that the functional capacity of the environmentally sensitive habitat area is being maintained. 15 GA 96ordina:amd969-a.doc RLS 95-757 03/06/96 v SECTION 2. The Community Development Director is hereby directed to amend Article 969.7 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code to reflect LCP Amendment No. 2-94 as described in Section 1 hereof. Copies of said Article as amended hereby are available for inspection in the Office of the City Clerk. SECTION 3. This ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days following its adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting held on the day of 1996. Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk City Attorney REVIEWED AND APPROVED: . INITIATED AND APPROVED: City Administrator Director of Community Development 16 GA:96ordina:amd969-a.doc RLS 95-757 03/06/96 ATTACHMENT 7 ORDINANCE NO. 3326 • AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH ORDINANCE CODE BY AMENDING ARTICLE 969.7 THEREOF TO CONFORM LCP AMENDMENT NO. 2-94 TO MODIFICATIONS MADE BY THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION 1 . Article 969.7 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 969.7.0 Purpose 969.7.1 Definitions 969.7.1 .1 Designation of the Project Area 969.7.2 Permitted Principal Uses and Structures 969.7.3 Uses and Structures Subject to a Conditional Use Permit 969.7.3.1 Application for Economically Viable Use Determination • 969.7.3.2 Economically Viable Use Determination 969.7.3.3 Economically Viable Use 969.7.4 Prohibited Principal Uses and Structures 969.7.5 Required Permits/Agreements 969.7.6 Performance Standards 969.7.7 Required Findings 969.7.0 Purpose. The purpose of the Coastal Conservation (CC) District is to implement the General Plan land use designation of Open Space: Conservation; and provide for the protection, maintenance, restoration and enhancement of wetlands and environmentally sensitive habitat areas located within the Coastal Zone while allowing for appropriate utilization to occur. The application of the coastal conservation district 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. • 1 ` 4\s\PCD:Ordinance:amd969.7 RLS 95-757 03/06/96 969.7.1 Definitions. (a) Energy `Facility: means 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: means 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 distributed or degraded by human activities and developments. (c) Feasible: means 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: means the ability of an environmentally sensitive area to be self-sustaining and to maintain natural species diversity. (e) Significant Disruption: means having a substantial adverse effect upon the functional capacity. (f) 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. (2701-7/84) (g) Coastal-dependent development or use: means any development or use which requires a site on, or adjacent to, the sea to be able to . function at all. 969.7.1 .1 Designation of the project area. Development or subdivision of any parcel in whole or in part within the coastal conservation district shall be permitted only pursuant to an overall development plan for the entirety of all parcels that are geographically contiguous and in common ownership at the time of application. For purposes of determining common ownership pursuant to this Article, parcels which are owned in fee, as well as parcels subject to existing purchase options, shall be treated as commonly owned. Consistent with Government Code section 66424, property shall be considered as contiguous pursuant to this Article even if separated by roads, streets, utility easements or railroad rights of way. 969.7.2 Permitted Principal Uses and Structures. The following principal uses and structures shall be permitted in the CC District 2 • 41s\PCD:Ordinance:amd969.7 RLS 95-757 03/06/96 where.no feasible,-less environmentally damaging alternative exists and where feasible mitigation measures have been provided and are • subject to issuance of a use permit by the Zoning Administrator. Said permit shall insure that the uses are developed in a manner compatible with the purpose of this District. Such permitted uses are: (a) Incidental public service projects such as, but not limited to, burying cables and pipes. (b) Maintenance of existing streets and utility structures. 969.7.2.1 Extension of Hamilton Avenue. The extension of Hamilton Avenue shall be permitted between Beach Boulevard and Newland Street. The precise alignment of Hamilton Avenue shall not be approved without documentation that the least environmentally damaging feasible alternative is the chosen alternative. Before the precise alignment of Hamilton Avenue can be approved, an EIR shall be certified which addresses the alternative alignments for Hamilton Ave. and the mitigation needs generated from each alternative. The alternatives analysis shall include, at a minimum, the following: (1) placing the roadway in an alignment which is most protective of wetland habitats, including the construction of the road on pilings or bridging the road over the wetlands, and (2) limiting the width of the • roadway by narrowing lanes and eliminating shoulders, and (3) requiring full mitigation for any impacted wetlands. No net loss of wetland shall 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. 969.7.3 Uses and Structures Subject to a Conditional Use Permit. A. The following uses and structures may be permitted in the CC District subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit where there is no feasible less environmentally damaging alternative and where feasible mitigation measures have been provided. (a) New or expanded energy and coastal-dependent industrial facilities where no feasible, less environmentally damaging alternative exists and where consistent with the study titled 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 (re-adopted by the California Coastal Commission December 1985). • 3 4\s\PCD:Ordinance:amd969.7 RLS 95-757 03/06/96 (b) Diking, dredging and filling which are necessary for the protection, maintenance, restoration or enhancement of the environmentally • sensitive habitat area's functional capacity (c) (1) Maintenance of existing modified flood control facilities where the primary purpose is to maintain existing flood control capacity and where such maintenance is necessary for public safety or to protect existing development where there is no other feasible method for protecting structures in the flood plain. No maintenance activities shall be permitted which have the effect of draining wetlands. Maintenance activities may include: Maintenance dredging of less than 100,000 cubic yards within a 12 month period; lining of existing in-place artificial channels; increasing the height of existing levees; or changes in the cross section of the interior channel to accommodate the design capacity of existing channels when no widening of the top dimensions or widening of the outer levees is required. (2) Only in conjunction with restoration plans, new flood control facilities where necessary for public safety and to protect existing development where there is no other feasible method for protecting structures in the flood plain. (d) Mineral extraction, including sand for restoring beaches, except in environmentally sensitive areas. (e) Pedestrian trails and observation platforms for passive nature study; i.e., bird watching and the study of flora and fauna native to the site. Such uses may be located within an environmentally sensitive habitat area provided that said use(s) are immediately adjacent to the area's peripheral edge. (f) Maintaining existing, or restoring previously dredged depths in existing navigational channels, turning basins, vessel berthing and mooring areas, and boat launching ramps. (g) 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 3041 1 ; 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 4 • 4\s\PCD:Ordinance:amd969.7 RLS 95-757 03/06/96 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. (h) Nature study, aquaculture, or similar resource dependent activities. (2701-7/84) (i) Habitat Restoration Projects. (j) For the portion of any parcel which is not designated Conservation under the certified land use plan, any use authorized by and in conformance with the Visitor Serving Commercial. zoning district. B. In addition to the above uses, coastal dependent industrial facilities shall also be allowed even where inconsistent with other provisions of the certified LCP if: (1) To locate elsewhere is infeasible or causes greater environmental damage and, (2) To do otherwise would 'adversely affect the public welfare and, • (3) Adverse environmental effects are mitigated to the maximum extent feasible and (4) Where findings consistent with in 969.7.7 can be made. 969.7.3.1 Application for economically viable use determination. Any applicant that proposes a use other than one permitted in the coastal conservation district based on the contention that the uses permitted in this district will not provide an economically viable use of his or her property shall apply for an economic viability determination in conjunction with their coastal development permit application. The application for an economic viability determination shall include the entirety of all parcels that are geographically contiguous and held by the applicant in common ownership at the time of the application. Before any application for a coastal development permit and economic viability determination is accepted for processing, the applicant shall provide the following information: (a) The date the applicant purchased or otherwise acquired the property, and from whom. (b) The purchase price paid by the applicant for the property. • 5 4\s\PCD:Ordinance:amd969.7 RLS 95-757 03/06/96 (c) The fair market value of the property at the time the applicant • acquired it, describing the basis upon which the fair market value is derived, including any appraisals done at the time. (d) The general plan, zoning or similar land use designations applicable to the property at the time the applicant acquired it, as well as any changes to these designations -that occurred after acquisition. (e) Any development restrictions or other restrictions on use, other than government regulatory restrictions described in (d) above, that applied to the property at the time the applicant acquired it, or which have been imposed after acquisition. (f) Any change in the size of the property since the time the applicant acquired it, including a discussion of the nature of the change, the circumstances and the relevant dates. (g) A discussion of whether the applicant has sold or leased a portion of, or interest in, the property since the time of purchase, indicating the relevant dates, sales prices, rents, and nature of the portion or interests in the property that were sold or leased. (h) Any title reports, litigation guarantees or similar documents in • connection with all or a portion of the property of which the applicant is aware. (i) Any offers to buy all or a portion of the property which the applicant solicited or received, including the approximate date of the offer and offered price. (j) The applicant's costs associated with the ownership of the property, annualized for each of the last five calendar years, including property taxes, property assessments, debt service costs (such as mortgage and interest costs), and operation and management costs. (k) Apart from any rent received from the leasing of all or a portion of the property, any income generated by the use of all or a portion of the property over the last five calendar years. If there is any such income to report it should be listed on an annualized basis along with a description of the uses that generate or has generated such income. 6 • 4\s\PCD:Ordinancc:amd969.7 RLS 95-757 03/06/96 969.7.3.2 Economically viable use determination. The • decision-making authority shall hold a public hearing on any application for an economically viable use determination. Prior to approving a coastal development permit for a use other than one provided for in the coastal conservation district the decision-making authority shall make the following findings: (a) Based on the economic information provided by the applicant, as well as any other relevant evidence, each use provided for in the coastal conservation district would not provide an economically viable use of the applicant's property. (b) Restricting the use of the applicant's property to the uses provided for in the coastal conservation district would interfere with the applicant's reasonable investment-backed expectations. The findings adopted by the decision-making authority shall identify the evidence supporting the findings. 969.7.3.3 Economically viable use. Where the decision-making authority finds that the uses provided for in the coastal conservation • district would not provide an economically viable use, and that restricting the use of the applicant's property to these uses would interfere with their reasonable investment backed expectations, the uses provided for in the visitor serving commercial zoning district may be allowed as a conditional use and in planning area 3 only, the uses provided for in the Limited Manufacturing zone of the Industrial District may be allowed as a conditional use. A specific development proposal for a visitor serving commercial use or limited manufacturing use, may be denied, however, if a feasible less environmentally damaging visitor serving commercial or limited manufacturing alternative also would provide the applicant with an economically viable use. In addition to the other Performance Standards of 969.7.6 applicable to projects in the coastal conservation district, such a visitor serving commercial or limited manufacturing use shall be subject to the following development standards: (a) The area in which visitor serving commercial or limited manufacturing uses shall be permitted shall be the minimum amount necessary to provide the applicant with an economically viable use of his or her property. • 7 4\s\PCD:Ordinance:amd969.7 RLS 95-757 03/06/96 (b) The portion of the project involving visitor serving commercial or limited manufacturing uses shall also be subject to the standards of the visitor serving commercial district or the limited manufacturing zone. (c) Access through• wetlands or environmentally sensitive habitat areas to an area proposed for visitor serving commercial or limited manufacturing uses shall only be allowed if necessary to provide an economically viable use of the overall development plan area. 969.7.4 Prohibited Principal Uses and Structures. Any principal use or structure not expressly permitted is prohibited herein. 969.7.5 Required Permits/Agreements. Before the application can be considered complete, the project shall receive the following state and federal regulatory permits/agreements or a statement from the regulatory body that said permit/agreement is inapplicable. The required regulatory permits/agreements shall be forwarded to the Director prior to the submittal of said project to a decision making body. (A) United States Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 and Section 10 permits; I (B) California Department of Fish and Game 1601 - 1603 agreement; (C) State Water Resource Control Board (permit depends on the operation; i (D) Regional Water Quality Control Board (permit depends on the operation; (E) A permit from the California State Lands Commission may also be required. 969.7.5.1 Required Consideration of Alternatives. Before any application is accepted for processing, the applicant shall provide topographic, vegetative, hydrologic and soils information prepared by a qualified professional which identifies the extent of the wetlands on the property. This submittal shall also include an analysis of alternatives to the proposed project and an assessment of how the proposed project is the least 8 4\s\PCD:Ordinance:amd969.7 RLS 95-757 03/06/96 environmentally damaging alternative. The analysis of alternatives shall • include an assessment of how the proposed project will impact all adjacent wetlands and environmentally sensitive habitat areas, including those within the overall development plan area. 969.7.6 Performance Standards. (A) Before the coastal development permit can be issued, the project shall comply with the following standards to the satisfaction of the Director: (1) Wetlands and environmentally sensitive habitat areas that are designated for preservation after a permit hearing granting project approval on the property shall be preserved through a conservation easement, deed restriction or other similar mechanism consistent with Public Resources Code Section 30010. Such easements or restrictions need not authorize any public right of access or use. Exclusive use and possession of the area may remain with the applicant. (a) All feasible mitigation measures shall be incorporated into projects to minimize adverse environmental effects. • (i) If the project involves dredging, mitigation measures must include the following: 1 . dredging and spoils disposal must be planned and carried out to avoid significant disruption to wetland habitats and to water circulation; 2. limitations may imposed on the timing of the operation, the type of operation, the quantity of dredged material removed, and the location of the spoil site; 3. dredge spoils suitable for beach replenishment shall, where feasible, be transported to appropriate beaches or into suitable longshore current systems; 4. other mitigation measures may include opening up areas to tidal action, removing dikes, • 9 4\s\PCD:Ordinance:amd969.7 RLS 95-757 03/06/96 improving tidal flushing, or other restoration measures. • (ii) 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 bound or other evidence of financial responsibility is provided to assure that restoration will be accomplished in the shortest feasible time. (2753/4/85) 1 . 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 may proceed. (2753/4/85) 2. 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 such areas were opened to tidal action or provided with other sources of surface water. (2753/4/85) 3. If no appropriate restoration sites under options (a) and (b) 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. (2753/4/85) (iii) The third option above 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 10 • 4ls\PCD:Ordinance:amd969.7 RLS 95-757 03/06/96 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 co-applicant 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). (2753/4/85) (b) 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. (2753/4/85) (c) Pedestrian trails, observation platforms and other incidental structures shall be designed to reduce disturbance of wildlife and vegetation; examples of improvements so designed would be elevated walkways and viewing platforms, and vegetative and structural barriers to decrease disturbances from permitted • uses and inhibit internal access. (2753/4/85) (d) Passive nature study uses shall include a program to control litter; examples include litter containers and "no littering" signs posted in the project area. (2753/4/85) (e) Environmentally-sensitive habitat areas shall be restored and enhanced to lessen the risk of flood damage to adjacent properties. (2753/4/85) (f) 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 lease disturbance to wetland dependent species; e.g., migratory waterfowl and shorebirds. (2753/4/85) (g) Construction/maintenance activities shall be carried out in areas of minimal size. Preconstruction topography shall be restored • 11 4ls\PCD:Ordinance:amd969.7 RLS 95-757 03/06/96 subsequent to the conclusion of the project unless such topography is to be altered to conform with an approved • restoration project. (2753/4/85) (2) The applicant shall demonstrate that the functional capacity is maintained or augmented through the criteria set out below unless relieved of any one or more of these requirements by the California Department of Fish and Game,-and that the project does not significantly: (2753/4/85) (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; (2753/4/85) (b) harm or destroy a species or habitat that is rare or endangered; (2753/4/85) (c) harm a species or habitat that is essential to the natural biological function of a wetland or estuary; (2753/4/85) (d) reduce consumptive (e.g., fishing, aquaculture and hunting) or nonconsumptive (e.g., water quality and research opportunity) • values of a wetland or estuarian ecosystem. (2753/4/85) (3) 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. (2753/4/85) 969.7.7 Required Findings. It is the intent of this section to ensure an environment which is suitable for the self-perpetuation of environmentally sensitive habitat areas. (A) Prior to energy. production facilities being approved, the approving authority shall make the following finding with statement of facts: 1) Provision has been made for enhancement of a significant portion of the project area, to ensure preservation of plant and . wildlife species. 12 • 4\s\PCD:Ordinance:amd969.7 RLS 95-757 03/06/96 (B) Prior to coastal dependent industrial facilities being approved, the • approving authority shall make the following finding with statement of facts: 1) Alternative locations are infeasible or more environmentally damaging. 2) to locate the construction or expansion elsewhere would adversely affect the public welfare. 3) Adverse environmental effects are mitigated to the maximum extent feasible consistent with 969.7.6. 4) Siting is consistent with the study titled 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 (re-adopted by the California Coastal Commission December 1985). 5) For expansion of the Southern California Edison Plant within the area designed Industrial Energy Production/Conservation only: • a) 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, and a program acceptable to the Department of Fish and Game is implemented to assure long term habitat enhancement or restoration of these protected wetlands. Vehicular access shall be prohibited in the wetland mitigation area protected by conservation easement or similar mechanism, and b) The feasibility of expanding inland to the area known as the Rotary Mud Dump site (also known as the Ascon Landfill), or other inland location, unless the Energy Commission has determined such expansion infeasible during or before the Notice of Intention proceedings. (C) For any other project the applicant shall establish and the approving authority shall find that the functional capacity of the environmentally sensitive habitat area is being maintained. • 4ls\PCD:Ordinance:amd969.7 13 RLS 95-757 03/06/96 SECTION 2. The Community Development Director is hereby directed to amend Article 969.7 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code to reflect LCP • Amendment No. 2-94 as described in Section 1 hereof. Copies of said Article as amended hereby are available for inspection in the Office of the City Clerk. SECTION 3. This ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days following its adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting held on the 1st day of April 1996. Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: r �V.--z City Clerk Fp- City Attorney REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVED: • City Ad0finistrator Director of C munity Development 14 4\s\.PCD:Ordinance:amd969.7 RLS 95-757 03/06/96 ATTACHMENT 8 � STATE OF CALIFORNIA—THE RESOURCES AGENCY PETE WIISON, Governor CALIFORNIA. COASTAL COMMISSION SOUTH COAST AREA 245 W. BROADWAY. STE. 380 P.O. BOX 1450 LONG BEACH, CA 90802-4416 ,. (310) 590-5071 00 November 29, 1995 15� g95 ,Da, Mr. Howard Zel efsky :��' Tpe4ELOPMEN, Planning Director Department of Community Services 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 2-94 Pacific Coast Highway Area of Deferred Certification Dear Mr. Zelefsky,You are hereby notified that Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 2-94 was approved with suggested modifications by the California Coastal Commission at their November 16, 1995 public hearing in Los Angeles. The LCP amendment will not be fully effective until the Commission' s suggested modifications are adopted by the City Council , and the Executive Director certifies to the Commission that the City has complied with the Commission' s action. Certification of the Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 2-94 is subject to the attached modifications which reflect the changes made at the hearing. These changes are found on pages 5 and 6 of the attached suggested modifications. Pursuant to Section 13537 of the California Code of Regulations, the Commission' s certification with suggested modifications will expire six months from the date of Commission action if not adopted by the local government. Thank you and your staff for your efforts and cooperation with this project. Please calA 'Meg Vaughn at the above number if you have any questions regarding this matter. Sincerely, Charles Damm South Coast District Director cc: Scott Hess enc. 580OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA—THE RESOURCES AGENCY PETE WILSON, Governor CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION SOUTH COAST AREA ; s� 245 W. BROADWAY, STE. 380 P.O. BOX 1430 LONG BEACH, CA 90802-4416 • :a u� ;r�nrau7 i . HUNTINGTON BEACH LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT 2-94 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY AREA OF DEFERRED CERTIFICATION IMPLEMENTATION SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS Certification of the Implementation Plan Amendment is subject to the following modifications: (deletions indicated by strike—out,' additions indicated by underscoring) A. MODIFICATIONS TO PROPOSED IMPLEMENTATION ZONING All parcels which contain a land use designation of conservation, in whole or in part, shall be base zoned Coastal Conservation district and shall be subject to the requirements of Article 969.7, as modified below. The area land use designated Industrial Energy Production/Conservation shall be base zoned Conservation and shall be subject to the requirements of Article 969.7. , as modified below. Revised zoning district maps, adopted by the City Council , reflecting the above zone changes to Coastal Conservation District and Industrial Energy Production/Conservation shall be submitted for Executive Director review and approval and Coastal Commission concurrence. B. RECODIFICATION OF ARTICLE The City may submit the Coastal Conservation District provisions recodified as Article 9422 in response to the Commission's suggested modifications, as_ long as the Article has been otherwise amended to reflect all the Commission' s suggested modifications. The City shall definitively state, as part of its adoption of the suggested modifications, whether this recodified Article is being submitted to the Commission as a response to the suggested modifications. This recodified Article shall not become effective, however, unless and until it has been reviewed and approved by the Executive Director, and this approval has received the concurrence of the Commission. C. DELETION OF PROPOSED ADDITIONS BECAUSE THEY ALREADY EXIST IN THE COASTAL CONSERVATION DISTRICT TEXT If the City chooses not to 'submit the recodified Coastal Conservation District Article 9422 to the Commission, and instead chooses to implement Article 969.7, the following proposed additions will be unnecessary. 1 . Delete proposed addition described in Section 1 of Ordinance No. 3251—B which proposes to modify the definition of wetland in the Coastal Conservation District. Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 2-94 Suggested Modifications -Page 2 2. Delete proposed addition described in Section 4 of Ordinance No. 3251—B which proposes to replace the word "practical" with "feasible". 3. Delete proposed addition described in Section 6 of Ordinance No. 3251—B which proposes to add a new allowable use. 4. Delete proposed addition described in Section 8 of Ordinance No. 3251—B which proposes to replace the word "moderate" with "minimize". D. Delete Proposed Change to Article 969.9.21 described in Ordinance No. 3251—B which references the Coastal Conservation suffix proposed by the City. E. MODIFICATIONS COASTAL CONSERVATION DISTRICT TEXT 1 . Delete Reference to Article 902, which is not certified by the Commission as part of the Implementation Plan; add the following similar text to end of 969.7.0: 969.7.0 Purpose. S The application of the coastal conservation district is not intended to authorize. and shall not be construed as authorizing the City 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, 2. Delete proposed new Section 9422.2.1 in its entirety as well ' as reference to Section 9422.2.1 contained in proposed addition to Section 969.9.21 . 3. Delete proposed Section 9422.3 in its entirety. 4. Modify Section 969.7.3 by adding the following: Add subsection iAl after title and before the first sentence. Add to the end of 969.7.3 (a): (a) New or expanded energy and coastal—dependent industrial facilities . where no feasible, less environmentally damaging alternative exists and where consistent with the study titled 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 (re—adopted by the California Coastal Commission December 1985). Add the following language to Section 969.7.3 immediately after subsection (h): (i) Habitat Restoration Projects, LU For the portion of any parcel which is not designated Conservation under the certified land use plan, any use authorized by and in conformance with the Visitor Serving Commercial zoning district. ' Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 2-94 Suggested Modifications Page 3 (B) In addition to the above uses coastal dependent industrial facilities shall also be allowed even where inconsistent with other provisions of the certified LCP if: (1) To locate elsewhere is infeasible or causes greater environmental - damage and. (2) To do otherwise would adversely affect the public welfare and. (3) Adverse environmental effects are mitigated to the maximum extent feasible and (4) Where findings consistent with in 969.7.7_can be made. 5. Add to 969.7.1 (g) Coastal-dependent development or use means any development or use wbich requires a site on or adjacent to the sea to be able to function at all , 6. Add the Following Language to Section 969.7.1 .1 : E 969.7.1 .1 Designation of the project area. Development or subdivision of any parcel in whole or in part within the coastal conservation district shall be permitted only pursuant to an overall development plan for the entirety of all parcels that are geographically contiguous and in common ownership at the time of application. For purposes of determining common ownership pursuant to this Article. parcels which are owned in fee. as well as parcels subject to existing purchase options. shall be treated as commonly owned. Consistent with Government Code section 66424, property shall be considered as contiguous pursuant to this Article even if separated by roads. streets. utility easements or railroad rights of way. 7. Add the following to Section 969.7.3: 969.7.3.1 Application for economically viable use determination, Any applicant that proRoses a use other than one permitted in the coastal conservation district based on the contention that the uses permitted in this district will not provide an economically viable use of his or her property shall apply for an economic viability determination in conjunction with their coastal development permit application. The application for an economic viability determination shall include the entirety of all parcels that are geographically contiguous and held by the applicant in common ownership at the time of the application. Before any application for a coastal development permit and economic viability determination is accepted for processing the applicant shall provide the following information: Lil The date the applicant purchased or otherwise acquired the property, and from whom. The purchase price paid by the applicant for the property. r ' Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 2-94 Suggested Modifications Page 4 SSI The fair market value of the property at the time the applicant acquired it describing the basis upon which the fair market value is- derived. including any appraisals done at the time. JL The general plan. Toning or similar land use designations applicable to the property at the time the applicant acquired it as well as any changes to these designations that occurred after acquisition. M Any development restrictions or other restrictions on use, other than government regulatory restrictions described in (d) ahove. that applied to the property at the time the applicant acquired it. or which have been imposed after acquisition. (f) Any change in the size of the property since the time the applicant acquired it, including a discussion of the nature of the change. the circumstances and the relevant dates. A discussion of whether the applicant has sold or leased a portion of, or interest in. the property since the time of purchase. indicating the relevant dates. sales prices. rents. and nature of the portion or interests in the ,property that were sold or leased. , Any title reports. litigation guarantees or similar documents in connection with all or a portion of the property of which the applicant is aware. (i) Any offers to buy all or a portion of the property which the applicant solicited or received. including the approximate date of the offer and offered price. The applicant's costs associated with the ownership of the property. annualized for each of the last five calendar years, including property taxes, property assessments, debt service costs (such as mortgage and interest costs), and operation and management costs. SkZ Apart from any rent received from the leasing of all or a portion of the property, any income generated by the use of all or a portion of the property over the last five calendar- years. If there is any such income to report it should be listed on an annualized basis along with a description of the uses that generate or has generated such income. 969.7.3.2 Economically viable use determination. The decision-making authority shall hold a public hearing on any application for an economically viable use determination Prior to approving a coastal development permit for a use other than one provided for in the coastal conservation district the decision-making authority shall make the following findings: M )used on the economic information provided by the applicant as well as any other relevant evidence each use provided for in the coastal conservation district would not provide an economically viable use of the applicant' s property. Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 2-94 Suggested Modifications Page 5 Restricting the use of the applicant' s property to the uses provided for in the coastal conservation district would interfere with the applicant' s reasonable investment—backed expectations. The findings adopted by the decision—making authority shall identify the evidence supporting the findings, 969.7.3.3 Economically viable use. Where the decision—making authority finds that the uses provided for in the coastal conservation district would not provide an economically viable use. and that restricting the use of the applicant' s property to these uses would interfere with their_ reasonable investment backed expectations. the uses provided for in the visitor serving commercial zoning district may be allowed as a conditional use and in lap nnina area 3 only. the uses provided for in the Limited Manufacturing zone of the Industrial District may be allowed as a conditional use. A specific development proposal for a visitor serving commercial use or limited manufacturing use. may be denied, however. if-A feasible less environmentally damaging visitor serving commercial pr _limited manufacturing alternative also would provide the applicant with an economically viable use. In addition to the other Performance Standards of 969.7.6 applicable to projects in the coastal conservation district. such a visitor serving commercial or limited manufacturing use shall be subject to the following development standards: S41 The area in which visitor serving commercial or limited manufacturing uses shall be permitted shall be the minimum amount necessary to provide the applicant with an economically viable use of his or her property, LU The portion of the project involving visitor serving commercial or limited manufacturing uses shall also be subject to the standards of the visitor serving commercial district or the limited manufacturing zone. SS2 Access__through wetlands or environmentally sensitive habitat areas to an area proposed for visitor serving commercial or limited manufacturing uses shall only be allowed if necessary to provide an economically viable use of the overall development plan area. B. Add the following language: 969.7.5.1 Required Consideration of Alternatives. Before any application is accepted for processing. the applicant shall provide topographic, vegetative, hydrologic and soils information prepared by a qualified professional which identifies the extent of the wetlands on the proRerty This submittal shall also include an analysis of alternatives to the proposed project and an assessment of how the proposed project is the least environmentally damaging alternative The analysis of alternatives shall include an assessment of how the proposed project will impact all adjacent wetlands and environmentally sensitive habitat areas including those within the overall development plan area Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 2-94 Suggested Modifications Page 6 9. Modify Section 969.7.6 as follows: 969.7.6 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (A) Before the coastal development permit can be issued, the project shall comply with the following standards to the satisfaction of the Director: (1) Wetlands and environmentally sensitive habitat areas that are designated for preservation after a permit hearing granting project approval on the property shall be Rreserved through a conservation easement deed restriction or other similar mechanism consistent with Public Resources Code Section 30010 Such easements or restrictions need not authorize any public right of access or use. Exclusive use and possession of the area may remain with the applicant. S-Z All feasible mitigation measures shall be incorporated into projects to minimize adverse environmental effects. LU If the project involves dredging, mitigation measures must include the following: J, dredging and spoils disposal must be planned and carried out to avoid significant disruption to wetland habitats and to water circulation; limitations may imposed on the timing of the operation, the type of operation, the quantity of dredged material removed, and the location of the spoil site; 3—. dredge spoils suitable for beach replenishment shall , where feasible, be transported to appropriate beaches or into suitable longshore current systems; other mitigation measures may include opening up areas to tidal action, removing dikes, improving tidal flushing, or other restoration measures. If the project involves diking or filling of a wetland, the following minimum mitigation measures shall apply. . . . (renumber existing 969.7.6 text accordingly) 10. Add new Section 969.7.2.1 regarding Hamilton Avenue Extension 969.7.2.1 Extension of Hamilton Avenue. The extension of Hamilton Avenue shall be permitted between Beach Boulevard and Newland Street The precise alignment of Hamilton Avenue shall not be approved without documentation that the least environmentally damaging feasible alternative is the chosen alternative. Before the precise alignment of Hamilton Avenue can be approved. an EIR shall be certified which addresses the alternative alignments for 'Hamilton Ave and the mitigation needs generated from each alternative. The alternatives analysis shall include at a minimum, the following: (1) placing the roadway in an alignment which Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 2-94 %. Suggested Modifications Page 7 is most protective of wetland habitats including the construction of the road on pilings or bridging the road over the wetlands. and (2) limiting the width of the roadway by narrowing lanes and eliminating shoulders and (3) requiring full mitigation for any impacted wetlands. No net loss of wetland shall occur. Any wetland which is filled or reduced is productivity by the Qroject will be replaced by restoring otherwise degraded or non-functioning wetland as close as feasible to the project site. 11 . Add the following language to Section 969.7.7: (A) Prior to energy production facilities being approved, the approving authority shall make the following finding with statement of facts: U Provision has been made for enhancement of a significant portion of the project area, to ensure preservation of plant and wildlife species. (B) Prior to coastal dependent industrial facilities being approved. the approving authority shall make the following finding with statement of facts: 1 ) Alternative locations are infeasible or more environmentally ` damaging. 2) To locate the construction or expansion elsewhere would adversely affect the public welfare. 3) Adverse environmental effects are mitigated to the maximum extent feasible consistent with 969.7.6. 4) Siting is consistent with the study titled 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 (re-adopted by the California Coastal Commission December 19B5) . 5) For expansion of the Southern California Edison Plant within the area designated Industrial Energy Production/Conservation only: Al 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, and a program acceptable to the Department of Fish and Game is implemented to assure long term habitat enhancement or restoration of these protected wetlands Vehicular access shall be prohibited in the wetland mitigation area protected by conservation easement or similar mechanism, and hhJ The infeasibility of expanding inland to the area known as the Rotary Mud Dump site (also known as the Ascon Landfill) . -or other inland location. unless the Energy Commission has determined such expansion infeasible during or before the Notice of Intention proceedinqs, Huntington Beach LCP. Amendment 2-94 Suggested Modifications 'Page 8 For any other project the applicant shall establish and the approving authority shall find that the functional capacity of the environmentally sensitive habitat area is being maintained.. r 1 5799F ATTACHMENT 9 -Th STATE OF CALIFORNIA—THE RESOURCES AGENCY r Q PETE WILSON Gown-wr r CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION - .' SOUTH COAST AREA 245 W. ROADWAY, STE. 360 P.O. !OX 1450 W t 3 LONG 6EACH, CA 90104J416 ynn� NOV 0 IJJ October 26, 1995 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TO: Commissioners and Interested Persons FROM: Charles Damm, South Coast District Director Meg Vaughn, Staff Analyst 908JECT: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT 2-94 Implementation Plan for the Pacific Coast Highway Area of Deferred Certification (for Commission action at the meeting of November 14-17, 1995 in Los Angeles). SUMMARY OF AMENDMENT REQUEST: Request by the City of Huntington Beach for Commission action on proposed Implementation Plan amendment 2-94 to the Huntington Beach certified Local Coastal Program. The amendment proposes to provide zoning for the 232 acre Area of Deferred Certification located inland ` of Pacific Coast Highway between Beach Boulevard and the Santa Ana River. The amendment also proposes changes to the Coastal Conservation District text: STANDARD OF REVIEW AND TIME LIMIT TO ACT For the proposed Implementation Plan amendment, the standard of review pursuant to Section 30514 of the Coastal Act, shall be conformance with and adequacy to carry out the provisions of the certified Huntington Beach Land Use Plan. Proposed LCP amendment submittal 2-94 was deemed complete on October 4, 1994. Pursuant to Section 30517 of the Coastal Act and 13535 (c) of the California Code of Regulations, the Commission at its meeting of November 17, 1994, extended the 60 day time limit for action on the Implementation Plan amendment for up to one year. 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 Meg Vaughn at the above address and phone. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff is recommending denial of the Implementation Plan amendment as submitted due to its nonconformity with and inadequacy to carry out the provisions of the certified Land Use Plan regarding protection of wetlands. Staff recommends approval of the Implementation Plan amendment submittal with suggested modifications which will bring the submittal into conformity with and adequately carry out the provisions of the certified Land Use Plan. Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 2-94 Pacific Coast Highway ADC Page 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary 3 I. Rejection of the Amendment to Implementing Ordinances 6 Motion I Staff Recommendation Resolution II. Approval of the Amendment to the Implementation Plan If Modified 7 Motion II Staff Recommendation Resolution III.Suggested Modifications 7 IV. Findings for Denial 15 A. LCP Background and Fish & Game Determination 15 B. General Amendment Description. 17 C. Area by Area Description 19 D. Article 9422 Has Not Been Certified by the Commission 22 E. The Conservation Designation in the LUP 22 F. The Proposed Base Zones Are Inconsistent with the 24 Conservation Designation in the LUP G. Economic Use of Property 27 H. Preferred Use If Other than Conservation Must be Allowed 29 I. Extension of Hamilton Avenue 30 J. Power Plant Siting 31 K. Miscellaneous Changes Which Are Not in Conformance with 33 the Land Use Plan L. Miscellaneous Changes Which Are in Conformance with the 33 Land Use Plan V. Findings for Approval If Modidifed 33 A. Zone All Parcels Land Use Designated Conservation with 33 the Coastal Conservation Base Zone B. Modifications to Coastal Conservation District to Ensure 34 Economically Viable Use C. Modifications for Implementation of Hamilton Avenue Extension 38 D. Modifications for Implementation of Power Plant Facility 39 F. Miscellaneous Changes 40 VI. CEQA Findings 40 LIST OF EXHIBITS A. Vicinity Map B. Submittal Resolution C. Ordinance No. 3251-B D. Ordinance No. 3033 E. Area by Area Map/Land Use Designation Map F. Area by Area Description G. Proposed Zoning Map H. Assessor's Parcel Map Showing the Seven Listed Parcels I. DFG Wetlands Determination J. Effectively Certified Article 969.7 K. Non-Certified Article 9422 Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 2-94 Pacific Coast Highway ADC *Page 3 VXECUTIYE SUMMARY The proposed LCP amendment is intended to provide the implementation for the certified Land Use Plan for the Pacific Coast Highway Area of Deferred Certification (ADC) within the City of Huntington Beach (City). The Pacific Coast Highway area was deferred certification at the time the City was certified due to unresolved issues regarding the protection of wetlands. In 1986 the Commission approved a land use plan for this area of deferred c.e.'tification. One issue of this LCP amendment is whether the City's proposed implementation is adequate to protect the wetlands and upland environmentally sensitive habitat that exist throughout almost all of the undeveloped portions of the ADC. A 1983 Department of Fish and Game (DFG) study determined that of the 140 undeveloped acres included within the 232 acre ADC, 114.7 acres are viably functioning wetlands and 11 .6 acres are environmentally sensitive upland habitat. Much of the remaining area (approximately 13 acres) is degraded but easily restorable wetlands. All areas within the ADC identified in the 1983 DFG Study as wetlands were designated Conservation in the land use plan: The City's proposed method of implementing the areas designated Conservation in the land use plan is to base zone the areas with existing local zoning (including such zones as Residential Agriculture, Restricted Manufacturing, Light Industrial , and Limited Use) and affix a Coastal Conservation (CC—) suffix. The CC suffix is proposed as an overlay zone. The CC suffix is proposed to take precedence over the underlying base zone and limit uses within wetland areas to those allowable under the certified land use designation of conservation which allows the Coastal Act section 30233 uses and low intensity recreational uses such as nature study and picnicking. The City's intent in proposing retention of the local base zone is to identify an economic use for areas designated conservation if the CC suffix is removed. However, as proposed by the City, the CC suffix can only be removed if no wetlands exist on site when the goal of providing a landowner with an economic use is no longer and issue. Staff recommends denial of the City's proposed implementation. The reasons for this denial recommendation are set out below. The City's amendment submittal proposes revisions to Article 9422 Coastal Conservation. However, Article 9422 has never been effectively certified by the Coastal Commission. The effectively certified Coastal Conservation District is Article 969.7. Nevertheless, staff has reviewed the City's proposed revisions to the Coastal Conservation District as it would affect the effectively certified Article 969.7. The substantial difference between Article 969.7 and the City's Article 942 is that Article 969.7 does not contain a Coastal Conservation suffix. The City is proposing additions and changes to the Coastal Conservation suffix. Staff is recommending denial of Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 2-94 Pacific Coast Highway ADC Page 4 the additions and changes to the Coastal Conservation suffix because it has never been effectively certified by the Commission. Additionally, even if the Coastal Conservation suffix did exist within the certified Coastal Conservation district the amendment would have to be denied for the following reasons. Although the CC suffix is proposed to be added to all areas land use designated Conservation, implementing text for the CC suffix is only provided for seven parcels listed by APN within the City's proposed text. This leaves 82 acres land use designated conservation without any supporting zoning text. TV Coastal Act requires that the LCP implementation must conform to and be adequate to carry out the certified land use designations. The base zones proposed by the City are not in conformance with or adequate to carry out the land use designation of conservation. .Moreover, overlay zones are typically used to supplement existing zoning. Overlay zones are consistent with the underlying base zone, but provide more specificity or greater restrictions. As proposed by the City, the CC suffix is not related at all to the underlying base zone and in fact conflicts with it. The City has proposed to apply the overlay CC suffix rather than base zone the areas Coastal Conservation District, a zone which already exists in the certified Implementation Plan. The retention of the locally approved base zone was proposed by the City to provide an economic use and so avoid the possibility of depriving a property owner of all economic use of his or her property. There are two problems with this approach. First, the City's concern about economic viability appears premature. Generally, plan policies and zoning ordinances do not themselves deprive a property owner of all economic use of their property. Instead, economic viability issues are more appropriately addressed at the permit stage, when the regulatory agency has more site specific information. Second, the City's proposal is illusory. As proposed by the City, the base zone could only become effective if it is demonstrated that no wetlands exist on the property. If no wetlands or other ESHA exist on the parcel the conservation land use designation and zoning could be removed anyway through an LCP amendment. The potential for deprivation of all economic use occurs only when the extent of wetland or other ESHA on a parcel is such that development is restricted to the point of preventing economic use. As proposed there are no standards provided by which the approving authority could determine whether deprivation of all economic use would result from application of the conservation land use designation and zoning. Because of the extent and value of the on site habitat, it is critical that a clear standard of what constitutes deprivation of all economic use be established before development which creates adverse impacts on the wetlands or other ESHA is allowed. Further, no uses or development standards are proposed in the case such a determination is made. This is also critical to assure that impacts that must be allowed are minimized. Finally, the base zones proposed by the City do not recognize the high priority placed on Visitor Serving uses by the Coastal Act and as reflected in the City's certified LUP. If some use other than conservation must be allowed Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 2-94 Pacific Coast Highway ADC Page 5 _ to avoid depriving a property owner of all economic use of his or her property, the base zones proposed by the City are not high priority uses under the certified Land Use Plan. The ADC is located on the inland side of Pacific Coast Highway, directly across from the Huntington State Beach. Both Pacific Coast Highway and Beach Boulevard are major coastal access routes. As such, the area provides a prime location for visitor serving uses. The uses proposed by the City, including Residential Agriculture, Restricted Manufacturing, Light Industrial , and Limited Use. are not dependent on being near the ocean and are more suitable inland. Staff is recommending suggested modifications to bring the Implementation Plan amendment into conformance with and to carry out the certified Land Use Plan. The suggested modifications include the following: 1 . Rezoning all the areas land use designated conservation to Coastal Conservation District; 2. Deleting the proposed CC suffix; 3. Modifying the existing Coastal Conservation District text to adapt the City's proposed language so that it applies to all Coastal Conservation District zoned sites requiring an overall development plan, providing wetland studies and alternatives analysis at the time of coastal ' development permit application, requiring permanent preservation of wetland areas, and prohibiting further subdivision of parcels containing wetlands; 4. Adding new text to require specific information at the time of the coastal development permit application if the property owner contends that the uses provided for in the Coastal Conservation district are not economically viable; 5. Adding new text which specifies the findings that must be made if deprivation of all economic use is determined; 6. Adding new text to provide allowable uses and development standards if deprivation of all economic use is determined. Another issue raised by the LCP amendment is the proposed text for extension of Hamilton Avenue through the wetlands. At the time the Land Use Plan was approved by the Commission, the extension of Hamilton Avenue was addressed. The Land Use Plan contained specific requirements that would be necessary at the time of the coastal development permit application for the road extension. As proposed by the City, these requirements are not identified in the Implementation Plan. Staff is recommending a suggested modification that includes the requirements identified in the Land Use Plan. These include: (1) an alternatives analysis, including documentation that the proposed alternative is the least environmentally damaging alternative; (2) preparation and certification of an EIR; and (3) the requirement of full mitigation to assure no net loss of wetlands. Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 2-94 Pacific Coast Highway ADC Page 6 The last major issue raised by the LCP amendment is implementation for the area adjacent to the Southern California Edison power plant which is land use designated Industrial Energy Production/Conservation. This area is subject not only to wetland protection provisions of the LUP (hence the conservation portion of the designation), but also to the coastal dependent industrial facility provisions. The certified LUP recognizes that the Southern California Edison plant may be allowed to expand into the adjacent 17 acre area. Pursuant to the Coastal Act and the City's certified LUP, industrial energy facilities may be expanded, even where inconsistent with other provisions of the certified LCP, if certain of the following provisions are Tat: alternative locations are demonstrated to be infeasible or more . environmentally damaging; to locate the expansion elsewhere would adversely affect the public welfare; and if all adverse impacts -are mitigated to the . maximum extent feasible. As proposed, the LCP amendment does not incorporate the specific requirements of this unique energy facility expansion situation. Staff is recommending suggested modifications to provide for the allowable expansion of the Southern California Edison plant consistent with the requirements of the LUP. Staff recommends that if modified as suggested, the LCP amendment will be in- conformance with and adequate to carry out the certified Land Use Plan. Moreover, if modified as suggested, the amendment will be consistent with the Coastal Act. I. RESECTION OF THE AMENDMENT TO IMPLEMENTING ORDINANCES MT I move that the Commission reject the Implementation Plan Amendment 2-94 of the City of Huntington Beach for the Pacific Coast Highway Area of Deferred Certification. rSTAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends M 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 2-94 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. t Huntington Beath LCP Amendment 2-94 _ Pacific Coast Highway ADC Page 7 II. APPROVAL OF THE AMENDMENT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN IF MODIFIED: MOTION II. I move that the Commission approve the 'City of Huntington Beach LCP Implementation Plan Amendment 2-94 for the Pacific Coast Highway Area of Deferred Certification if it is modified in conformity with the modifications suggested below. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: rrr Staff recommends a M 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 CERTIFY THE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN AMENDMENT IF MODIFIED The Commission hereby approves certification of the City of Huntington Beach Implementation Plan Amendment 2-94 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. III. SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS: The Commission hereby suggests the following changes to the proposed Implementation Plan amendment which are necessary to bring it into conformity with and adequate to carry out the applicable provisions of the certified Huntington Beach Land Use Plan. If the local government accepts the suggested modifications, within six months of Commission action, 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: A. MODIFICATIONS TO PROPOSED IMPLEMENTATION ZONING All parcels which contain a land use designation of conservation, in whole or in part, shall be base zoned Coastal Conservation district and shall be subject to the requirements of Article 969.7, as modified below. The area land use designated Industrial Energy Production/Conservation shall be base zoned Conservation and shall be subject to the requirements of Article 969.7. , as modified below. Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 2-94 Pacific Coast Highway ADC - Page 8 Revised zoning district maps, adopted by the City Council , reflecting the above zone changes to Coastal Conservation District and Industrial Energy Production/Conservation shall be submitted for Executive Director review and approval and Coastal Commission concurrence. B. RECODIFICATION OF ARTICLE The City may submit the Coastal Conservation District provisions recodified as Article 9422 in response to the Commission's suggested modifications, as long as the Article has been otherwise amended to reflect all the Commission's suggested modifications. The City shall definitively state. as part of its adoption of the suggested modifications, whether this recodified Article is being submitted to the Commission as a response to the suggested modifications. This recodified Article shall not become effective, however, unless and until it has been reviewed and approved by the Executive Director, and this approval has received the concurrence of the Commission. C. DELETION OF PROPOSED ADDITIONS BECAUSE THEY ALREADY EXIST IN THE COASTAL CONSERVATION DISTRICT TEXT If the City chooses not to submit the recodified Coastal Conservation District Article 9422 to the Commission, and instead chooses to implement Article 969.7, the following proposed additions will be unnecessary. 1 . Delete proposed addition described in Section 1 of Ordinance No. 3251-8 which proposes to modify the definition of wetland in the Coastal Conservation District. 2. Delete proposed addition described in Section 4 of Ordinance No. 3251—B which proposes to replace the word "practical" with "feasible". 3. Delete proposed addition described in Section 6 of Ordinance No. 3251—B which proposes to add a new allowable use. 4. Delete proposed addition described in Section 8 of Ordinance No. 3251-8 which proposes to replace the word "moderate" with "minimize". 0. Delete Proposed Change to Article 969.9.21 described in Ordinance No. - 3251-8 which references the Coastal Conservation suffix proposed by the City. E. MODIFICATIONS COASTAL CONSERVATION DISTRICT TEXT 1 . Delete Reference to Article 902, which is not certified by the Commission as part of the Implementation Plan; add the following similar text to end of 969.7.0: Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 2-94 Pacific Coast Highway ADC •Page 9 969.7.0 Purpose. The application of the coastal conservation district 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, 2. Delete proposed new Section 9422.2.1 in its entirety as well as reference to Section 9422.2.1 contained in proposed addition to Section 969.9.21 . 3. Delete proposed Section 9422.3 in its entirety. 4.' Modify Section 969.7.3 by adding the following: Add subsection QU after title and before the first sentence. Add to the end of 969.7.3 (a): (a) New or expanded energy and coastal-dependent industrial facilities where no feasible, less environmentally damaging alternative exists and where consistent with the study titled 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 (re-adopted by the California Coastal Commission December 1985) • Add the following language to Section 969.7.3 immediately after subsection (h): (i ) Habitat Restoration Projects, S,U For the portion of any parcel which is not designated Conservation under the certified land use plan. any use authorized by and in conformance with the Visitor Serving Commercial zoning district. (B) In addition to the above uses, coastal dependent industrial facilities shall also be allowed even where inconsistent with other provisions of the certified LCP if: (1) To locate elsewhere is infeasible or causes greater environmental damage and, (2) To do otherwise would adversely affect the public welfare and- (3) Adverse environmental effects are mitigated to the maximum extent feasible and (4) Where findings consistent with in 969.7.7 can be made. Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 2-94 Pacific Coast Highway ADC Page 10 5. Add to 969.7.1 (g) COaStal�d a i nt development or use means anv development or use which requires a site on or adjacent to the sea to be able to function at all . 6. Add the Following Language to Section 969.7.1 .1: 969.7.1 .1 Designation of the project area Development or subdivision of any parcel in whole or in part within the coat tal conservation district shall be permitted only pursuant to an all overall Oevelopmgnt elan for the entirety of all parcels that are geographically contiguous and in common ownership at the time of application. For purposes of determining common ownership pursuant to this Article parcels which are owned in fee as well as parcels subject to existing_gurchase options shall be treated as commonly owned Consistent with Government Code section 66424, property shall be considered as contiguous pursuant to this Article even if separated by roads. .streets. utility easements or railroad rights of way,_ 7. Add the following to Section 969.7.3: 969.7.3.1 Application for economically viable use determination. ' Any applicant that proposes a use other than one permitted in the coastal conservation district based on the contention that the uses permitted in this district will not provide an economically viable use of his or her property shall apply for an economic viability determination in conjunction with their coastal development permit application. The application for an economic viability determination shall include the entirety of all parcels that are geographically contiguous and held by the applicant in common ownership at the time of the application. Before any application for a coastal development permit and economic viability determination is accepted for processing. the applicant shall provide the following information: LU The date the applicant purchased or otherwise acquired the property. and from whom. J 2 The purchase price paid by the applicant for the property. Irl The fair market value of the property at the time the applicant acauired it. describing the basis upon which the fair market value is derived, including any appraisals done at the time. M The general planes zoning or similar land use designations applicable to the property at the time the applicant acquired it. as well as any changes to these designations that occurred after acquisition. M Any development restrictions or other restrictions on use. other than government regulatory restrictions described in (d) above. that applied to the property at the time the applicant acquired it, or which have been imposed after acquisition. Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 2-94 ' - Pacific Coast Highway ADC Page 11 Any change in the size of the property since the time the applicant acquired it, including a discussion -of- the nature of the change. the circumstances and the relevant dates. SgZ A discussion of whether the applicant has sold or leased a Dgrtion of. or interest in. the property since the time of purchase. indicating the relevant dates, sales prices. rents. and nature of the portion or interests in the propgrty that were sold or leased. Any title reports litigation guarantees or similar documents in connection with all or a portion of the property of which the applicant is aware. SU Any offers to buy all or a portion of the property which the applicant solicited or received. including the approximate date of the offer and offered price. (i) . The applicant's costs associated with the ownership of the property. annualized for each-of-the last five calendar years. including property taxes . property assessments, debt service costs (such as mortgage and interest costs) . and operation and management costs. ISS2_ Apart from any rent received from the leasing of all or a_portion of the property, any income generated by the use of all or-a portion of the property over the last five calendar years. If there is any such income to report it should be listed on an annualized basis along with a description of the uses that generate or has generated such income, 969.7.3.2 Economically viable use determination. The decision-making authority shall hold a public hearing on any - application for an economically viable use determination. Prior to approving a coastal development permit for a use other than one provided for in the coastal conservation district the decision-making authority shall make the following find'nas: Sjjj Based on the economic information provided by the applicant. as well as any other relevant evidence. each use provided for in the coastal conservation district would not provide an economically viable use of the applicant's property. Restricting the use of the applicant's property to the uses provided for in the coastal conservation district would interfere with the applicant's reasonable investment-backed expectations. The findings adopted by the decision-making authority shall identify the evidence supporting the findiUl, Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 2-94 Pacific Coast Highway ADC . Page 12 969.7.3.3 Economically viable use Where the decision—making authority fin03_tha the uses provided for in the coastal conservation district woullO not- provide an economically viable use and that restrict;nc, of the applicant's property to these uses would interfere with their reasonable investment backed expectations the uses provided for in the visitor serving commercial zoning district may be allowed as a conditional use. A specific development proposal for a visitor serving commercial use Lnay be denied, however. if a feasible less environmentally damaging visitor serving commercial alternative also would provide the applicant with an economically viable use In addition to the other Performance •' Standards of 969 7 6 applicable to projects in the coastal conservation district, such a visitor serving commercial use shall be subject to the following development standards* Lit The area in which visitor serving commercial uses shall be permitted shall be the minimum amount necessary to provide the applicant with an economically viable use of his or her property. S� The portion of the pr—gject involving visitor serving commercial uses shall also be subject to the standards of the visitor serving commercial district. S_U Access through wetlands or environmentally sensitive habitat areas to an area proposed for visitor serving commercial uses shall only be allowed if necessary to provide an economically viable use of the overall development plan area. 8. Add the following language: 969.7.5.1_ Required Consideration of Alternatives. Before any application is accepted for processing, the applicant shall provide topographic, vegetative, hydrologic and soils information prepared by a qualified professional and reviewed by the California Department of . Fish and Game. which identifies the extent of the wetlands on the property. This submittal shall also include an analysis of alternatives to the proposed project and an assessment of how the proposed project is the least environmentally damaging alternative. The analysis of alternatives shall include an assessment of how the proposed project will impact all adjacent wetlands and environmentally sensitive habitat areas. including those within the overall development plan area. 9. Modify Section 969.7.6 as follows: 969.7.6 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (A) Before the application can be considered complete. the project shall comply with the following standards to the satisfaction of the Director: (1) Wetlands and environmentally sensitive habitat areas that are not subject to development shall be preserved through a conservation easement. deed restri tion or other similar mechanism. Such easements or restrictions need not authorize any public right of access or use. Exclusive use and possession of the area may remain with the applicant. Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 2-94 Pacific Coast Highway ADC Page 13 5.62 All feasible mitigation measures shall be incorporated into projects to minimize adverse environmental effects. LU If the project involves dredging, mitigation measures must include the following: 1.,- dredging and spoils disposal must be planned and carried out to avoid significant disruption to wetland habitats and to water circulation; 2 limitations may imposed on the timing of the operation, the type of operation, the quantity of dredged material removed, and the location of the spoil site; dredge spoils suitable for beach replenishment shall , where feasible, be transported to appropriate beaches or into suitable longshore current systems; 4, other mitigation measures may include opening up areas to tidal action, removing dikes, improving tidal flushing, or other restoration measures. JLU If the project involves diking or filling of a wetland, the following minimum mitigation measures shall apply. . . . (renumber existing 969.7.6 text accordingly) 10. Add new Section 969.7.2.1 regarding Hamilton Avenue Extension 969.7.2.1 Extension of Hamilton Avenue. The extension of Hamilton Avenue shall be permitted between Beach Boulevard and Newland Street. The precise alignment of Hamilton Avenue shall not be approved without documentation that the least environmentally damaging feasible alternative is the chosen alternative. Before the precise alignment of Hamilton Avenue can be approved. an EIR shall be certified which addresses the alternative alignments for Hamilton Ave. and the mitigation needs generated from each alternative. The alternatives analysis shall include, at a minimum. the following: (1 ) placing the roadway in an alignment which is most protective of wetland habitats. including the construction of the road on pilings or bridging the road over the wetlands. and (2) limiting the width of the roadway by narrowing lanes and eliminating shoulders. and (3) reguiring full mitigation for any impacted wetlands. No net loss of wetland shall 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. Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 2-94 Pacific Coast Highway ADC Page 14 11 . Add the following language to Section 969.7.7: (A) Prior to energy production facilities being approved. the approving authority shall make the following finding with statement of facts: 1.2. Provision has been made for enhancement of a significant portion of the project area, to ensure preservation of plant and wildlife species. r M Prior to coastal dependent industrial facilities being approved the approving authority shall make the following finding with statement of rr fads: 1) Alternative locations are infeasible or more environmentally damaging. 2) To locate the construction or expansion elsewhere would adversely affect the public welfare. D Adverse environmental effects are mitigated to the maximum extent feasible consistent with 969.7.6. 4) Siting is consistent with the study titled Designation of Coastal Zone Areas Where Construction of an Electric Power Plant Would Prevent Achievement of the Objectives of the California Coastal Alt of 1976 (re-adopted by the California Coastal Commission December 1985) . 5) For expansion of the Southern California Edison Plant within the area designated Industrial Energy Production/Conservation only: 11 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. and a program acceptable to the Department of Fish and Game is implemented to assure long term habitat enhancement or restoration of these protected wetlands. Vehicular access shall be prohibited in the wetland mitigation area protected by conservation easement or similar mechanism. and The infeasibility of expanding inland to the area known as the Rotary Mud Dump site (also known as the Ascon Landfill), or other inland location. unless the Energy Commission has determined such expansion infeasible during or before the Notice of Intention proceedings. For any other project the applicant shall establish and the approving authority shall find that the functional capacity of the environmentally sensitive habitat area is being maintained. Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 2-94 Pacific Coast Highway ADC Page 15 IV. FINDINGS FOR DENIAL AS SUBMITTED The Commission hereby finds and declares as follows: A. LCP BACKGROUND AND FISH AND GAME DETERMINATION: 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 Edison electrical power plant, also exist in the coastal zone along. with environmentally sensitive wetland and dune habitats. Most of the Huntington Beach coastal zone is fully certified. In 1981 the Commission denied. the first Huntington Beach 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 by the California Department of Fish and Game as containing wetlands were not made. Wetlands are identified in the City's certified Land Use Plan as an environmentally sensitive habitat area. Accordingly, the Commission on November 17, 1982 certified the Huntington Beach LUP excluding the geographic parts of the LUP for the areas containing wetland resources. The two geographic parts, or areas of deferred certification (ADC), that were excluded from certification are the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) site adjacent to the Bolsa 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 this certified LUP area was approved by the Commission on March 13, 1985. The Commission approved LCP Amendment 90-1 in December, 1991 which updated, recodified and reformatted the Implementing Plan ordinances to incorporate numerous changes that had been made by the City 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 8, 1985. A Land Use Plan for the MWD site has not yet been 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. In 1983 a wetlands determination by the Department of Fish and Game was conducted pursuant to Section 30411 of the Coastal Act. The Department of Fish and Game summarized its findings as follows: Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 2-94 Pacific Coast Highway ADC Page 16 Based upon examination of historical mapping, existing biological 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 wetlands acres (99X) 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, [Emphasis added] At least 83 birds 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 (99X) provide either high or moderate habitat value for wetland-associated birds. 1 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) . . . Of the 232 acre ADC, 92 acres were not included by the Department of Fish and Game in the Wetlands Determination. The 92 acres were not included due either to existing development and/or, if vacant, evident lack of the presence of wetlands on-site. The 92 acres include the area developed with: the Southern California Edison Power Plant (area 8, 55 acres), fuel storage tanks (area 9. 28 acres), a vacant two acre parcel owned by the City (Area 10). an area adjacent to Pacific Coast Highway at Beach Boulevard (area 1 , 7 acres). (All the numbered areas are identified on the map provided as Exhibit E.) Of these areas, only the City-owned, 2 acre parcel is land use designated conservation. Of the 140 acres left (232 acres - 92 acres - 140 acres), 114.7 acres are viably functioning wetlands. An additional 11 .6 acres are environmentally sensitive upland habitat including 8.7 acres of coastal dune habitat. The remainder of the ADC, 13.7 acres, is comprised of historic, restorable wetlands. The historic, restorable wetlands are land use designated conservation. With the exception of the now restored Talbert Marsh (area 7). none of the historic, non-restorable wetland areas are land use designated conservation. Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 2-94 Pacific Coast Highway ADC Page 17 The DFG study characterizes all the wetlands on-site as historic. However, included within the term "historic" are wetlands that currently function viably as wetlands. In addition to the wetland determination, the DFG study also rated the study area according to the habitat value provided for wetland associated birds. The DFG study rated areas 2, 4, 5, and 6 as providing High value habitat for wetland associated birds and areas 3 and 7 were found to provide moderate value habitat (it should be noted that with the wetland restoration that has occurred on area 7 since the DFG study was done, it is likely that area 7 now provides high value habitat). Av a result of the DFG study, four specific land use designations were certified in the LUP. Of the total 232 acre area, 125 acres are designated Conservation, 83 acres Industrial Energy Production, 17 acres Industrial Energy Production/Conservation, and 7 acres are designated Visitor-Serving Commercial . The Conservation designation.was applied to assure that only the uses allowed by Section 30233 and 30264 of the Coastal Act or low intensity recreational uses (public access trails, observation points, picnicking, etc.) are permitted within wetlands and ESHAs. Except for a portion within the now restored Talbert Marsh area (area 7), none of the areas identified as historic non-restorable wetland were designated conservation under the land use plan. 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 consistent with Section 30260 if no feasible less environmentally damaging alternative is available and if appropriate mitigation is provided. B. General Amendment Descriction A previous amendment to certify implementation for the Pacific Coast Highway ADC was submitted by the City in December 1990 (Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 2-90). A few months earlier (April 1990) the City had submitted a "clean up" amendment (Huntington Beach LCP amendment 90-1) for Commission action. The "clean up" amendment proposed to recodify the Implementation Plan and bring i-t up to date with changes the City had made since the 1985 certification. The clean up amendment (90-1) originally included the revised Coastal Conservation District ordinance and renumbered it to Article 9422. However, because the proposed changes to the Coastal Conservation District were so intricately related to the proposed implementation for the ADC under LCP amendment 2-90, the staff recommended deleting Article 9422 from the LCP "clean up" amendment (1-90) as a suggested modification. The intent of the suggested modification to delete Article 9422 was that the revisions to the Coastal Conservation District could then be heard, more appropriately, with the action on the proposed Implementation for the PCH ADC. LCP amendment 90-1 was approved by the Coastal Commission consistent with the staff recommendation on December 13, 1991 . The suggested modification to LCP amendment 90-1 stated: The Commission suggests a modification to the amendment request 90-1 which is to delete all portions of the amendment request pertaining to the Coastal Conservation District ordinance changes, including the CC- suffix and removal thereof, revisions to the wetlands definitions, and provisions for flood control facilities within wetland areas. These proposed provisions will be addressed during the certification action on the Pacific Coast Highway ADC. (emphasis added) Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 2-94 Pacific Coast Highway ADC - Page 18 The City accepted the Commission's action and agreed to the modification in Huntington Beach City Council Resolution No. 6376 on May 4, 1992. The Commission then acted on the LCP amendment dealing with the Pacific Coast Highway ADC, 2-90. The Commission approved with suggested modifications LCP amendment 2-90 on October 13, 1992. This amendment included replacing existing Coastal Conservation District 969.7 with Coastal Conservation District Article 9422, subject to suggested modifications. However, the City did not accept the suggested modifications within six months as required by Section 13542 (b) of the California Code of Regulations. Consequently, the Commission's approval with suggested modifications of Huntington Beach LCP amendment 2-90 expired and never became effective. Therefore, the revisions to the Coastal Conservation District (from Article 969.7 to Article 9422) have never been effectively certified by the Commission. The Coastal Conservation District which remains effective in the City's LCP is Article 969.7. (See exhibit 3 for effectively certified Article 969.7 and exhibit K for- non-certified Article 9422). Unfortunately, the City's new amendment submittal overlooks this history and neglects to note that the Commission has not approved Article 9422. Instead; the amendment proposes limited changes to Article 9422 that reflect the suggested modifications approved by the Commission in 1992 when it approved amendment 2-90. The Commission staff has nevertheless rereviewed Article 9422 and its predecessor, Article 969.7, and with one exception discussed in greater detail below, found that the differences between the two articles are generally minor. The significant difference between Articles 969.7 and 9422 concerns the zoning of the wetlands and environmentally sensitive habitats in the ADC. The certified Land Use Plan (LUP) designates all these areas as Conservation consistent with the 1983 study done by the Department of Fish and Game. The City proposes to implement this conservation designation in Article 9422 by adding a Coastal Conservation suffix ("CC suffix") to the local base zones for these areas. These base zones provide for a variety of uses, including residential and manufacturing uses. In contrast to the uses specified in these base zones, Article 9422 would limit the areas subject to the CC suffix to the types of uses generally permitted in wetlands and environmentally sensitive habitat areas by Coastal Act sections 30233 and 30240. The limitation provided by this suffix would remain in effect unless findings are made justifying its removal . In essence, the City would permit removal of the conservation suffix if it determines that there are, in fact, no wetlands on the property. If the conservation suffix is removed, the uses specified by the base zones would be permitted. In addition. the proposed Implementation Plan Amendment to Article 9422 would require an overall development plan .for some, but not all , parcels that are geographically contiguous, under common ownership, and carry the CC suffix. The Implementation Plan Amendment also includes the addition of a Coastal Zone suffix to all areas of deferred certification. The Coastal Zone suffix attaches coastal development permit requirements to the entire area. The proposed amendment also would provide "clean-up" language with regard to wetlands. mitigation and adverse environmental effects. These would includeexpanding the definition of wetland to make it consistent with the Coastal Act and Land Use Plan definitions; replacing the word "practical" with Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 2-94 Pacific, Coast Highway ADC Page 19 "feasible," and replacing the word "moderate" with "minimize." The amendment also proposes to clarify that flood control facilities are allowed in wetlands only in conjunction with restoration projects. These changes are proposed to bring Article 9422 into conformance with the Coastal Act. Interestingly, the existing Article 969.7 is already consistent with the Act, and these "clean-up" modifications would not be necessary if the City gave effect to this Article. C. Area by Area Description T.o ,facilitate reviewing the entire 232 acre area, it was divided into 10 separate areas during the City's review. The same 10 area division is - employed for the purposes of this staff report as well (see exhibits E and- F for map and text). Following is an area by area description. Area 1 : A 7.0 acre area adjacent to Pacific Coast Highway at Beach Boulevard with a certified Land Use designation of Visitor Serving Commercial . The proposed zoning for this area is Visitor Serving Commercial combined with the Coastal Zone suffix and Flood Plain suffix (VSC-CZ-FP2). The property is owned by Caltrans. The site is occupied by Action Boat Brokers at the corner adjacent to Pacific Coast Highway at Beach Boulevard. The remainder of the site is a narrow strip of land which runs along Pacific Coast Highway in front of the Cabrillo Mobilehome Park. The Department of Fish and Game identified this site as non-restorable wetlands. Area 1 includes all of assessor's parcel numbers (APNs) 114-150-26 and 114-150-55, and portions of 114-150-51 and 114-150-53. Area 2: A 28 acre parcel adjacent to Beach Boulevard with a certified Land Use designation of Conservation. The proposed zoning for the subject site is Residential Agricultural District combined with Oil Production, Coastal Conservation suffix, Coastal Zone suffix and Floodplain overlay (RA-0-CC-CZ-FP2). The area has been identified by the Department of Fish and Game as degraded wetlands with high usage by wetlands associated birds. The area is owned by Caltrans (21 acres) and by Mills Land and Water (7.15 acres). It is currently vacant. Area 2 includes all of APNs 114-150-58, 148-011-01 , and 114-011-02; and portions of 114-150-51 , and 114-150-53. Area 3: A 13 acre area at the northwest corner of Newland Street and the Orange County Flood Control channel which has a certified land use designation of Conservation. It was identified by CDFG as Degraded Wetlands on a portion of the site, and former but restorable wetlands on the remainder, with moderate usage by wetlands associated birds. It is owned by the Mills Land and Water Company and is presently vacant. The proposed zoning for this area is Restricted Manufacturing District combined with Oil Production, Coastal Conservation suffix, Coastal Zone suffix and Floodplain suffix (MI-A-CC-CZ-FP2). Area 3 includes all of APN 114-150-59. Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 2-94 y Pacific Coast Highway ADC Page 20 Area 4: A 17 acre area located between Pacific Coast Highway and the Orange County Flood Control channel immediately downcoast from the Edison Power Plant. It has a certified land use designation of Industrial Energy Production/Conservation. It has been identified by DFG as degraded wetland with high usage by wetland associated birds. Energy production is allowed under this designation if it is demonstrated that no feasible alternative site is available. The property is owned by the Edison Company and is adjacent to their generating plant. The proposed zoning for the area is Industrial District with a Coastal Conservation suffix and •• , a portion of the area as Residential Agricultural with a Coastal • Conservation suffix. Area 4 includes portions of APN 114-150-63 and 114-160-56. Area 5: A 10 acre area located at the northeast corner of Magnolia Street and Pacific Coast Highway. The land use designation is Conservation. The site is presently vacant. It is owned partially by Pacific Enviro and partially by Coastal Magnolia Group. The Department of Fish and Game identified this area as degraded wetland with high usage by wetland associated birds. The proposed zoning for the site is Limited Use District combined with Coastal Conservation suffix, Coastal Zone suffix and Floodplain suffix (LUD-CC-CZ-FP2). Area 5 includes all of APNs 114-160-6B (owned by Coastal Magnolia Group) and 114-160-70 (owned by Pacific Enviro); and a portion of APN 114-150-64 (owned by the Orange County Flood Control District). Area 6: A 56 acre parcel located between Pacific Coast Highway and the Orange County Flood Control channel and between Magnolia Street and Brookhurst Street and land use designated Conservation. The site is presently vacant. It is owned partially by Pacific Enviro and partially by Coastal Magnolia Group. The DFG identified this property as degraded wetlands with high usage by wetland associated birds. The proposed zoning is Limited Use District with a Coastal Conservation suffix. Area 6 includes all of APNs 114-160-69 (owned by Coastal Magnolia Group) and 114-160-71 (owned by Pacific Enviro). Area 7: A 16 acre area located between Pacific Coast Highway and the Orange County Flood Control channel and between Brookhurst Street and the Santa Ana River. The land use designation is conservation. This area is owned by the Huntington Beach Wetlands Conservancy and has been restored to a functioning wetlands managed by the Conservancy. The proposed zoning at the site is Limited Use District combined with Coastal Conservation suffix, Coastal Zone suffix, and Flood Plain suffix (LUD-CC-CZ-FP2). Area 7 includes all of APNs 114-160-72 and 114-16D-73. Area 8: A 55 acre area located at the southeast corner of Pacific Coast Highway and Newland Street (site of the Southern California Edison power plant) has a land use designation of Industrial Energy Production. The site is currently developed with the Edison Company power generation plant. No wetlands were identified on this site. The proposed zoning for this site is Industrial District combined with Oil Production overlay, Coastal Zone suffix and Floodplain suffix (M2-0-CZ-FP2). Area 8 includes all of APNs 114-150-16, 114-150-17, 114-150-44, and 148-121-17. 18, 19. 20, 21 , 22, and 23. Area 8 also includes portions of APNs 114-150-63 and 114-160-56. Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 2-94 Pacific Coast Highway ADC Page 21 Area 9: A 28 acre area located at the northeast corner of Magnolia Street and the Orange County Flood Control channel which has a land use designation of Industrial Energy Production. The site is developed with oil storage tanks for the Edison Company power generation plant and is owned by Southern California Edison. No wetlands were identified on this site by DFG. The proposed zoning for the site is Light Industrial on a portion of the site and Restricted Manufacturing on the rest of the site, both combined with Oil Production overlay, Coastal Zone suffix, and Floodplain suffix (M2-0-CZ-FP2/Ml-A-CZ-FP2). Area 9 includes all of APNs r , 114-150-36 and 114-481-32. • Area 10: A 2 acre area located at the southeast corner of Magnolia Street and the Orange County Flood Control channel which has a land use designation of Conservation. It is owned by the City of Huntington Beach and is presently vacant. The DFG did not identify any wetlands- on this site. The proposed zoning for this site is Qualified Recreational Open Space District combined with Coastal Conservation suffix, Coastal Zone suffix and Floodplain suffix (Q(ROS)-CC-CZ-FP2). Area 10 includes a portion of APN 114-481-33. At the time the land use plan for the ADC was certified, certain assessor's ` parcels were split designated. The split designation means a portion of a single parcel has one land use designation and another portion of the same parcel has another designation. This occurs on APN 114-150-51 and 114-150-53;' the portions in area 1 are designated Visitor Serving Commercial (VSC), the portions in' area 2 are designated Conservation. Both parcels are owned by Caltrans. APNs 114-150-63 and 114-160-56 are located in both areas 4 and B. The portions of the parcels in area 4 are designated Industrial Energy Production/ Conservation. The portions in area 8 are designated Industrial Energy Production. Area 8 is the site of the existing Southern California Edison power plant. Area 4 is adjacent to area 8. Area 4 was identified by the Commission as an area where future expansion of the power plant may occur if other requirements are met. Both parcels are owned by Southern California Edison. A portion of APN 114-481-33 is located in area 10. It is land use designated Conservation. The rest of APN 114-481-33 is within Magnolia Street. This parcel is owned by the City of Huntington Beach. The City has indicated that a portion of APN 114-150-64 is located within area S. This parcel is adjacent to the Orange County Flood Control channel and is owned by the Orange County Flood Control District. A Caltrans dune restoration project was approved and established along the Pacific Coast Highway frontage of areas 5 and 6 and portions of area 7. The dune restoration provided mitigation for impacts to dune habitat resulting from the Caltrans Pacific Coast Highway widening project. The dune restoration was done in conformance with the approved consistency determination CC-23-86. The Pacific Coast Highway widening project was approved under coastal development permit A-5-HNB-91-805. The dune Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 2-94 Pacific Coast Highway ADC , Page 22 restoration project was approved under coastal development permit 5-91-777. Caltrans obtained the legal right to develop the area through condemnation proceedings. Ownership of Area 7 was transferred from Caltrans to the State Coastal Conservancy as part of the mitigation for the Pacific Coast Highway widening. In addition to the land transfer, Caltrans reimbursed the Conservancy for the cost of creating 0.8 acres of open water foraging and 1 .6 acres of dune habitat. The dune habitat was created on the portion of area 7 identified by DFG as "non-restorable." The Talbert Marsh restoration also provided mitigation for the widening of Brookhurst Street. The Orange County Flood CQdtrol District also funded portions of the restoration project. D. Article 9422 Has Not Been Certified by the Commission The City's intent with the current submittal was to submit a new amendment request that reflected the Commission's approval on the previous amendment (2-90) including the suggested modifications. However, the City only submitted the suggested modifications approved by the Commission in 1992 (see : exhibit B). The body of the text of Article 9422 has not been submitted for Commission action at this time. The difference between Article 969.7 and Article 9422, with the exception of the CC- suffix, is minor. The City Is proposing to amend Article 9422, which was never certified by the Commission. The Commission cannot certify changes to a document that, in effect, does not exist. Consequently, the amendment as proposed must be denied. In addition, the staff has prepared suggested modifications in response to the City's amendment which would amend the existing Article 969.7. If, however, the City decides to accept these suggested modifications, but would rather incorporate them into Article 9422, and submit this revised Article for approval by the Executive Director and concurrence by the Commission, this also should be acceptable. E. The Conservation Designation in the 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 125 acres designated "Conservation" in the Land Use Plan. Another 17 acres are designated Industrial Energy Production/Conservation. The Ci.ty is proposing to implement the Pacific Coast Highway ADC conservation land use designation, by utilizing a non-conservation base zone, instead adding a Coastal Conservation (CC) suffix zone. As discussed above, the Conservation land use designation was the result of the 19B3 Department of Fish and Game (DFG) wetlands study pursuant to Section 30411 of the Coastal Act (Department of Fish and Game 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 11 .6 acres are historic sensitive upland (with 8.7 acre Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 2-94 Pacific Coast Highway ADC Page 23 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. Development in the wetlands in the ADC is generally governed by section 30233(a) and the thermal electric generating industrial siting provisions of section 30264 as incorporated into the Land Use Plan. 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). The activities and types of development permitted in wetlands, pursuant to Wtions 30233(a) 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: 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. Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 2-94 Pacific Coast Highway ADC Page 24 The certified Land Use Plan contains policies to protect existing and former but restorable wetlands currently identified to exist on more than half the subject ADC. Wetlands are among the most stringently protected environmentally sensitive habitat types under the Coastal Act and Land Use Plan. 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 LUP set forth permissible uses allowed in wetland areas. Pursuant to the LUP, in order to approve a project involving the diking, filling or dredging of a wetland or estuary, 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 or a low intensity recreational use. In addition, allowable development is pe-rmitted 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. F. The Proposed Base Zones Are Inconsistent with the Conservation Designation in the Land Use Plan The proposed Implementation Plan Amendment for the Pacific Coast Highway ADC proposes to retain the existing local base zones for the 149.9 acres containing wetlands and designated Conservation in the Land Use Plan. The major problem with the substance of this proposal is that these base zones are inconsistent with the conservation designation in the land use plan. For instance, the City is proposing base zoning of the conservation designated sites of Residential Agriculture, Restricted Manufacturing, and Limited Use District. All of these proposed zones allow uses inconsistent with the wetland and other ESHA protection provisions of the certified land use plan and specifically the Conservation land use designation. The only area where the local base zone would be changed from what is currently adopted at the local level is a 7 acre portion of Caltrans property along Pacific Coast Highway (area 1). The existing local base zoning on this property is Residential Agriculture combined with Oil Production (RA-0). The subject amendment request proposes to base zone the 7 acres Visitor-Serving Commercial (VSC). No wetlands were found to exist on this portion of parcels 114-150-51 and 114-150-53 or on parcels 114-150-26 and 114-150-55 in the 1983 DFG wetlands study. In order to justify the retention of the base zones for the properties in the ADC, the City is proposing the addition of the CC suffix. The proposed zoning map would attach the CC suffix to all areas designated conservation in the certified Land Use Plan. However, the proposed zoning text only attaches the CC suffix requirements to a specific list of Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs). The list of APNs only includes area 2 and 3. This means that areas 4, 5. 6, and 7, though land use designated Conservation, would have I2 implementing text. For these areas no implementation protection of wetlands and other ESHAs is provided. Huntington Beath LCP Amendment 2-94 Pacific Coast Highway ADC Page 25 The proposed CC suffix language would restrict the uses within SM of the wetland areas to the uses identified in Section 969.7.2 and 969.7.3 of the C_. __al !c-rservation District. These uses are limited to the uses allowedunder Section 30233 of the Coastal Act and low intensity recreational uses. In addition, for some of the areas identified as wetlands, the CC-suffix would allow development on non-wetlands portions of property "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." The CC suffix would also require that such an application include topographic, ypgetative, hydrologic, and soils information, prepared by a qualified- . . professional and reviewed and concurred in by the DFG, which identifies the extent of any existing wetlands on the property. The proposed CC-suffix would also require conservation easements, dedications or other similar mechanisms over all wetland areas as a condition of development, to assure permanent protection against development inconsistent with Sections 969.7.2 and 969.7.3. The amendment does not propose that a property owner of contiguous wetland and upland parcels be required to have a wetlands determination prepared on the parcels designated conservation if no development of those parcels is proposed. Although a coastal development permit application would still include all contiguous parcels under common ownership which carry the CC ` suffix 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. There are several reasons why the CC suffix is not consistent with the requirements of the Coastal Act and the Land Use Plan. First, as noted above, the CC suffix language would only apply to the parcels listed by Assessors Parcel Numbers contained in the City's proposed language. As the amendment is currently proposed no text or provisions for allowable development are included for those areas proposed to carry the CC-suffix other than those 7 parcels specifically listed. This would leave approximately 82 acres of land designated as conservation without any zoning text to support it and without assurance of protection of on-site wetlands (see areas identified as 5, 6 and 7 on exhibit E). Consequently, as proposed the CC-suffix language is not adequate to carry out the wetlands protection provisions of the City's certified Land Use Plan. Therefore, the proposed amendment must be denied. Second, in coastal jurisdictions, the certified land use plan is a portion of the general plan. See Public Resources Code Sections 30108.5 and 30108.55. The land use plan is, in turn, implemented by certified coastal zoning ordinances. Under the Coastal Act, Section 30513, these zoning ordinances must conform with and be adequate to carry out the requirements of the land use plan. Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 2-94 Pacific Coast Highway ADC Page 26 The strategy of using a zoning suffix to protect wetlands rather than changing the base zone to reflect the on—site conditions does not conform with this requirement that zoning be consistent with the land use designation in the land use plan. Adding a suffix which is to take precedence over base zoning that is inconsistent with the land use designation is an unusual method of conforming the zoning to the conservation land use designation of the certified Land Use Plan. This alternative does not exist elsewhere in the City but was chosen by the City of Huntington Beach after much debate. The coastal conservation suffix and non—conservation base zoning proposed by t V City to implement the existing land use designations within the ADC are not consistent with nor adequate to carry out the provisions of the certified Land Use Plan. The City's certified Land Use Plan for the ADC designates all areas identified as containing wetlands by the 1983 DFG determination as conservation. However, the City's proposed base zones for areas designated conservation are Residential Agricultural . Restricted Manufacturing, Limited Use District, and Qualified Recreation Open Space. Under these zones the following uses would be allowed (not a complete list): agricultural and horticultural uses, single family dwellings, compounding, processing, packaging or treatment of cosmetics, pharmaceuticals, and food. machine shops,- manufacture of ceramic products, automobile repair, battery rebuilding, garment manufacture, farming, and orchards. None of these uses are consistent + with the uses allowed by the Land Use Plan within the Conservation designation. The Land Use Plan states that the Conservation designation "allows only certain low intensity activities which provide public access, so long as the resources being protected are not impaired." The LUP further states: The designation [Conservation] is applied to those areas where only very limited use is best due to . . . the existence of significant wildlife habitats or endangered species, and is an important tool for protecting environmentally sensitive habitats and visual resources. The areas land use designated Conservation were so designated due to the extensive presence of wetlands on—site. The Land Use Plan identifies wetlands as environmentally sensitive habitat. The uses allowed by the proposed base zone are in direct conflict with the standards of the City's certified Land Use Plan. The proposed base zones do not limit development to low intensity uses and do not require protection of environmentally sensitive habitat areas. Therefore the Commission finds the proposed base zoning is inconsistent with and inadequate to carry out the policies and provisions of the certified Land Use Plan. In addition, the CC suffix even if text to support all areas designated Conservation in the Land Use Plan were provided, would still not adequately implement the Conservation designation. The CC suffix is essentially an overlay zone. The City currently uses overlay zones in the existing certified Implementation Plan (i .e. Coastal Zone suffix, Floodplain suffix and Oil Production suffix). However, none of the existing suffixes conflict with their underlying base zone. The suffixes may require greater restrictions under certain conditions. For example. under the Coastal Zone suffix. in addition to the underlying base zone requirements, proposed development must Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 2-94 Pacific Coast Highway ADC Page 27 AJjQ meet additional requirements such as the provision of public access or retention of public views. But these restrictions do l2t preclude the underlying base zone. The existing suffixes supplement base zones. In the case of the proposed Coastal Conservation suffix, the base zones are in direct conflict with the suffix. The CC suffix precludes the base zone uses. The base zones would allow uses specifically prohibited by the suffix and are not protective of the wetlands. G. Economic Use of Property The City is also proposing standards for removal of the CC-suffix. The proposed language would require that before the CC-suffix can be removed findings must be made that no wetlands exist on site, that the removal is in accordance with the policies, standards and provisions of the Coastal Act, and that there is no feasible, less environmentally damaging alternative for any proposed land use or development which may be allowed under California Public Resources Code section 30233(a)(1). . In such cases where removal of the CC-suffix can be approved, the local base zone uses, as modified by the CZ ordinance, are proposed to be allowed. It appears this removal provision was added by the City because of concerns raised by the City Attorney. In 1989 the City Attorney indicated that zoning property in the ADC consistent with the "Conservation" designation in the land use plan might effect a "taking" of property in violation of the California and U.S. Constitutions because it might deny the property owners- all economically viable use of their property. There is apparently an apprehension that the uses permitted in the conservation district, including energy and coastal-dependent industrial facilities, would not provide a sufficient economic return. Retention of the local base zones and their attendant uses, with the prospect that the CC suffix might be removed, was intended to hold open the possibility that a broader range of uses might be permitted in the conservation areas. The City's concern may be laudable, however, its proposal to permit the removal of the CC suffix in certain instances to provide an economically viable use of property provides an unwarranted and ultimately ineffective remedy. The proposal is not clearly necessary because merely stating in a planning document what uses of property shall be allowed in the future is not typically considered to be the same as definitively stating an intention not to allow an economically viable use of property. As the Commission was reminded by the Court of Appeal in Sierra Club v. California Coastal Commission (1993) 12 Cai .App.4th 602, questions of economic viability are usually not ripe for consideration until the regulating government agency is presented with a specific plan for development of a parcel . In general , this level of specificity does not arise until there is an actual permit application. Consistent with this court decision, Coastal Act section 30010 prevents the Commission and local governments from using their coastal upermit" authority to take or damage private property for public use. Therefore, it is not required to address economic viability issues in LCPs. In fact, the Sierra Club court said the Commission and local governments cannot use vague concerns about the potential for a taking as the basis for refusing to designate areas as environmentally sensitive habitats in LCPs where these areas are environmentally sensitive within the meaning of the Coastal Act. Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 2-94 Pacific Coast Highway ADC ..Page 28 In addition, it is important to note that the land use plan at issue, on its face, permits a number of potentially reasonable uses of property such as Energy production, mineral extraction and coastal—dependent industrial facilities. A taking by regulation does not occur until there is a deprivation of all economically viable use of property. The fact that there are permissible uses in the conservation district that seem to provide economically viable uses precludes the claim that zoning the property for conservation use will effect a taking of property. Moreover, allowing removal of the CC suffix does not address the issue of the potential loss of all economic use property. Although. if the CC suffix is rdmoved, the base zone uses would be allowed, in order to remove the suffix, a finding must be made that no wetlands exist on the parcel . No evidence has -- been submitted to indicate that the extent of wetlands within the ADC is less than what was determined by DFG in 1983. Consequently it is reasonable to assume that the Conservation designated areas will not qualify for removal of the CC suffix. Therefore, retention of the base zones is a false solution. It does not achieve the goal of providing an allowable use to eliminate the possibility of the loss of all economic use of property that may result from application of the Conservation land use designation and Conservation District zone. Finally, even if it is agreed that a process should be included in the LCP to directly address the question of economically viable use in the ADC. the amendment proposed by the City does not include specific information that must be submitted before the City can determine that application of the certified LCP would deprive an applicant of all economic use of the property. For instance, there is no requirement that the applicant provide any information to the City regarding what would constitute an economically viable use of the property. On appeal . this same information would also be necessary for the Commission to analyze whether its action in denying a permit would constitute a taking. In addition, because maximum protection of wetlands must be assured, very specific standards for determining deprivation of economic use must be applied before any development within wetlands is allowed. The proposed amendment language does not include such standards. Consequently, the possibility exists that development inconsistent with the certified LUP and Coastal Act Section 30233 and 30240 may be allowed without definitively ascertaining that not allowing it deprives an applicant of all economically viable use. Finally, the proposed zoning does not contain development standards which are applicable when an applicant for a coastal development permit can demonstrate that he or she has a sufficient real property interest in the property to allow the proposed project, and denial of the proposed project based on application of the certified LCP would deprive his or her property of all economically viable use. These standards would serve to govern development even where the certified LCP would otherwise prohibit it. As proposed, the implementation plan does not include specific information that must be submitted before the City can determine that application of the certified LCP. does not include the steps and standards necessary to conclusively determine when application of the conservation designation and zoning would result in loss of any viable economic use of property. Without such language the amendment is inadequate to carry out the wetland and ESHA Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 2-94 Pacific Coast Highway ADC Page 29 policies of the certified LUP in a manner consistent with Section 30010 of the Coastal Act and the United States and California Constitutions. Therefore, as proposed the amendment must be denied. The City's intent in proposing inconsistent base zones with a Coastal Conservation suffix was to allow some use on the sites that would be economically viable. However, as discussed above, the proposed solution will not work. No zoning text is proposed to address the issue of loss of economic u:se. Moreover, the City's concern that application of conservation zoning to land uses designated conservation would result in the denial of all economic use has been resolved below in a manner consistent with the requirement of consistent implementation zoning. H. Preferred Use If Other than Conservation Must Be Allowed Finally, the proposed base zones are not the preferred alternative if. a determination is made that some use.other than Conservation must be allowed. The ADC runs approximately 3 miles along Pacific Coast Highway and adjoins major feeder streets. Beach Boulevard is a State Highway (No. 39) and is often used by beach-goers from inland locations. Pacific Coast Highway, also _ a State Highway (No. 1 ) . is heavily traveled by beach-goers and general coastal zone visitors. Pacific Coast Highway separates the subject site from the public beaches, the site is located just across the street from Huntington State Beach. The nearest existing visitor serving development in Huntington Beach on .the inland side of Pacific Coast Highway is approximately 2 1/2 miles upcoast of the ADC. The subject site's location across the street from the beach along major visitor routes, especially Pacific Coast Highway, make it an excellent location for visitor serving use. Section 30222 of the Coastal Act states: The use of private lands suitable for visitor-serving commercial recreational facilities designed to enhance public opportunities for coastal recreation shall have priority over private residential , general industrial , or general commercial development, but not over agriculture or coastal-dependent industry. Section 30213 of the Coastal Act states, in part: Lower cost visitor . . . facilities .. . shall be protected, encouraged, and, where feasible, provided. These sections of the Coastal Act have been specifically incorporated into the City's certified Land Use Plan. The certified Land Use Plan places the same high priority on visitor serving uses as does the Coastal Act. The proposed zoning does not recognize this. Except for the 7 acre parcel (area 1 ) on the corner of Pacific Coast Highway and Beach Boulevard, none of the proposed base zones are Visitor Serving Commercial . Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 2-94 Pacific Coast Highway ADC . Page 30 Because of the ADC's proximity to the beach and to major beach access routes and the high priority placed on visitor serving uses over residential , general industrial , or general commercial uses, the appropriate use for the areas within the ADC designated Conservation, if another use is deemed necessary, is . Visitor Serving Commercial . I. Extension of Hamilton Avenue The proposed amendment would allow the extension of Hamilton Avenue through the wetlands between Beach Blvd. and Newland Street. 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 certified LUP. Those findings state that: The Commission finds that the precise alignment of Hamilton Avenue cannot be approved without the necessary 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: (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 between Beach 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 must be done in accordance with the above LUP provisions. The zoning text must describe the information necessary to be included with a coastal development permit application for the Hamilton Avenue extension so that a determination can be made as to whether a specifically proposed project meets the LUP standards. As proposed, such an information requirement is not .included. In addition, no development standards are included on how any approvable road would minimize and mitigate all impacts . Therefore, the proposed amendment must be denied because it is not adequate to carry out the certified land use plan policy above. Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 2-94 Pacific Coast Highway ADC Page 31 J. Power Plant Siting The 17 acre area (Area 4) located adjacent to and downcoast of the Southern California Edison plant (area 8) is land use designated Industrial Energy Production/Conservation. The City is proposing to zone a portion of the site Industrial District and the remainder of the site Residential Agriculture. Both portions would also carry the following zone suffixes: Oil Production, Coastal Conservation, Coastal Zone and Floodplain District. The City's intent in proposing this zoning is that the coastal conservation suffix would take prgcedence over the base zones of Industrial and Residential Agriculture for those portions of the site which contain wetlands. For the reasons discussed previously, the City's proposed use of the coastal conservation suffix will not adequately implement the provisions of the certified Land Use Plan. -In addition, Sections 30260 and 30264 of the Coastal Act are specifically incorporated into the City's certified LUP. Section 30260 allows new or expanded coastal dependent industrial facilities even when inconsistent with other provisions of the Coastal Act, including the environmentally sensitive habitat and wetlands provisions, 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. Section 30264 allows expansion of thermal electric generating plants 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 25516.1 than available alternative sites. 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. This section also states, however, that the Commission shall not designate specific locations which are presently used for power plants or surrounding areas that could be used for "reasonable expansion" of the facilities. 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 (area 4) 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 It based on resource value or suitability for siting, but rather on the requirements of the Act that reasonable expansion not be precluded.) The power plant possibly has room to expand inland into the area north of the Talbert Channel , possibly at the Rotary Mud Dump site, rather than into the wetland. As stated previously, the Commission must assure that the a reasonable expansion of the power plant is not precluded by the resource protection designation. Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 2-94 Pacific Coast Highway ADC Page 32 As proposed by the City the coastal conservation suffix would be applied to all of area 4. Even if the coastal conservation suffix were modified such _ that it could adequately carry out the wetland/ESHA protection provisions of _-- the LUP, area 4 still has unique requirements. In certifying the land use designation at the site as a combination Industrial/Conservation, the Commission recognized the unique requirements of the site that potentially would be subject to expansion of an existing energy facility. In approving the land use designation of Industrial Energy Production/Conservation the Commission found the following: I . 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. c 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. The requirements of the land use designation must be fully carried out in the implementation plan. However, the City has not proposed any provision to allow expansion of the existing adjacent Southern California Edison plant onto Area 4 if requirements of previous Coastal Commission action on the certified LUP are met. In addition, the proposed provisions do not prohibit electric power plants in areas designated as unsuitable for siting pursuant to 30413(b). Finally, because in certain situations siting and expansion of coastal dependent industrial facilities is allowable under the Coastal Act and the City's certified LUP even when inconsistent with other Coastal Act and LCP provisions, it is necessary to clarify that siting and expansion of coastal dependent industrial facilities into wetlands can also be allowed if it is demonstrated that: (1) alternative locations are infeasible or more environmentally damaging; (2) to locate the expansion elsewhere would adversely affect the public welfare; (3) adverse environmental effects are mitigated to the maximum extent feasible; and (4) siting is consistent with the study titled 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. Consequently, the proposed zoning is not consistent with the City's LUP and therefore must be denied. Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 2-94 Pacific Coast Highway ADC Page 33 K. Miscellaneous Changes Which are Not in Conformance with the LUP Article 902: As proposed the City's amendment request includes a modification to Article 902 (General Information) of the City's Ordinance Code. Although Article 902 is apparently a part of the City's Ordinance Code it was never included as part of the City's certified Local Coastal Program. The City is proposing to modify the "Purpose" section of the Article. Because no part of the Article is included within the City's certified LCP, the Commission cannot approve a change to it. In addition, with the suggested modification to delete Section 9422.2.1 , the proposed cross reference in 969.9.21 is not ng iressary. Article 9422: Because the City submitted changes for article 9422 rather than Article 969.7, a number of the proposed changes are not necessary. This is because the changes proposed are already reflected in Article 969.7. In addition, some of the proposed changes would cross reference the CC—suffix in other Implementation Plan sections. In order to maintain internal consistency these are recommended for deletion along with the CC suffix. L. Miscellaneous Changes Which are in Conformance with the LUP 4 The City is proposing to add additional uses within the Coastal Conservation district, subject to a conditional use permit: New or expanded ports, commercial fishing facilities, and habitat restoration projects. These additional uses accurately reflect all of the uses allowed within the conservation district land use designation. These additions also increase the number of possible economically viable conservation uses. This decreases the possibility that property owners will be deprived of all economically viable use and so maximizes protection of the wetland. V. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL IF MODIFIED: The Commission hereby finds and declares as follows: The Commission hereby incorporates by reference its findings for denial of the proposed implementation plan amendment as submitted. Below are additional specific findings to support each of the modifications contained in section III. of this report: A. Zone All Parcels Land Use Designated Conservation With the Coastal Conservation Base Zone For the reasons discussed previously, the CC suffix and local base zone combination is not consistent with nor adequate to carry out the land use designation of Conservation and the other wetland and ESNA policies of the Land Use Plan. Consequently, the proposed CC suffix language (Section 9422.2.1 and proposed cross reference in 969.9.21) must be deleted. As modified to change the zoning on all sites land use designated Conservation by deleting the local base zone and CC suffix and replacing it with the Coastal Conservation District, the proposed Implementation Plan amendment is consistent with and adequate to carry out the standards and policies of the certified Land Use Plan. Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 2-94 Pacific' Coast Highway ADC Page 34 The City's certified Implementation Plan already contains a zone which will implement the Conservation land use designation. The zone is Coastal Conservation District. Rather than develop a suffix and attach it to i;-cunsistent zoning, the appropriate planning mechanism to implement the Conservation designation is to base zone the areas Conservation District. For these reasons the Commission finds the proposed Coastal Conservation suffix inconsistent with and inadequate to carry out the policies and provisions of the certified Land Use Plan and instead finds that all parcels which contain a land use designation of conservation, in whole or in part, shall be zoned Conservation district. in' addition, one of the ways to minimize impacts on wetlands and indeed- maximize their protection is to recognize that the wetlands areas are indeed one resource system. Zoning all wetland parcels as conservation district consistent with their Conservation land use designation maximizes the possibility that these wetland areas can be protected in their entirety. In order to protect the wetlands existing on the subject parcels, all parcels which contain a land use designation of conservation, in whole or in part, shall be zoned Conservation district. In addition, because a portion of parcel 114-150-51 and 114-150-53 is land use designated visitor serving commercial , language has been added at Section 969.7.3(j) of the Coastal . Conservation zoning district expressly allowing any use authorized by and in conformance with the visitor serving commercial zoning district. The suggested modifications also modify the Coastal Conservation District text to incorporate information requirements to be submitted with all coastal development permit applications. These information requirements were proposed by the City to be included within the CC suffix text. Although the CC suffix method of implementation is not adequate to carry out the certified LUP, the information requirements are necessary to determine the extent of on site wetlands, to consolidate development, and assure maximum protection of the wetlands. The information required by this suggested modification is submittal of an overall development plan for parcels containing wetlands, wetland studies, and alternatives analyses, placement of a conservation easement, deed restriction or similar mechanism over wetland portions of a development plan area when development is allowed on other portions of the area, and a prohibition on further subdivision which would separate out the wetlands area. By incorporating these requirements into the Coastal Conservation District text, protection of the wetlands is maximized. B. Modifications to Coastal Conservation District To Ensure Economically Viable Use As discussed above, case law on "takings" generally holds that plans and ordinances themselves do not take property. These plans merely provide the theoretical ideas and standards by which future development proposals should be measured, but stop short of providing a definitive statement of what uses will be permitted on property. Such a definitive statement usually is not rendered until the regulating agency has an opportunity to consider a permit application for a specific project on a specific parcel . For these reasons, the City's concern that its adoption of the implementing measures for the Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 2-94 Pacific Coast Highway ADC Page 35 conservation district in the ADC might constitute a taking if the uses provided in the district did not provide property owners with an economically viable use of their property appears premature. Nevertheless, it also is clear that the Pacific Coast Highway ADC does present a unique situation. According to the study done by the Department of Fish and Game, many parcels in this area are almost completely covered by wetlands. The owners of these wetlands have directly questioned whether the uses permitted in the conservation district will provide them with an economic use of their property. They have therefore requested that some procedure be provided that would allow them to challenge the economic viability of the permitted uses. Given the unique facts in this situation, the Commission finds that it would be appropriate to provide a mechanism for determining whether uses other than those specified in the conservation district should be permitted in the ADC in order to ensure that property owners have an economically viable use. of their property. The Commission's suggested modifications therefore establish a process for determining economic viability issues. Under this process, property owners may apply for an economic viability determination in conjunction with their applications for a coastal permit. Requiring consideration of economic viability issues at the permit stage is consistent both with case law and with Section 30010 of the Coastal Act. As discussed previously, this section prohibits both the Commission and local governments from using their coastal permit authority to take property. Recent court cases have identified several factors that should be weighed when considering whether a government regulatory action constitutes a taking of property. For instance, in Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council (1992) 505 U.S. _: 112 S. CT. 2886, the U.S. Supreme Court held that where a permit applicant has demonstrated that he or she has a sufficient real property interest in the property to allow the proposed project, and that project denial would deprive his or her property of all economically viable use, then denial of the project by the regulatory agency would result in a taking of the property unless the proposed project would constitute a nuisance under state law. These court decisions also suggest that the nature of the permit applicant's property interest and the reasonable investment—backed expectations of the property owner are relevant factors in determining whether a regulatory action would constitute a taking. Based on these cases, the Commission's suggested process for ensuring that property owners will receive an economically viable use of their property requires property owners to provide the City with specific information about the economic factors affecting their property. For instance, the applicant for an economic viability determination would be asked to provide information relating to the costs of holding the property, as well as the facts surrounding their decision to invest in the property. Without. such information, it would not be possible to determine either what level of economic return on the property is necessary to provide an economic use, or what were the property owner's reasonable investment—backed expectations. It also is important in considering economic viability issues to properly define the relevant parcel for analysis. In particular. the cases in this Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 2-94 Pacific Coast Highway ADC Page 36 area of the law indicate that discrete portions of property should not be set aside for analysis if they are part of a larger parcel . Prematurely severing the developable portions of the property from the areas that are subject to stricter regulation skews the economic viability analysis. it also limits the ability of regulating agencies to use planning mechanisms, such as transfers of development densities, to ensure that an economically viable use is provided for the entire parcel . for these reasons, factors such as ownership patterns, the degree of continuity, the dates of acquisition, and the extent to which the parcel or parcels have been treated as a single unit must be considered when making an economic viability determination. Therefore, the suggested modifications also would require applicants to provide the City with a tafal development plan for all their property, as well as information about th'e nature of their property interest, when they apply for an economic viability determination. The. suggested modification identifies specific information to be submitted at the time of coastal development permit application. The required information submittal will allow the coastal development permit issuing agency to determine whether application of the LCP policies, provisions, and zoning would deprive a property owner of all economically viable use of his or her property. Without the information required in the suggested modification, -a definitive determination could not be made. Without a definitive determination wetland protection is jeopardized, because some development may be allowed to adversely impact wetlands that is not necessary to avoid a takings. If an applicant demonstrates that denial of the project would deprive his or her property of all reasonable economic use, the City may be required to allow some development even where a Land Use Plan Policy or zoning standard would otherwise prohibit it. In complying with this requirement, however, a regulatory agency may deny a specific development proposal while indicating that a more modest alternative proposal could be approvable, and thus assure the property owner of some economically viable use. While applicants are entitled under Section 30010 to an economically viable use of their property, this section does not authorize the Commission or a certified local government to avoid application of the certified local coastal program altogether. Instead, the Commission or a certified local government is only directed to avoid construing these policies in a way that would take property. Aside from this instruction, the Commission or a certified local government is still otherwise directed to enforce the requirements of the certified LCP. Therefore, in this situation, the Commission and certified local government must comply with Section 30233 land use policies and zoning standards by protecting wetlands on the remainder of the applicant's property, and avoiding impacts which would degrade the wetland, to the extent this can be done without taking the property. Therefore, the Commission finds that the Coastal Conservation zoning must include development standards which are applicable when an applicant for a coastal development permit can demonstrate that he or she has a sufficient real property interest and denial of the proposed project based on application of the certified LCP would deprive an applicant of all economically viable use. As discussed above, the appropriate use for the areas within the ADC designated Conservation, if another use is deemed necessary, is Visitor Serving Commercial . The City's certified LUP recognized this by stating: Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 2-94 Pacific Coast Highway ADC Page 37 The City's principal strategy for protecting environmentally sensitive habitats is to designate them as "visitor-serving commercial", "conservation", and "industrial/energy production" with the intent that development proposals will be accompanied by strategies to enhance significant wetland areas adjacent to the proposed project. Although, in this case the wetland parcels were appropriately designated Conservation not Visitor Serving Commercial (VSC) , the above language indicates that the intent of the LUP is to allow Visitor Serving Commercial uses within wetlands when some use other than those provided for in the Conservation district must .be allowed. This reflects the high priority-.placed on VSC uses within the Land Use Plan. There are a number of reasons why VSC is the preferred use if some use other than conservation uses must be allowed. First, an express purpose of the Coastal Act is to assure priority for coastal dependent and coastal related development on the coast. Yost v. Thomas (1984) 36 Cal . 3d 561 , 566; Pub. Resources Code Section 3001 .5. Reflecting this purpose, many policies in the Act establish priorities among uses in the coastal zone with the goal of promoting uses that have a special relationship to the coast, such as coastal recreation, agriculture or coastal-dependent industrial uses. For example, Coastal Act Section 30222 provided that: The use of private lands suitable for visitor-serving commercial . recreational facilities designed to enhance public opportunities for coastal recreation shall have priority over private residential , general industrial , or general commercial development, but not over agriculture or coastal dependent industry. Section 30213 of the Coastal Act states, in part: Lower cost visitor . . . facilities . . . shall be protected, encouraged, and, where feasible, provided. These sections of the Coastal Act have been specifically incorporated into the City' s certified Land Use Plan. Both the Coastal Act and the City's certified Land Use Plan place a very high priority on visitor serving uses over residential , general industrial , or general commercial uses. Visitor uses provide a benefit to a larger segment of the population than residential uses. Residential uses serve only those able to live within the residence. VSC uses can act as support uses for the existing beach use directly across the street or can be destination uses in themselves. In addition, Industrial uses (non-coastal dependent) and general commercial uses do not take advantage of the area's location within major visitor corridors and adjacent to the beach. Such uses could be located inland without affecting the quality of the use. Second, the ADC is located in close proximity to the beach and major beach access routes. The ADC runs approximately 3 miles along Pacific Coast Highway and adjoins major feeder streets. Beach Boulevard is a State Highway (No. 39) and is often used by beach-goers from inland locations. Pacific Coast Highway, also a State Highway (No. 1) , is heavily traveled by beach-goers and Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 2-94 Pacific Coast Highway ADC Page 36 general coastal zone visitors. Pacific Coast Highway separates the subject site from the public beaches, the site is located just across the street from Huntington State Beach. The nearest existing visitor serving development in Huntington Beach on the inland side of Pacific Coast Highway is approximately two and a half miles upcoast of the ADC. The subject site's location across the street from the beach along major visitor routes, especially Pacific Coast Highway, make it an excellent location for visitor serving use. Finally, the areas of the ADC that are land use designated Conservation can be accessed by streets from other than Pacific Coast Highway, if access from Pacific Coast Highway is determined to be undesirable. Area 2 can be accessed frpm Beach Boulevard; area 3 can be accessed from Newland Street; area 5 can be accessed from Magnolia Street; area 6 can be accessed from both Magnolia Street and Brookhurst Street. Area 7 is a restored wetland area but access can be taken from Brookhurst if necessary. Area 2 includes a land locked parcel , but it is in common contiguous ownership with a parcel adjacent to Beach Boulevard, so that access is not precluded. The City's proposed zoning does not recognize. the LUP's higher priority of Visitor Serving uses over residential , general industrial and general commercial . Except for the 7 acre parcel (area 1) on the corner of Pacific Coast Highway and Beach Boulevard, none of the proposed zoning is Visitor Serving Commercial . Consequently, the Commission finds that where application of the certified LCP could deprive a property owner of all economic use and so determines that some development, otherwise prohibited by the LCP must be approved, development priority must be given to visitor serving commercial facilities. In conclusion, a modification to the City's proposal is suggested that details the type of information that must be submitted by the development proponent (applicant) in order for the City, or the Commission on appeal , to make a conclusive determination as to whether Section 30010 of the Coastal Act applies. The suggested modification contains criteria for determining deprivation of all viable economic use. Finally, a modification is suggested to provide development standards to assure that any development allowed is still the least environmentally damaging feasible alternative and that adequate mitigation will be provided to off—set unavoidable wetland impacts. As a result of the suggested modifications the development proponent (applicant) is assured of some economically viable use of his or her property. The wetland/ESHA area not used for development will be protected via a conservation easement or similar mechanism. The suggested modifications do not require that contiguous lots under common ownership be merged. The property owner retains ownership of the protected areas. Consequently, the property owner retains the ability to sell protected parcels for use as mitigation sites by entities such as the ports. Therefore, the Commision finds, for all the reasons articulated herein, that only as modified is the proposed amendment in conformance with and adequate to carry out the certified Land Use Plan. C. Modifications for Implementation of Hamilton Avenue Extension The recommended modification affecting the implementation language for Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 2-94 Pacific Coast Highway ADC Page 39 potential future extension of Hamilton Avenue is necessary to ensure consistency with the certified Land Use Plan. The recommended modification specifies what information must be provided with an application for a Hamilton Avenue extension project, including certification of an EIR which includes analysis of alternative designs and appropriate mitigation, consistent with the LUP policies and requirements for extension of Hamilton Avenue. In approving the existing Land Use Plan language regarding potential extension of Hamilton Avenue, the Commission found the extension to be necessary for public safety. However, the Commission found that the extension could only be allowed if there was assurance that any wetland impacts would be minimized and that adequate mitigation was provided. In order to assure minimization of wetland impacts the Commission identified specific project requirements to be mg�, including preparation of an EIR that includes an alternatives analysis. The Commission identified potential alternatives to be considered and required that full mitigation for any wetland impacts be provided. The City's Land Use Plan incorporated the requirement that adverse wetland impacts be minimized and that adequate mitigation be provided. This suggested modification is necessary so that the implementation.plan accurately reflects and carries out the specific requirements of the certified Land Use Plan. As modified, the implementation language will incorporate the requirements specifically identified in the certified Land Use Plan and so will assure that any wetlands impacts caused by the extension of Hamilton Avenue will be-- minimized and that adequate mitigation will be provided. Therefore, the Commission finds that, only as modified, the implementation language for the extension of Hamilton Avenue is in conformity with and adequate to carry out the provisions of the certified Land Use Plan. D. Modifications for Implementation of Power Plant Facility As modified to define when siting and- expansion of coastal dependent industrial facilities and expansion of power plant facilities is allowed, the amendment will assure protection of ESHA and wetlands consistent with the City's certified LUP and Sections 30413(b) and 30260 of the Coastal Act. The modified amendment will allow all conservation uses, including coastal dependent industrial facilities, within wetlands except that electric power plants may not be sited in areas designated unsuitable for siting pursuant to PRC 30413(b). In addition, the modified amendment will allow the expansion of the electric power plant in Area 4 if consistent with previous Commission action on the certified LUP. Finally, even where inconsistent with other LCP provisions the expansion or siting of coastal dependent industrial facilities will be allowable if specific requirements are met. The necessary requirements that the applicant must demonstrate are that: (1) alternative locations are infeasible or more environmentally damaging; (2) to locate the expansion elsewhere would adversely affect the public welfare; (3) adverse environmental effects are mitigated to the maximum extent feasible; and (4) siting is consistent with the study titled Designation of Coastal tone Areas Nhere Construction of an Electric Power Plant Would Prevent Achievement of the Objectives of the California Coastal .Act of 1976 (re—adopted by the California Coastal Commission December 1985). As modified, the proposed zoning can be Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 2-94 Pacific Coast Highway ADC Page 40 found to be consistent with Land Use Plan provisions for protection of ESHA/wetlands and with the provisions regarding the siting of coastal dependent industrial facilities. F. Miscellaneous Changes Some of the suggested modifications are necessary for clarity and internal consistency with the Implementation' Plan. The amendment proposes to amend Article 902. Because Article 902 has not been certified by the Commission, the Commission cannot certify a change to it. Instead a modification is suggested to add the language to existing Article 969.7 rather than the non-certified Article 902. Additionally, the amendment proposed to modify Article 969.9.21 to cross reference to the coastal conservation suffix. For the reasons described previously, the coastal conservation suffix has been deleted. Consequently, the proposed cross .reference must also be deleted. As discussed previously, Article 9422 has not been certified by the Commission. Consequently, changes to it cannot be certified. However, if the City prefers to renumber the existing Coastal Conservation District Article 969.7. as modified herein, to Article 9422, that is acceptable provided the text remains in substantial conformance with 969.7 as modified. Finally, a number of suggested modifications are recommended because they will create unnecessary duplications. A number of corrections that were proposed for Article 9422 already exist in the correct form in Article 969.7. Consequently, the changes proposed by the City are not necessary and are suggested to be deleted. VI . CEOA FINDINGS 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 implementation plan amendment is in full compliance with CEQA, the Commission must make a finding consistent with Section 21080.5 of the Public Resources Code. Section 210BO.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 Commission finds that there are no feasible mitigation measures available that could substantially reduce adverse environmental impacts. For the reasons discussed in this report, there are no feasible alternatives or 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. 5578F i FF )ATTACHmEN-T1 � MCCUTCHEN. DOYLE, BROWN & ENERSEN SAN FRANCt6CO COUNSCLORS AT LAW WASMtNOTON.O.C. Los ANISCLcs 1331 NORTH CALIFORNIA BOULEVARO TAIPCI SAN J°5E POST OFFICE BOX V WALNUT CV(CCM WALNUT CRCCK.CAL)FORNIA 04596 AFF*#LIArCG OPP/CCH NCNLO PARR TEL.EPMONE(510)937-8000 GANOKOK FACSIMILE 4510)975-5390 BEIJINO IT �: November 13, 1995 '"""`"A' . NOV 141995 INTERNET mhvemp_mdbe.com Carl L. Williams, Chair and Commissioners California Coastal Commission South Coast Area 245 West Broadway, Suite 380 Long Beach, CA 90802 November lb Agenda Item 8a City of Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program Amendment 2-94 Dear Commissioners: This firm represents the Mills Land& Water Company,a small, family-owned company which owns property in the Area of Deferred Certification in Huntington Beach. This letter is submitted for your review and consideration in connection with the proposed Zoning Code Amendment designated 2-94. As you are no doubt aware, we are now in the seventeenth year of the Local Coastal Plan certification process. Nine of those years have been taken up in what ought to have been a straightforward process of adopting implementation zoning. Instead, for political or other reasons, that process has been both circuitous and protracted. In the interim,the property owners have been precluded from pursuing any potential projects. Mills is nonetheless gratified to see that, after years of submittals to the City and.the Coastal Commission,many of their previously stated objections are finally being addressed. We are particularly encouraged that progress is being made with respect to acknowledgment and concern that the Local Coastal Plan implementation actions may result in precluding any viable economic use of the affected properties, at least at the Staff level. We are also encouraged by the proposed removal of certain of the restrictions being placed upon the Mills property, which were blatantly discriminatory. However, even if the Commission were to favorably consider Staffs proposed modifications,there remain some serious legal issues with respect to the proposed zoning, and we ask that you consider Mills' suggestions for resolving these issues. If revised in accordance with these suggestions,the ordinance would still achieve the Commission's goal of resource protection. Mr. Carl L. Williams, Chair November 13, 1995 Page 2 Before addressing the zoning proposal itself,however,it is necessary to mention Mills' ongoing objections to the designation of the Mills property as"Conservation"under the Local Coastal Plan, based upon an outdated and flawed Department of Fish and Game"study" depicting this area as"restorable wetlands." Absence ofJust{f`nation for the "Coastal Conservation"Designation and Zoning Application of the ultra-restrictive"Coastal Conservation"zoning can only be justified by a valid, factually-supported determination that: (1) There exists a viable and functioning wetlands of other environmentally sensitive and valuable ecosystem,that requires special protection,or (2) There exists a degraded wetlands which can be feasibly restored,as the term "feasible"is defined in the Coastal Act(Pub. Res. Code § 30108) Neither finding can be made on the basis of the record presently before this Commission. Throughout the course of the LCP proceedings for the ADC,both the City and the Commission have persisted in relying on a stale and inaccurate study by DFG as the basis for concluding that there are"degraded but restorable wetlands"located on the land owned by Mills and others, and that these"wetlands" must be preserved. The DFG depictions,which appear to be the sole basis for designating the Mills and adjacent land as"wetlands", are not based on credible data or methods,and have been criticized by independent experts.' More egregious still is DFG's conclusion that the so-called wetlands identified in its study of the subject properties can"easily"be restored. This statement is unsupported by any technological data whatsoever, and defies common sense. Indeed DFG's simplistic suggestion that an adjacent flood-control channel can be used to inundate the dry land it has described as "wetlands" did not acknowledge or even address the lack of access to the channel itselU 1 See,e.g.,November 16, 1982 letter from marine biologist Richard 1.Vogl,submitted to the Coastal Commission in 1986 in connection with certification proceedings for the City's Land Use Plan for the ADC. Z See. May 24, 1982 letter from Orange County Public Works Director Carl R.Nelson addressed to Fish&Game Biologist Don Schultz, wbich effectively precludes the use of flood control channel waters to inundate the Mills party Mr. Carl L. Williams, Chair November 13, 1995 Paoe 3 Additionally, DFG provides no analysis at all of the technological or economic feasibility of its proposal to re-create historic wetlands at this location as required by statute.3 In . the Vogl report previously submitted to the Commission,you were advised that DFG's proposal for restoration of the salt marsh by using runoff from the flood-control channel grill be more destructive than constructive,not only to the biological systems,but also to the adjacent manmade environment." Yet DFG has never addressed how a"wetlands"would be restored with water contaminated by toxic and hazardous wastes which are contained in the runoff from streets and other sources that drain into the channel. In sum,until such time as credible engineering and economic data is brought to bear on DFG's unsupported conclusion that the former wetlands can be"easily"re-created by breaching the flood-control levees, or at minimum,that DFG's proposal is feasible within the context of Coastal Act requirements,the"Conservation"designation for the Mills and CalTrans parcels is not based on substantial,credible evidence. Mills Comments on Coastal Stiaf's Proposed Modifications to the LCP Amendment 2-94 As a general matter, it should be noted that the numbering of the sections referenced in the Coastal Staff Report bears no relationship to the existing Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Code, since the Code was reeodified and renumbered in its entirety effective November 2, 1994. Accordingly,some effort should be made to coordinate with City staff regarding appropriate section numbers. This letter,however,conforms to the usage in the Staff Report. Section 969.L.0_Pil=oae: This section contains a recital that the ordinance does not authorize the City to exercise its power in a way that will take or damage private property for public use, and is not intended to increase or decrease the rights of any property owner. This is the current"standard disclaimer"which is found in much of the recent legislation that imposes severe restrictions on property uses, and is thought to provide some measure of protection against takings claims. While Mills does not necessarily object to its inclusion in the ordinance,it should be noted that the provisions comprise only a statement of intent, which is not determinative of the effect or actual impact of the ordinance. The test of the validity of a regulatory ordinance is not its stated intent but the effect it has on the property it restricts. 3 Public Resources Code§ 30108 of the Ad requires that any proposed wetlands restoration be"feasible,"i.e., that it be capable of"being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time,taking into account economic,environmental,social and technological factors." Mr. Carl L. Williams, Chair November 13, 1995 Page 4 %eWnn 969.7.l.1 Desisignadon of the Miect area and Section 969.7.6(Alll 1 Performance Standards: The new proposed Section 969.7.1.1 requires that any application for development include a"development plan for the entirety of all parcels that are geographically contiguous and in common ownership." Proposed Section 969.7.6(A)(1)requires that such application will not be deemed complete unless the property owner has provided a mechanism by which all development rights in areas not subject to development would be permanently relinquished. There are several serious flaws in this legislative scheme. First, if the"designation of the project area"is intended to be a determination of the relevant parcel for purposes of determining allowable uses to avoid a taking,then it is not a correct statement of the law. As is discussed in more detail below(see, pp. 7-8),the unit of property for which uses must be allowed depends entirely upon the facts and circumstances of each case,and cannot be decided by ordinance. Physical contiguity and common ownership are only two of several factors to be considered. Second, if this section is not so intended,but is intended merely as a planning tool,then it must be read to permit submission of development plans at the conceptual level only. It is extremely costly to prepare development plans and environmental reviews for specific project proposals,and it would be fundamentally unfair to require the expenditure of such costs on a development plan for an entire"designated project area"if the applicant proposed to develop only a small part of that area. Further, since the landowner may not know how his land can be economically used in the future,he should not be required to produce project plans which are hypothetical and serve no useful purpose. Third,under Staffs suggested modification to Section 969.7.1.1,a designated "project area" for which a development plan is required includes contiguous parcels under common ownership,and parcels that are subject to a purchase option by neighboring landowners. This provision is clearly discriminatory in purpose and effect since,as the Coastal Commission well knows,Mills is the only owner in the ADC with an option on neighboring property. Indeed,the Staff'Report reflects the incorrect assumption that an option effectively constitutes ownership: "[The Mills] landlocked parcel . . . is in common contiguous ownership with[the CalTrans] parcel adjacent to Beach Boulevard . . . ." (Staff Report at 39,12,ref: Area 2 of the ADC) Fourth, Section 969.7.1.1 is deceptive. Standing alone,it appears to simply provide for coordinated planning. But when read together with Section 969.7.6(A)(1),it goes much farther: It requires an assurance that the landowner will dedicate to the public, in perpetuity, all potential development rights of any portion of a parcel that is designated Conservation. This is accomplished as follows: If a portion of a parcel is designated Visitor Serving Commercial and the balance designated Conservation,the VSC portion cannot be developed or subdivided except pursuant to an"overall development plan for the entirety of all parcels that are geographically contiguous Mr. Carl L. Williams, Chair November 13, 1995 Page 5 and in common ownership." As proposed by Stab any portion of the parcel designated "Conservation"which is not proposed for development cannot simply be left in its undeveloped state. Under Section 969.7.6(A)(1) [incorrectly described as a"performance standard"]the subdivision or development application will not even be considered until the City is satisfied that the"wetlands and environmentally sensitive habitat areas that are not subject to development shall be preserved through a conservation easement. . . or other similar mechanism." Thus,by operation of these two Sections,all rights to any uses of the undeveloped"Conservation"portion of the parcel are subject to relinquishment in perpetuity in exchange for the City's consideration of a subdivision or development application. The combined effect of these provisions is unlawful. The take-home message of Nollan and Dolan is that exactions cannot be imposed unless there is some identified relationship between the project's impacts and the exaction. No precise mathematical calculation is required, but the city must make some sort of individualized determination that the required dedication is related both in nature and extent to the impact of the . proposed development. [Emphasis supplied.] Dolan v. City of Tigard 114 S. Ct. 2309,2319-20(1994). See, also, Nollan v. California Coastal Comm'n, 483 U.S. 825 (1987). Without a specific project proposal,the City cannot know what the impacts of a project would be. Without identification of the project's impacts,the City cannot formulate appropriate mitigation measures,and cannot possibly articulate a nexus between the exaction and the impacts,as required by law and by the Constitution. The adoption of an"automatic" exaction by legislative fiat has no rational basis and,by definition,no evidentiary basis. Yet the effect of these ordinances is to require the landowner to give up all development rights irrespective of the nature and extent of the impacts--if any--that the proposed subdivision or development would have on the"wetlands or environmentally sensitive habitat areas [ESHAs)." The Coastal Commission and the City cannot take away property rights by ordinance without risking liability for a regulatory taking and payment of compensation. The question of whether or not conservation easements are needed to protect resources cannot be determined by legislative action, it can only be resolved in an adjudicatory context,where all relevant evidence can be submitted and considered. The proper purpose of legislative action is not to identify mitigation measures,but to establish a performance standard and to ensure there is a process for applying that standard and devising measures to mitigate actual impacts. The ordinance, combined with the CEQA process provides these key elements. The performance standard is found in Section 969.7.7(C), which requires an applicant to demonstrate that the functional capacity of any ESHA is not adversely affected by the project. The process is set forth in the California Environmental Quality Act and in Section Mr. Carl L. Williams, Chair November 13, 1995 Page 6 969.7.5.1 which essentially restates what is required in an EIR for a project. Section 969.7.6(A)(1)conflicts with these provisions because it requires a commitment to dedicate a permanent conservation easement as part of the application,regardless of whether the project would adversely affect or,on the contrary,might even enhance the functional capacity of the ESHA. But the proper point in the process for exacting protections is not at the application stage,before the impacts have been identified. Exactions am properly imposed only at the findings stage,after the impact analysis is complete,as provided in Section 969.7.7(C). In short, Stafrs proposed Section 969.7.6(A)(1)should be deleted as not legally supportable. If that Section were deleted,the ordinance would still meet the standard of "conformance with and adequacy to carry out the provisions of the. . . Land Use Plan"because any proposed development would have to mitigate its impacts under CEQA and satisfy the performance standard set forth in Section 969.7.7(C). This is essentially the same process that is being proposed for the extension of Hamilton Avenue(Section 969.7.2.1). If that process satisfies the Commission's standard for the street project,it should satisfy the standard with respect to other proposed projects. A final comment on Section 976.7.6(A)(1): The proposed section provides that the perpetual easement"need not authorize any public right of access or use"and that"exclusive use and possession of the area may remain with the applicant."4 These clauses appear to be intended as protection against a takings claim,because in Dolan the Court distinguished between a permanent use restriction and a dedication of land in fee to the public for active use. Those clauses, however,provide no protection to the City in this setting. To begin with,the Dolan analysis was conducted in the context of identifying and addressing the impacts of a project, and not in connection with the adoption of an ordinance requiring the relinquishment of development rights"up front,"irrespective of a project's impacts. Further,although the Court identifies the"right to exclude others"as one of the inost essential sticks.in the bundle of property rights,the decision does not hold that regulatory action which preserves the right to exclude others but does not allow an economically viable use of the property does not constitute a taking. Indeed,the contrary is true. 4 The Staff Report indicates that this provision is intended to allow a property owner to retain his right to"sell protected parcels for use as mitigation sites by entities such as the ports." This"right"is of extremely dubious value since such sales in general are both rare and speculative,and since,as Mills has already noted,the"restorability"of these so-called wetlands in particular is highly questionable. In any event,the proper time and venue to determine the nature and extent of an exaction is when the project's impacts are identified and mitigation measures formulated. At that time,any residual property rights can be considered in connection with crafting the condition to be imposed on the development. The"savings"language is,in any event,only hortatory and not mandatory. Mr. Carl L. Williams, Chair November 13, 1995 Page 7 In Lucas v South Carolina Coastal Council, 112.S. Ct.2886(1992), for example, regulatory action precluded all use of Mr. Lucas' property,but did not require its dedication to active public use. The Court found this to be no less of a taking than a physical invasion of the property: [T]he Fifth Amendment is violated when land-use regulation . . denies an owner economically viable use of his land." [Citation] We have never set forth the justification for this rule. Perhaps it is simply,as Justice Brennan suggested, that total deprivation of beneficial use is,from the landowner's point of view,the equivalent of a physical appropriation. . . . . We think. . . that 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. Section 969.7.3.1 Arrolication f r economically viable use determination. In suggesting the addition of this section, Staff purports to set forth the legal standards and relevant evidence for determining whether the application of the ordinance has deprived a property owner of any economically viable use. new provisions do not accurately reflect applicable law. More importantly,they are entirely unnecessary to satisfy the Commission's standard of ensuring the adequacy of the provisions to carry out the Land Use Plan. The opening paragraph provides that the economic viability determination"shall include the entirety of all parcels that are geographically contiguous and . . . in common ownership . . . ." The courts,however,have held that contiguity and common ownership alone do not determine the delineation of the"relevant parcel" for purposes of a takings analysis. Many other factors are involved including, for example, historical uses,physical characteristics, and applicable land use regulations.s The City of Huntington Beach cannot by adoption of an ordinance override the rules applied by the courts under constitutional principles. The remainder of the Section is also both incorrect and unnecessary. It provides an extensive list of information that a landowner is required to provide for the determination, whether or not that information is completely irrelevant or incompetent to establish the question of available economic use. For example, the landowner is required to state any"offers"to buy or to sell the property and the date and amount of the offer. Presumably, this information is required to assist the fact-finder in ascertaining the value of the land,yet an`offer"has no s See, e.g., 71Nain Harte.associates, Ltd v County of Tuolumne, 217 Cal.App.3d 71 (1190), Aptos Seascape Corp. v. County oJSanta Cruz, 138 Cal. App. 3d 484(1982). Mr. Carl L. Williams, Chair November 13, 1995 Page 8 probative value for proving market value of land. Nevertheless,under Section 969.7.3G)any offers whatsoever--no matter how bogus or contrived—must be entered into evidence before the adjudicatory body-6 Similarly,evidence of the sale of a portion of the property is generally immaterial to a determination of whether the property under consideration has an economically viable use. Further.such evidence may not only be irrelevant,but affirmatively prejudicial to the landowner's position. In sum,before such evidence is required to be placed into evidence,the City must be required to articulate some basis for its relevance. It violates procedural due process rights to adopt in advance requirements for the submission of evidence at an adjudicatory hearing which is either irrelevant or incompetent--and therefore not probative of any issue before the hearing body-- and/or potentially prejudicial. Nor are such rules necessary. The legal standards for determining"economically viable use"are found in the case law which interprets the takings clause. The factors to be considered in making that determination vary widely depending on the facts and circumstances of each case,and are properly governed by the legal principles extant as of the date on which the adjudication is to take place. Any attempt to enumerate those factors in advance cannot take into account the peculiarities of each case nor the changes that might occur in the law in the interim. It is enough to require the City to design a procedure through which the determination will be made. The Commission's objective can be accomplished simply by combining the first sentence of Section 969.7.3.1 with Section 969.7.3.2. These combined provisions require the applicant to request the determination and present a prima facie case;they would require the City to hold an adjudicatory hearing to make the determination,and to adopt findings supported by the evidence. Staff has stated its concern that without a"definitive determination"as to economically viable use"wetland protection[would be)jeopardized because some development may be allowed to adversely impact wetlands that is not necessary to avoid a takings." (Staff Report at 36) But in fact, this definitive determination is provided for in the ordinance even without Section 969.7.3.1. Further,this determination can(and should)be made without attempting to identify in advance the evidence required to be submitted and relied upon Requiring the submittal of incompetent, irrelevant or prejudicial material in an adjudicatory proceeding violates fundamental notions of fairness. To achieve its goal;the Commission need only require the City to follow applicable legal standards in making its findings. 6 By way of analogy,one might look to the evidentiary standards governing eminent domain actions,where the type of evidence adduced to prove fair market value is strictly circumscribed. Mr. Carl L. Williams, Chair November 13, 1995 Page 9 Section 964 .3.2 Economically viable use determination. In addition to incorporating the first sentence of Section 969.7.3.1 into this section, as suggested above, Mills proposes a revision to the text of this section in order to conform to applicable constitutional principles. As proposed,the Section provides that the"economically viable use" detenmination must rest on the adoption of two findings: (a)no economically viable use,and(b) interference with reasonable investment-backed expectations. Actually,these are alternative,not cumulative theories of takings. The courts have clearly held that a regulation which prevents any economically viable use constitutes a taking,without reference to any investment-backed expectations. It is only when the result is something less than a"wipeout"that the courts will look further and consider the reasonable investment-backed expectations of the property owner and perhaps conclude that a taking has occurred,even though some viable use remains-? Accordingly,Mills would propose the following changes to Section 969.7.3.2. Prior to approving a coastal development permit for a use other than one provided for in the coastal conservation district,the decision-making authority shall make one of the following findings: (a) Based on the economic information provided by the applicant,as well as any other relevant evidence,each use provided for in the coastal conservation district would not provide an economically viable use of the applicant's property. (b) Restricting the use of the applicant's property to the uses provided for in the.coastal conservation district would so interfere with the applicant's reasonable investmcnt•backed expectations as to constitute a taking of the applicant's property. Section 969.7.3.3 EconomiQa4 viable use: For the reasons just stated, similar changes should be made to the first sentence of Section 969.7.3.3,which restates the findings required under Section 969.7.3.2. Further, subsection(a)provides that the uses to be allowed shall be the"minimum"necessary to provide the applicant with an economically viable use. As 7 See, e.g., Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council,112 S.Ct.2886,2895 n.8,(1992) "[T]hc landowner whose deprivation is one step short of complete. . .might not be able to claim the benefit of our categorical formulation, but,as we have acknowledged time and again,"the economic impact of the regulation on the claimant and...the extent to which the regulation has interfered with distinct investment-backed expectations"are keenly relevant to takings analysis generally. Penn Central transportation Co. v. New York City.438 U.S. 104, 124(1979). And see, Hoehn v. County ofSan Benito, 870 F.2d 529(9th Cir. 1989)[ordinance permitting construction of one home on property but precluding any further subdivision of the property may constitute a taking.] Mr. Carl L. Williams, Chair November 13, 1995 Page 10 articulated,this standard is unworkable. Nor is it necessary to achieve the Commission's stated goal, since the same standard is effectively carried out through the CEQA alternatives analysis process. Subsection(b) is also unnecessary, as it merely states the obvious. Section 969.7.5.1 R=ired Consideration of Alternatives, This section appears to do nothing more than restate,in different language,the CEQA requirements for an impacts and alternatives analysis. If something different is intended,the Section should so state. Otherwise, it is mere surplusage,and can be deleted. Section 969.7. (A)(1): Performance Standards: This section requires an unlawful exaction, and should be deleted. (See discussion of Section 969.7.1.1 at pages 3-5,above.) Section 969 (C) Reguired Findin¢sr, This section should(1)incorporate the exception process and(2)be revised to reflect avoidance or mitigation of impacts,rather than language which suggests an affirmative duty to"maintain"habitat areas. Mills would propose the following minor revisions: Except as provided under Section 969.7.3.2,Ffor any other project the applicant shall establish and the approving authority shall find that the project does not adversely affect the existing functional capacity of*a any environmentally sensitive habitat area. is being . CEQA Findings: The record contains no discussion of mitigation measures or possible alternatives, yet the findings state there are no feasible mitigation measures or alternatives that would reduce environmental impacts. These findings are not based on any evidence in the record, as required by CEQA Conclusion The family of owners of Mills Land&Water Company appreciates this. opportunity to comment upon the Coastal Staff s proposed modifications to the Zoning Amendment submitted by the City of Huntington Beach. It is hoped that the comments will be given serious consideration, as they propose revisions to the ordinance that would improve its chances of surviving a legal challenge without compromising the Commission's goal of achieving consistency with the LUP. Mills also respectfully requests the Commission to consider and address --at long last--the validity of the DFG report which depicts the Mills land as easily restorable wetlands. The report is not only questionable in its conclusions concerning the nature of the property, but there is no evidentiary basis,or other basis whatsoever,DFG's for conclusions concerning restorability. Mr. Carl L. Williams, Chair November 13, 1995 Page 11 Thank you.for your attention and your consideration of the Mills submittal. Very truly yours, lGw - Maria P.Rivera ATTACHMENT I I J u�M � ' a�wu uws '•"�I��f '� Y 6 •� � ' MIST V OI1NASf[N 'S a d1 1 "e ri+ : °` fors(W Folsm NS nurn• a Z I.a(� ,i� 1. �_• 111{ t a_ py'I[IAM/11' • too. oil lit _ c Ail - -J, o. 1 1 �. I °'�` u WP f Li -.emu G T �j�# 10.1 1 ,rr 9 FYI 1 M". u \• BB 17NS1[IIllpt!A '� PAl�! ■ g �iii - ; N r�,�p 11a L1O 54 ,41 ` Ls rr _ �r .S �w V� NoIN U NA ("III OR ; N ►11"V7 tit a suit 0 - Ilr NM AV ^� it S[� t� tptr •w# to toNxrl 1 N 9115 x w 1]w i'• 9600 L 'W ito:r sNSF!IIs is W 85►5 Alratte on Naiw s ua I_� ��i 1 iRlla)i� Ltl�_ srwus m Minh S INII -' � .lo.l '•�t trw. �� _ _.f` .� Ats bk ~lint% t iii AWO I IT nea�ct �• AII IT.A EQI•�� ING 1IFFIGIE CIF I ti _1 Z;j o" Iu 1 StON[DR[[r[ON at~Cie'-�flId l R MioSou �gl Nt K no O[EANfREST d1 i��s�f =%IL MiNtll►LDttll J 1UIflIlU1 'S "' N/r 1% , '� - - P •0 MAIIA10 oR .. >d >tw,rr ^I�, . S ,, S "!z�' V. , - -- ---- I I wl,,,.o a g p� 1 I h r t « \ _� rI,PAA Ilq • I I ��aA i "a �` V �{ �( r`• ur BE H g � � f N N " AI INN y 11R) s' vt rl%.u. t�got A sAIIN�MG "{. ((f�. r....CAMPi1� )ir' cl. , I N I P AVM-1�— — ATF ,,�J��. „ y , ii: '�tram - a� ti •' � 1 S►1MNARIN All T I aJ o fANlfl I1lu►1 `rd'a, p •:� I ImpoII[lM 4 o WAI two to. , I CAIAMWX C1 ��. STalIGHN cm /t Ap ttl►V[A tf r�� 1 IAaI WICK WNW f N[GATTA NO \ 1 \GAItSJstKflN cr-�' [Ly Att1StN aA v % SLATE 6 C� J JC �' SEE`'7 E2 %8A 1 tw �• - soM r �Sr i iaoawN[11 CIC % O S 4r 0M Ci�� 9EALTl \ , N \\ VAIW, 0"rt [ CAaaletAll to • tout SA11 tArION 6 UAE1 tort Cie FW Wxr . i St W11t Cie \\ P ANAL � N 'ff 1f1 C9 �~ y �~ • y xRM C) SUM � y Rol J> I sK silt if 1 • A, 4 111111JI( Cl cli s LLto u � � � r y i•— v) RI *to- dP t RESOLUTION NO. 6928 _ A RESOLUTION OF THE CTIY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ADOPTING LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. 94-2 (CODE AMENDMENT 93-8; OCT 4 1994 ZONE CHANGE 88-18)AND REQUESTING ITS CERTIFICATION BY THE CALIFOXXIA COASTAL COINIMISSION CALIFORNIA COASIA I COMMISSIC %M-1EREAS, after notice duly given pursuant to Government Code Sec iionUIPO 'AST DISTRIt Anti 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. 88-1 S. 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. COASTAL COI�i jiS�o EXHIBIT *.---., ._..__.,-... 1 ..l-. Ib1LCPA 91-2�OS/D9/94 PAGI: OF '•• 6628 SECTION 3. That pursuant to Section 13551(b) of the Coastal Commission Beach Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 94-2 will take ...o_._.._...., a 8r 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 SepteTb-r . 1994. Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk City ,4ttorne P✓`- r-q_♦q As ti-c7 INITIATED ANM APPROVED: REVIENVED AND APPROVED: Z31- - - ` e or of Co&uri evelopment City Administrator COASTAL COh►'141SSION FXH:51T .......18._........ 2 n 4'e'LCPA 94-2T5/09/94 PAGE .g..... 0 F 6626 Res. No. 6628 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) off 1, CONNIE BROCKWAY,the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of f 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.l994, by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers: Bauer, Moulton-Patterson, "mehell,Leipzig NOES; Councilmembers: Robitaille ABSENT: Councilmembers: Silva, Sullivan • City Clerk and ex-officio rk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California COASTAL C01;1NASSION EXLMSIT #_.... ........... PAGE ... ... OF ...J 6628 ,�,„� - - - - - - - - - - - - f�onuvx�ra-aN..r;pt�cx+nf:wa.;s-asswA►�r�...:,ow<.�s`..wrw+rwc, r; Fo) COVEK ONLY (Entire document on file in the Community Development Department) non 4 certified coastal areas ANALYSIS OF LAND USE ALTERNATIVES FOR THE 'WH ITE HOLE AREAS ATTACHMENT NO. CITY OF HUNTINGTCNV BEACH DEPT. OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES :... :.;::::<.:: REQUEST FOR LATE SUBMITTAL OF RCA :: e�artment: .- RCA Title 1 uncil Meeting Date. 111.*f�-.. Date of This.Re uest: 7 el lb �. V�y'i:A................:4.v.. ....}•��C h..�/.�@i....nN.i:.d�T.._..tri}.K.nyi.n.H:ev........?%...v. .Oa.......v:ry............0..........:......:::::.J.-iP:::•::i:Lii:.�:..::.:n}::.:�}ii:Li}i.i-i:i{.�.i:8iii?:.:.p:::.'.; -S N is this RCA bein submitted late? : U i C�,Q)1 4�w Citv - ::.., H.A:..::.:.. . . _.. :EXPLANATION is this RCA necessary to this agenda?): �[ l ur. 1 S trllQl�* r�51�VI S ig ::..... .. . CONSEQUENCES How shall delay of this RCA adversely impact the City?): - �64 lr �� •- G, ,:... � :::: ... ... .. . _ Signature: CPAISpproved O Denied 0 roved-aDe�fied Initials Required "ej OQ� ©e vart ent Head RaySilver Michael Uberua a ..�,. -:yn,i: M-E. 'ems s. _ Request.for Late Submittal Requests for Council Action (R.CA's) are due and considered late after P- ==the.City Administrator's deadline which is 5:00 P.M. Wednesday ten days prior to the Council meeting at which the item is to be heard. This deadline reflects the time needed prior to Agenda Review for x Administration staff and the City Administrator to review all RCA's and their support material prior to forwarding them to the City Clerk for - placement on the preliminary agenda. It also provides time for the City — Clerk's office to review the item and add proper wording for the item to :f the preliminary agenda for discussion at Agenda Review the following Monday. 9 I tY_ . The Request for Late Submittal form provides a vehicle for RCA's to be = submitted after the Wednesday, deadline when there are extenuating circumstances which delayed the-item and when action on the item is F necessary at the.upcoming Council meeting. _t_ Late items can agendized only with signed authorization on the Request n` for Late Submittal form by the Assistant City Administrator or the City - - -- Administrator. .ft A Ury •Mw -•Q�9 RCA ROUTING SHEET INITIATING DEPARTMENT: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SUBJECT: LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. 2-94 (ZONE CHANGE NO. 88-18/CODE AMENDMENT NO. 93-8 COUNCIL MEETING DATE: March 18, 1996 RCA ATTACHMENTS STATUS Ordinance (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Attached Resolution (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Attached Tract Map, Location Map and/or other Exhibits Attached Contract/Agreement (w/exhibits if applicable) (Signed in full by the City Attorney) Not Applicable Subleases, Third Party Agreements, etc. (Approved as to form by City Attorney) Not Applicable Certificates of Insurance (Approved by the City Attorney) Not Applicable Financial Impact Statement (Unbudget, over $5,000) Not Applicable Bonds (If applicable) Not Applicable Staff Report (If applicable) Attached Commission, Board or Committee Report (If applicable) Attached Findings/Conditions for Approval and/or Denial Attached EXPLANATION FOR MISSING ATTACHMENTS REVIEWED RETURNED FORWARDED Administrative Staff Assistant City Administrator Initial City Administrator Initial City Clerk EXPLANATION FOR RETURN OF ITEM: Space . Only) >, 3 • a Pa 30 C4 4o 4-3 Connie Brockway,City Clerk City of Huntington Beach .._ �ror r . ._ Office of the City Clerk �� P.O. Box 190 t:�:; C'� s narl Huntington Beach, CA 92648 P William Vlson,Mgr. Analysis Sec/Env Mgmt Agency 12 Civic Center Plaza ��NTINGTpy Santa Ana,CA 927024048 �O 1MGONPOBIlFC �� . I S'PID 4 Cad TO SEND p�- GAL NOTICE - PUBLIC NEARING r� '. �- _- rL U2s^.:_':: i.' .:!.�� IR Ili �i(i11 'rl tnl Irlll',I if.p„..,. {�}� , f ( 1 j 111!!tl I{IIIIII�it111111illl!lIIIIll11IIH III 4 r Connie Brockway,City Clerk 3 r� City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk _' :•! f' P.O. BOX 190 .-,� :E,v� ,,t ' �• .1Ec�,. f �� FC ��uj'Z rctr! A� . .. s MARS 9G . 41 \ Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Ri^ ,p '"K=p,;.,` 3' d' s':� y , VA ne P r �NYINGTp nge ou Register 163401 tact . vd. Wes nster,C 92683 9 vF%N T Y Ca�� LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING II.I„,1I1I1iltiil�l�t�II�I��JI,�I��i�l�l,�,i,I��III,�,��III NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Monday, March 18, 1996, at 6:30 PM in the City Council Chambers, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach,the City Council will hold a public hearing on the following planning and zoning item: �1. LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. 2-94 (WHITE HOLE): Applicant: City of Huntington Beach Request: to rezone various parcels to a CC (Coastal Conservation) base zone, and to amend Article 969.7 of the Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program and Zoning Code,to be consistent with Coastal Commission's suggested modifications to Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 2-94. Location: Inland side of Pacific Coast Highway between Beach Boulevard and the Santa Ana River(White Hole area- see attached map) Project Planner: Scott Hess NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Item(s)#1 is categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15265 of the California Environmental Quality Act. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Item(s) #1 is located in the Coastal Zone and will be consistent with the California Coastal Commission's action on November 16, 1995 relative to Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 2-94. 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. A copy of the staff report will be available to interested parties at the City Clerk's Office after March 15, 1996. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. 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 the Planning Division at 536-5271 and refer to the above item. Direct your written communications to the City Clerk. Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street, 2nd Floor Huntington Beach, California 92648 (714) 536-5227 (cclg10318) �1 rrrririrrtwo was lipp SW "If ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦, Nvif low ve ♦ ♦ rl ol .� III♦�jI�I�II�I/i��III ♦♦♦��`%':��{�Z LA A in ♦/`�``♦�•♦,♦,♦♦��♦♦♦♦i i••iill dill•�••�•�'♦�`� • •�• ♦•` ♦�•♦� Ii•I I1I1��,II,♦♦ ,�♦ zf Ij• ♦III iWo. .. ..,� C • ® 0 i, CITY COUNCIUREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY PUBLIC HEARING R QUEST SUBJECT: DEPARTMENT: C1. I� • MEETING DATE: CONTACT: PHONE: XSSS 7 N/A YES NO ( ) ( ) Is the notice attached? ( ) ( ) Do the Heading and Closing of Notice reflect City Council (and/or Redevelopment Agency)hearing? ( ) �j ( ) Are the date,day and time of the public hearing correct? ( ) ( ) If an appeal, is the appellant's name included in the notice? ( ( ) ( ) If Coastal Development Permit,does the notice include appeal language? ( ) ( ) Is there an Environmental Status to be approved by Council? ( ) { ( ) Is a map attached for publication?0000MA09�11 ( ) ( ) Is a larger ad required? Size W- o—0 ( } ( ) Is the verification statement attached indicating the source and accuracy of the mailing list? ( ) ( ) Are the applicant's name and address part of the mailing labels? ( ) ( ) Are the appellant's name and address part of the mailing labels? ( ) ( ) If Coastal Development Permit,is the Coastal Commission part of the mailing labels? ( ) ( ) If Coastal Development Permit,are the resident labels attached? ( ) ( ) Is the Report 33433 attached? (Economic Development Dept. items only) Please complete the following: I. Minimum days from publication to hearing date I 2. Number of times to be published 3. Number of days between publications 21 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Monday, March.18_, 1996, at 6:30 PM in the City Council Chambers, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach,the City Council will hold a public hearing on the following planning and zoning item: /I. LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. 2-94 (WHITE HOLE): Applicant: City of Huntington Beach Request: to rezone various parcels to a CC (Coastal Conservation) base zone, and to amend Article 969.7 of the Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program and Zoning Code,to be consistent with Coastal Commission's suggested modifications to Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 2-94. Location: Inland side of Pacific Coast Highway between Beach Boulevard and the Santa Ana River(White Hole area-see attached map) Proiect Planner: Scott Hess NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Item(s) 91 is categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15265 of the California Environmental Quality Act. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Items)#1 is located in the Coastal Zone and will be consistent with the California Coastal Commission's action on November 16, 1995 relative to Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 2-94. 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. A copy of the staff report will be available to interested parties at the City Clerk's Office after March 15, 1996. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. 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 the Planning Division at 536-5271 and refer to the above item. Direct your written communications to the City Clerk. Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street, 2nd Floor Huntington Beach, California 92648 (714)536-5227 (cclg10318) � II w oil I'll All 11 '�,•. ♦, , �♦ ., ••.pp ,ram G� 10 low IP LS IN 00 41 ♦��, ♦� ,, • •,., .,., •.� ,. f • ,v\00,0, �•'�;•i t'i:� l CL • .�.�ra. • ♦:` • ` • �., ♦ �- . C. b II' •. 1 WTIEHOL2-02/29/96 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 Jerry Dominguez U.S.Fish&Wildlife Svc. Paul D'Alessandro So.Cal Edison Co. Jack Fancher Deputy City Attorney 7333 Bolsa Ave. 2730 Loker Avenue West City of Huntington Beach Westminster,CA 92683 Carlsbad,CA 92008 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Dept.of the Army L.A.Dist,Corp Assemblyman Frizzelle of Engr.-Env.Planning Don Troy 16265 Mt.Baden Powell St. 300 N.Los Angeles St. 5272 Allstone Drive Fountain Valley,CA 92708 Los Angeles,CA 90053-2325 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Attn: Alex Watt Dept. of Fish&Game Cal.Dept.of Fish&Game 1416 9th St. 12th Floor Region 5 Katherine Stone/Margaret Sohagi Sacramento,CA 95814 330 Golden Shore,Ste. 50 Freilich,Stone,Leitner,Carlisle Attn: Bob Radovich Long Beach,CA 90802 The Wilshire Landmark,Ste 1230 Attn:Fred Worthy i 1755 Wilshire Blvd. Los Angeles,Ca 90025-1519 Carl Nelson,Director Daisy Piccirelli Env.Mgmt.Agency-P.W. P.O.Box 6202 Board President 400 Civic Center Dr.W. Mesa,Arizona 85206 HB/FV Board of Realtors P.O.Box 4048 8101 Slater Avenue Santa Ana,CA 927024048 Huntington Beach,CA 92647 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 114-160-72 1330 Broadway,Suite 1100 Evano Stamegna Robert Mandic/Gary Gorman Oakland,CA 94612 4000 Westerly Pl.,Ste.200 H.B.Wetlands Conservancy Attn:Reed Holderman/Wendy Eliot Newport Beach,CA 92660 P.O.Box 5903 Huntington Beach,CA 92615 F.William-Olson,Mgr. Mills Land and Water Analysis See/Env Mgmt Agency 18090 Beach Blvd. Ste.6 Gordon Smith 12 Civic Center Plaza Huntington Beach,CA 92648 6832 Bay Harbor Santa Ana,CA 92702-4048 Attn: Robert London Moore,Jr. Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Steve Ross Mr.Larry Sitton Title Energy of California 9562 Hightide Drive Calif.Dept.of Fish&Game 10537 Santa Monica Blvd. Huntington Beach,CA 92646 330 Goldenshore,Ste. 50 3rd Floor Long Beach,CA 90802 Los Angeles,CA 90025 Attn:Wildlife Management Attn: Bill Curtis Cal Coastal Commission Steve Bone Paul Gonzales,Chief Branch"C" South Coast Area Robert Mayer Corporation Env.Ping.D.O.T.,Dist 12 245 W.Braodway Ste. 380 660 Newport Center Drive#105 2501 Pullman Street Long Beach,CA 90802 Newport Beach,CA 92658 Santa Ana,CA 92705 Attn:Teresa Henry 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 r 148-02 2 Mills Land&Water Co. President Robert U" a P.O.Box 7108 H.B.Chamber of Commerce 290 ebano Huntington Beach,CA 92615 2210 Main Street,Ste.200 Clemente,C 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 114-481-23 Calif Coastal Comm. P.O.Box 1560 Marriott,Stanley W. South Coast Dist. Costa Mesa,CA 92627 9042 Christine Drive 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 HB 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 Beverlv 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/Aston Properties Roy Lothringer // Huntington Beach,CA 92648 21602 Surveyor Circle 20311 Brentstone Lane Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Pg. 3 �/ l 1 /17 John Yeager 3� �b�148-08]-l0 149-04]-17 Pettis,Tester,Kruse&Krinsky �b' John Hill Joseph Johnson 18881 Von Karman Ave., 16th Flr. F�V 21431 Antigua Lane 9002 Adelia Circle Irvine,CA 92715 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 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 Manager 148-027-54 Wayne Lewis Huntington Breakers Harry Weber Jr. Q. 8512 Sandy Hook Drive 21270 Beach Blvd. 8121 Foxhall Dr. Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 9264-6- I S 148-027-57 148-027-61 149-023-08 Don Dickerson Jeff Reardon - William Wells t/ 8116 Foxhall Drive v 9136 Foxhall Drive ✓ 21911 Kiowa Lane Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 0 148-081-08 148-121-04 �b� 1�a 149-371-14 Lawrence Avers City of Hunt.Bch. U D S a 6 Nagesh Shetty 8502 Sandy Hook Drive 864-I-) dison-Ave- l 9332 Gatehead Drive Huntington Beach,CA 92646 -Huntington-Beach,C-A-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 i 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'W 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 Z 9061 Rhodesia Drive /✓ 1562 Quail Run 21941 Kiowa Lane Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Santa Ana,CA 9270X L-' Huntington Beach,CA 92646 149-041-28 148-027-58 Byron Tarnutzer 149-371-16 114-495-01 4,U.pper-Newport-P--laza-Ste.-201 Artemio R.Ramil Helen Viala Tr. Newport Beach,CA 92660 22301 Harwich Lane George Rogers Law Corp. 148-121-03 �'1 (� � 9 �t 3 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 l 14-495-08 148-027-33 Don McKinney �/ Govindan,Ravi Keith Campbell 21961 Kiowa Lane 9202 Christine Drive 8121 Ridgefield Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 149-371-17 114481-10(R) �--'-��-1148-027-35(R) James Bradv Resident Resident 22311 Harwich Lane 22042 Hula Cr. •T' 8131 Ridgefield Dr. Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 & H,mtignton 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 a 149-023-12 Julius Paldi/ ,�pNIt� Richard D.Gilespie 148-121-01 21832Windsong Circle '(�"Op1 8145 Foxhall Dr. ✓ Bernard Kaplan ✓ Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 8891 Belshire D-ve 148-02749 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Harry Anderson 8136 Pawtucket ✓ Robert Coffman Huntington Beach,CA 92646 814,fPawtucket Drive - 148-027-43 149-027-25 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 Ou tington 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 Vallev,CA92708 Pg. 5 County Sanitation Dist.41 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 114481-19 _ 114-481-22 Karl Wysocki Mortimer/Richard W.Jr. � Keith Tucker ` 9072 Christine Drive 22101 Luau Lane 9032 Christine Drive Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 ` Huntington Beach,CA 92646 114495-03 114495-07 Terry Harmon Guenter Steuer ✓ Lucille Bagnoli C/O Lucille Harmon 9252 Christine Drive 9562 Hightide Drive 9582 Hamilton Ave.#1343 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 149-371-23 149-023-13 114481-13 114493-13 Manuel Urzua Marcel Lourtie ✓ Hanson,Gregory +� 9042 Aloha Drive 22001 Hula Circle 22141 Capistrano Lane Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Raymond Cole 114481-09 114-495-09 22061 Susan Lane ✓ Ryan,John Farouk Shamoo Huntington Beach,CA 92646 22052 Hula Circle 9192 Christine Drive 114-481-05 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 149-011-04 / 114495-04 114495-10 Albert Ashurst // Christopher Button V-11" 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 114495-11 9012 Christine Lane Gary Gumbert VI/ Jack Buffa Huntington Beach,CA 92646 22011 Hula Circle 9172 Christine Drive Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 114481-11 Kathleen Mooney 114-481-24 22101 Jonesport Lane Philip Beukema 114495-12 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 9052 Christine Drive Marshall Papke 1/ Huntington Beach,CA 92646 9162 Christine Drive Huntington Beach,CA 92646 114481-21 Kourosh Khavari / 114-495-05 114-495-13 9022 Christine Drive , Robert Abdelnaby / Timothy Fischer / Huntington Beach,CA 92646 N1� 9232 Christine Drive ✓ 9152 Christine Drive y Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 \ \i.J 114-495-02 James rbbotson k 114481-15 114-495-14 / 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.6 114-495-15 149-011-02 114-481-17 Wayne Murry Guy Adams 9132 Christine Drive. 9021 Bermuda Drive Jon Ely Huntington Beach,CA 92646 . Huntington Beach,CA 92646 22051 Hula Circle Y' Huntington Beach,CA 92646 114-481-27 114-495-16 149-013-05 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 149-023-05 114-481-07 149-013-02 Daniel Malloy f,- 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 1 i4-481-28 George Hutton-Potts ✓� Charles Carter t� Elmore Loranger 9042 Rhodesia Drive 2I831 Kiowa Lane 9092 Christine Drive Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach;CA 92646 Huntiington-B.each,CA 92646 149-013-03 114-481-25 114-481-08 / Louis Kastorff Y y Dutton,Robert G. Robert White ✓ 21801 Kiowa Lane 9062 Christine Drive 22072 Hula Circle Huntington Beach,CA 92646 _ Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 149-623-03 Isolde Wittman ?'3 I49-011-03 1 i4-48i-16 9702 Toucan-Ave-- ��y Ronald Charles Jett Y/� Gandara,Frank. Fountain Valley;CA:92508 9031 Bermuda Drive ✓ 22041 Hula Circle . Huntington Beach,CA 92646 , Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Victor-ZieglerCI 149-023-06(R) 4001 Bermuda Drive Resident ]14 481-29 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 21842 Kiowa Lane Alireza Vaziri Huntington Beach,CA 92646 66 Balboa Coves Newport Beach,CA 92663 149-013-04 - ---- - _ Tim Ferrill r/' 149-023-07 l 14-08'1-11 21811 Kiowa Lane Teresa Jean Lee ,/ Bryson,Stanley H.Jr. Huntington Beach,CA 92646 21901 Kiowa Lane 21421 Antiqua Lane Huntington Beach,CA 92647 Huntington-Beach,—CA 92646 X _ 149-023-04 Richard Svoboda Y 114-481-06 l 14-481-10 21871 Kiowa Lane Christopher.Valsamakis Gerald Riley Huntington Beach,CA 92646 22081 Susan Lane 361 Ralcam PI; 1/ Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Costa Mesa,CA 92627 Pg. 7 114-481-30 149-024-03 149-012-01 Marion Golfos Charles Gant Alex Mirand 2216I Wood Island Lane 21902 Kiowa Lane 21802 Kiowa Lane - Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 926486 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 149-022-01 114-481-10 149-371-21 Guy Martin Gerald Riley a/ William Malkin 21882 Kiowa Lane --- 361 Ralcam Place 22351 Harwich Lane Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Costa Mesa,CA 92627 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 114-481-03 149-023-06 149-371-18 / Joan Javer Nasto �- Michelle Er1i:a James Brink ,/ 22031 Susan Lane 21891 Kiowa Lane 22321 Harwich Lane Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach;CA 42645 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 149-371-29 149-371-12 149-012-02 Harvey Rudy Alien Gimenez 11/ 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 ` l9 114-481-04 149-041-33 Michael;HR-ms Carol Carle / Sh:rlee Earley "may 22331 Harwich Lane 21572 Oakbrook ✓ 9002 Rhodesia Drive. Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Mission Viejo,CA 92692 Huntington Beach;CA 92646 114-481-01 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 .)7- m _ 148-121-19,20 21912 Kiowa Lane Paul Sandgren IS 148-121-22,23 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 855.1-Edison-Ave, Qj Nabil Nasre 1/ Huntington Beach,-C-A-92646 U` 21632 Newland Ave. Huntington Beach,CA 92646 149-371-20 Robert Belanger i/ 114-481-05 149-011-01 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 149-041-31 114-494-08 1815_Toyon-L-ane' Odie Powell ,/ Demmon,Penny Adele Newport-Beach;CA 92660— r,t +� , 9021 Rhodesia Drive 22121 Islander Ln ; D ' X'5 i , �o p }, 4" t` Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92647 Pg.8 114494-09 �� 114492-15 114482-07 Tuttle,Julian M- -�-t'n Mazzola,Margaret M. Johnston,J. 9121 Christine Dr. i/ 9191 Christine Dr. 22092 Susan Lane Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 114-482-09 114494-10 l 14-492-16 Knew,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 114482-09 114-494-11 Chaikxnnerd,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 114-494-12 114492-18 l 14482-10 Bernsen,James K Mortimore,Joseph D. Haves,Steven J. P. O. Box 384 22161 Laguna Cir. 9081 Christine Dr. Los Alamitos,CA 90720 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 149-371-32 f 114491-01 114482-11 Albert O.Lee Fraser,Richard Merril Merritt,Robert H. 1-1 22382 Wallingford Lane 22162 Laguna Cir 31886 Via Pato Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Trabuco Canyon,CA 92679 114493-14 149-372-05 114-482-12 Thompson,James A. ✓ Stephan A.Noffsinger / Wilson,Steven L. 9171 Christine Dr. 9392 Gateshead Drive ✓ 22081 Surfrider Lane Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 114-493-15 Kildow,Gregory H ✓ 114-491-03 149-041-32 9161 Christine Dr. Sanchez,Anthony G. 1/ Buchoz,Tad D. Huntington Beach,CA 92646 9241 Christine Dr. 9001 Rhodesia Drive Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 114493-16 — Lantow,MiehaeHtiehard � '.'�--=1� 114-491-04 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 114-493-17 Donovan,Ruth E. 148-081-06 149-371-31 20361 Seven Seas Lane Clark,John T. ✓ Boyle,John W. l/ Huntington Beach,CA 92646 8522 Sandy Hook Drive 22392 Wallingford LN. Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 114-492-14 Scheffler,John E.Tr / 114482-06 ` 114-481-25 22152 Capistrano Ln. V Byrd,Jack R. ✓ Dutton,Robert G. Huntington Beach,CA 92646 22072 Susan Lane 9062 Christine Drive Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Pg. 9 149-371 41 149-372-14 939-480-03 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 149-37142 149-372-15 Walker,Michael A. Deering,Teunis J. Tr ✓ 9351 Gateshead Dr. 22362 HarNvich Ln. Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 149-372-16 939-480-05 939-480-04 Braith%vaite,Nancy K.Tr Feber,Donald J. Fiduccia, Frank S 22372 Harwich Ln. ✓ 2051 Orizaba Ave. #10 ✓ 3132 Hunts Pr. Cr. �00A Huntington,Beach;CA 92646 Signal Hill,CA 90804 n Bellevue,WA 149-372-06 149-372-17 939-480-06107 / McDonnell,Gan-S. Preheim,Steven D. Brar,Harnek S. Tr. 9372 Gateshead Dr. 22382 Harwich 1 19502 Woodlands Ln. Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 9264,7 ) 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. 1'1� Morelli,Emil P. Tr 22322 Harwich Ln. 22391 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 ;/ 939480-11 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 939-480-01 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. ✓ 939-480-02 r 939-490-13 9362 Folkstone Cir. �!1 Baron,Robert F.Tr Hill,Douglas Andrew Huntington Beach,CA 926J7 16611 Carousel 21181 Hillsdale Lane Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Pg. 10 939480-14 C " -� �� 148-121-18 A-Med Health Care Center 1 Thomas Lenihan 215.72-Surveyor_Cir..-,. r �; 22021 Hula Cir. _Huntington Beach_CA-92646 '�� Huntington Beach;CA 92646 939-480-15 149-372-13 Minkoff,Donald E. 1/ Khalap,Rawloo V. 1903 Yacht Enchantress 9372 Folkstone Cir. Newport Beach,CA 92660 Huntington Beach,CA 92647 939-480-16 Frank Bradley Payleff International Corp. 21851 Newland#224 6.1.61_Arro��r_oot-Ln._ Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Rancho-Ealos-Verdes,C—A-90274 939 480-17 Pearch,Howard C.Tr. Michael Harms P.O.Box 1437 5 Civic Plaza,Ste. 320 Costa Mesa;CA 92626 Newport Beach;CA 92660 939480-18 Walters,William C. f 114-481-25(R) Unit 8B Resident 21612 Surveyor Cir. 9062 Christine Dr. Huntington Beach;CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 939-480-19 R.S.Bavan Grodach,Carl W. Jr. County of Orange EMA 117 Via Dijon P.O.Box 4048 Newport Beach,CA 92663 Santa Ana,CA 927024048 Resident Maria Rivera 8142 Pawtucket Dr. McCutchen,Doyle, Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Brown&Enersen 1331 N.California Boulevard P.O.Box V Walnut Creek,CA 94596 Resident 8131 Ridgefield Dr. Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Robin J.Hoff 1605 W.Olympic#700 Los Angeles,CA 149-041-29 Ellis Palmer ✓ Reed Archambault 9041 Rhodesia Dr. O'Melveny&Myers Huntington Beach,CA 92646 610 Newport Center Drive Suite 1700 Newport Beach,CA 92660-6429 148-121-01 Dave Simms Bernard Kaplan Caltrans/Legal Division 8881 Belshire Drive 1605 W.Olympic Boulevard, Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Suite.700 Los Angeles,CA 90015 - PUBLIC NOTICE PUBLIC NOTICE PUBLIC NOTICE PUBLIC NOTICE PUBLIC NOTICE PUBLIC NOTICE PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Item(s)#I is located in the Coastal Zone and will be consistent with BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE the California Coastal Commission's action on November 16,1995 relative to Local Coastal Program CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Amendment No.2-94. ON FILE: A copy of the proposed request is on file in the City Clerk's Office,2000 Main Street, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Monday,March 18,1996,at 6:30 PM in the City.Council Huntington Beach,California 92648,for inspection by the public. A copy of the staff report%Sill be Chambers,2000 Main Street,Huntington Beach,the City Council will hold a public hearing on the available to interested parties at the City Clerk's Office after March 15,1996. following planning and zoning item: ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. If you challenge the City Council's action in court,you �I. LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO.2-94(WHITE HOLE): Applicant: may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in City of Huntington Beach R ue : to rezone various parcels to a CC(Coastal Conservation) this notice,or in written correspondence delivered to the City at,or prior to,the public hearing. If there are base zone,and to amend Article 969.7 of the Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program and Zoning any further questions please call the Planning Division at 536-5271 and refer to the above item. Direct Code,to be consistent with Coastal Commission's suggested modifications to Local Coastal your written communications to the City Clerk. Program Amendment No.2-94. Location: Inland side of Pacific Coast Highway between Beach Boulevard and the Santa Ana River(White Hole area-see attached map) Proicet Planner: Scott Hess Connie Brockway,City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street,2nd Floor NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Item(s)#I is categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15265 of the Huntington Beach,California 92648 California Environmental Quality Act. (714)536-5227 � s Area"C" 0 Change from MI-A-0-CC-CZ-FP2 °� o+,o, m to CC-0-CZ-FP2 / O Area W Change from(Q)ROS-CC-CZ-FP2 •�r « ++` to CC-CZ-FP2 C4 , • Edison Co. — . . •� z � �°' • ' Mobile Home Generating Plant `.� .,. Park �� An Jr- Pacific 'R--won" CF-R anrsa rta �t CF-R Area"G" Area"A" Area"E" _ Change from LUD-CC-CZ-FP2 .Change from VSC-CZ-FP2 Change from LUD-CC-CZ-FP2 and LUD-CC-CZ-FPI to CC-CZ-FP2 to CC-CZ-FP2 to CC-CZ-FP2 and CC-CZ-FPI Area"B" Area"D" Area"F" Change from RA-0-CC-CZ-FP2 Change from M2-0-CC-CZ-FP2 Change from LUD-CC-CZ-FP2 �- to CC-0-CZ-FP2 and RA-CC-CZ-FP2 to CC-CZ-FP2 to CC-0-CZ-FP2 and CC-CZ-FP2 Local Coastal Program-Amendment No. 2-94 HUNTINCTON BEACH HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DIVISION — =t------_------- a---- --------.. _ 2 9 PROOF OF PUBLICATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA) ) SS. County of Orange ) I am a Citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the below entitled matter. I am a principal clerk of ' the HUNTINGTON BEACH INDEPENDENT, a newspaper of general circulation, printed and published in the City of Huntington Beach, County of Orange, State of California, and that attached Notice is a true and complete copy as was printed and published in the Huntington Beach and Fountain Valley issues of said newspaper to wit the issue(s) of: March 7, 1996 I declare, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on March 7 , 199 6 at Costa Mesa, California. Signature • Connie Brockway,City Clerk City of Huntington BeachAr GTO Office of the City Clerks?^� r"MAR °F US aLL Ada Y y _ _; ;.:._gin• P.O. BOX 190 ' �r. y d Huntington Beach,CA 92648 �NTINGTp GyVon eager Tester,Kruse&Krinsky 0 1M�ORPON.I�fO FA Karman Ave., 16th Mr. y Irvine,CA 92715 -~ PETT881 927151004 1295 03/11/96 I -- I FORWARDING TIME EXPIREDI C= i�r�}►ir�= Q :PETTIS TESTER KRUSE & KRINSKY ' ?� Z 3151 AIRWAY AVE STE Al COSTA MESA CA 92626-4620 \ RETURN TO SENDER BOUNTY ca LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING ,,,I! Connie Brockway,City Clerk City of Huntington Beach (IM I�Tofr .� U.S.Pa$Office of the Cit Clerk ___...y -Y ; k S I I ?tiF P.O. Box 190 AR 6 96 51 '` a Huntington Beach,CA 92648 ;`e r•.. , <,: ;. / �_ _; ) �`' " �pHTINGTpy hart ant �9OQll�AaLane Q =NGORPON�IFo �F •'t` \� �•_____ 9�, 1„,�,s ;�?cfiatington Beach,CA 926486 vo 9 Lam-= Q l COUNTY Ca LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING ] ji j jj ii yi (y y IIIIIiill:l?11i1?I?i'��:ilI Ill???iI111111?�i??ilF1i?Ili?ii?I:ll }1� Connie Brockway,City Clerk City of Huntington Beach ` CMA'R � City Clerk o eCi Office f th P.O.Box 190 �!96 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 it No NTINGT �� r7;�, ;; c py I .:'''Berilse J es K 1p=NCORPOR4 ffO '4.cx 38 —•_-__ '�y Los A los, A 90720 ez LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING •�•n.�. D��F'• iAF;�r`#�'�i11i;�Fl}1�;�,��199�>��1}�Frit'9�f�919�I�tC1�l� '�'•x:x. Connie Brockway,City Clerk City of Huntington Beach U.S.PA(GPJ V V.- Office of the City Clerk A P.O. Box 190 MR 6"96 E P1 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 FORWAP0 X. RED i Ll MESA AZ 852o6 Daisy Piccirclli �,��MINGIpy P.O.Box 6202 Mesa,Arizona 85206 C=) go roZIN TY LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach t,T 0 t. Office of the City Clerk ,,I U.S.POS EAGti P.O. Box 190 HAR 14 7 4-4 �N Huntington Beach,CA 92648 o rm E I f R 148 —121 —04 o�apNTINGTpy City of Huntington Beach P 0 Box 190 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Cv ISO LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING Idif 11 Ill 11111 fill Ill IlliIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Connie Brockway,City Clerk City of Huntington Beach tZ'G'v ON Office of City Clerk , -the Ci �� r�r' sF :- -W.res rnr r P.O. Box 190 r. 6. 96 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 '� ' "' "' - r"``; Dave Simms I NGTpy Caltrans/Legal Division Q� xraeA�fo �F 1605 W.Olympic Boulevard, Suite.700 y Los Angeles, DEPT605 900152021 i195 03/15/96 FORWARD TIME EXP RTN TO SEND o ^r►�►n►"�"'^r' Q : DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION LEGAL DIVISIO PO BOX 17989 9/fi efQa'i=T^-o O�` LOS ANGELES CA 90017-0989 cFcpGNTY �'P\\� RETURN TO SENDER LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING Connie Brockway,City Clerk f[K Av..l W.a•rw W Al.C'rru.,.'3 W s.M'I r City of Huntington Beach �G7uN Office of the City Clerk av"b 1Y,� `�� sF9 u.s.vosr�a;r w- � P.O.Box 190 as i :.�xa !1AA S '96 cy ^'i ? s ' }I,''��• Huntington Beach, CA 92648 � :� < ;: ">; '� ' r' .... `•l; � - . ' ... CAL 1•�i � .:.: ... Robin J.Hoff �NTINGTp 1605 W.Olympic#700 NPO y� Los Angeles,CA ,O =MGOq�rfO �;_.. DEPT605 900152021 1195 03/15/96 - - FORWARD TIME EXP RTN TO SEND ) _ :DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION LEGAL DIVI510 Q PO BOA 17989 9/ji iQ o` �Q LOS ANGELES CA 90017-0989 C! 7, 1909• \ cppNTY �'P\ RETURN TO SENDER LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING III1IfIIllsso III J111I1161 Ills I Ills 1II616111llll,11lL��II,�J :yy r..o ....umevm.cuasve..+.vor.amcua..•:..,..ai GTG.j ��1�1i'�- (l.$.Pl1SI AU +:•;,.%.``. Connie Brockway,City Clerk �e•y, ,.� r ('� , '> City of Huntington Beach a fl,to =� Office of the City Clerk P.O.Box 190 , ft ;;L� s4i. _• .ti; it.- I f. Huntington Beach,CA 92648 FORWARD EXPIRED M ' i.•��•� _:•.• ' ' MESA AZ 85206 Daisy Piccirelli P.O.Box 6202 INGTpy Mesa,Arizona 85206 O\ to POR4 r' Cp Q 9 pQ 2n Q Ij 1011.op \� FppUNTY �'P� LEGAL NOTICE — PUBLIC HEARING 11„t,lit►„�I,III,II,Jill oil .....bill..... wnrne-isroCTc Clty Cle City of Huntington Beach =y.... : . Office of the City Clerk .......,_..�.,,,,,..>�..,..�, ,.� �,��oy �� ,•��-�-�-r�•��:--.y�.,,r.:� � ?RESORTU.S.PO$T.4G:it:��! 1' P.O.Box 190 "K" Huntington B -` Kr, each,CA 92648 , ,, , ; ., �, rAA 14 'kS ;. ;w X. ,� ,9 4•, �.i, � 1-r '_,rj .'�11 �! ti p h�J VIP INGtpyA `o N%EORPON41 U �J 114-481-19 �% T: ..1•,.....r7 1'.7 RRl1r4-4 mar 'Tr MORT101 926465006 1395 03/18/96 CP Q FORWARDING TIME EXPIRED MORTIMER 9 Q 90OR CHRISTINE DR 2C `fQ�II. t909•�� Q HUNTINGTON BEACH CA ge&46-6314 FcpUNTY RETURN TO SENDER LEGAL NOTICE — PUBLIC HEARING III,,,{I.tttt{I,tllttlitttll,t,ll,t,{1,t,,,,1111.,:!t:,t!!,,,I