COUNTY OF SAN MATEO Inter-Departmental Correspondence

PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT

DATE:

September 17, 2007

BOARD MEETING DATE:

October 2, 2007

SPECIAL NOTICE/HEARING:

500-foot Notice

VOTE REQUIRED:

Majority

TO:

Honorable Board of Supervisors

FROM:

Lisa Grote, Director of Community Development

SUBJECT:

Consideration of (1) the California Coastal Commission’s requested modifications to: (a) correct the previously submitted General Plan (GP) Land Use Designation/Local Coastal Program (LCP) amendment from “General Commercial (Coastside)” to “Commercial Recreation (Coastside)”; and (b) amend the LCP by adding the site-specific policy “1.34 – Development of APNs 048-013-150, -160, and -770 (Miramar Beach Restaurant Property)” applying traffic analysis/mitigation and water quality standards to all new development on the Miramar Beach Restaurant property; and (2) a Rezoning from R-1/S-94/DR (Single-Family Residential/10,000 sq. ft. minimum parcel size/Design Review) to P/DR (Parking/Design Review), affecting adjacent parcels to be developed as a 22-space parking lot associated with a 2,267 sq. ft. patio addition to the Miramar Beach Restaurant, located at 131 Mirada Road in the unincorporated Miramar area of San Mateo County. The GP/LCP and Zoning amendments require certification by the California Coastal Commission (CCC). The previously considered Use Permit, Off-Street Parking Exception, Coastside Design Review and CDP applications are not part of the instant proposed action and shall be reconsidered by the County in a separate, future action.

County File Number:

PLN 2003-00386 (McGregor/Jamplis)

RECOMMENDATION

1.

Approve by resolution, subject to certification by the CCC, acceptance of an agreement to the following modifications mandated by the Coastal Commission on May 9, 2007:

a.

Amend the GP Land Use designation of the specified parcels (APNs 048-013-150, -160, and -770) to [as revised] “Commercial Recreation (Coastside) from “General Commercial (Coastside).”

b.

Amend the LCP by adding the site-specific policy “1.34 – Development of APNs 048-013-150, -160, and -770 (Miramar Beach Restaurant Property)” onto page 1.11 of the LCP’s “Locating and Planning New Development” component (full text attached to Resolution, Attachment F), which includes standards for traffic analysis/coastal access mitigation and water quality to be applied to all new development on the Miramar Beach Restaurant property.

2.

Approve by ordinance, subject to certification by the CCC:

The Zoning Map amendment, changing the zoning designation of the specified parcels from “Single-Family Residential/10,000 sq. ft. Minimum Parcel Size/Design Review” (R-1/S-94/DR) to “Parking/Design Review” (P/DR).

3.

Direct staff to transmit the aforementioned resolution and ordinance amendments to the CCC for certification pursuant to the California Coastal Act.

4.

Direct staff, upon certification of the aforementioned amendments by the CCC, to review the proposed project for compliance with the amended LCP, and re-notice the project-associated CDP for consideration by the Zoning Hearing Officer (ZHO). The decision of the ZHO will be appealable to the CCC.

5.

Direct staff, upon certification of the aforementioned amendments by the CCC, to revise all official GP Land Use and Zoning maps and documents (including those on the County Planning and Building Department’s website), and to make available as a separate document, new LCP Policy 1.34, to be formatted as a distinct handout available separately and inserted into all distributed LCPs until such time as the entire LCP is reprinted.

VISION ALIGNMENT

Commitment: Responsive, effective and collaborative government.

Goal 20: Government decisions are based on careful consideration of future impact, rather than temporary relief or immediate gain. The project has undergone full environmental review, is supported by the Midcoast Community Council and surrounding residents, has been previously approved by the Board of Supervisors and reviewed by the CCC. The project is designed to address the need for visitor-serving facilities on the Coast, including the provision of parking to serve visitors seeking coastal access and to enhance the economic vitality of the Midcoast area.

BACKGROUND

Previous Board of Supervisors and Latest Coastal Commission Decision:

On March 7, 2006, the Board approved all elements of this project, pending certification by the CCC of the GP Land Use Designation/LCP and Zoning amendments mandated by the project.

On May 9, 2007, the CCC considered the GP Land Use Designation/ LCP and Zoning amendments for this project. The CCC did not certify the subject land use and zoning amendments, but indicated that they would do so if the County Board of Supervisors, upon further consideration and by resolution, agreed to adopt two modifications as follows: (1) modify the proposed GP Land Use Designation from the erroneously referenced “General Commercial (Coastside)” to the appropriate and corrected designation of “Commercial Recreation (Coastside)”; and (2) adopt a new site-specific LCP Policy 1.34 (in the “Locating and Planning New Development” component) comprised of the following elements requiring: (a) the development and implementation of a traffic impact analysis and mitigation plan, including traffic reduction mitigation, designed to offset new project-generated vehicle trips on Highway 1, Magellan and Medio Avenues, during commuter peak and recreation periods; and (b) the incorporation of site design, construction and post construction phase Source Control Best Management Practices to minimize polluted runoff and water quality impacts resulting from development.

Upon the Board’s approval of these modifications by resolution (which includes the previously approved Zoning amendment since it’s part of the overall project), they will be transmitted back to the CCC for its formal certification, which will include the new LCP Policy 1.34. Upon and only after such certification, the project’s associated CDP must then be reassessed and reconsidered, against the newly modified LCP (i.e., pursuant to the new LCP Policy 1.34) with all due process and notification mandated by the County’s Coastal District zoning regulations, at a future and separate public hearing by the Zoning Hearing Officer. While the associated Use Permit and Off-Street Parking Exception need not be formally reconsidered, their final approval would occur along with the CDP’s final approval.

Proposal: The proposed project remains unchanged, involving a 2,267 sq. ft. uncovered, outdoor dining area addition, for 130 seats, to the Miramar Beach Restaurant, which will be screened by a wooden fence. The addition requires issuance of a Use Permit Amendment, CDP, and Design Review for the restaurant expansion. To accommodate the additional dining guests, an Off-Street Parking Exception is required to create 19 tandem parking spaces in the existing parking lot, because the regulations require standard access parking spaces. The restaurant addition also triggers the need to convert an adjacent vacant parcel to a 22-space parking lot, which will take access off Coronado Avenue. The total number of existing and proposed restaurant parking spaces would be 87 (including the required number of handicap parking spaces) and will accommodate the maximum allowable number of restaurant guests, which, after the proposed addition, will be 249 diners. The creation of tandem parking, however, requires issuance of an Off-Street Parking Exception.

The Rezoning, GP and LCP amendments are required because the parcels on which the existing and proposed parking areas for the restaurant are located are currently zoned for residential uses. In order to accommodate the expanded parking use, these parcels must be zoned “Parking” and the GP designation of these parcels would be changed from “Medium-Low Density Residential” to “Commercial Recreation (Coastside),” which is appropriate for parking associated with a commercial use.

Report Prepared By: Dave Holbrook, Senior Planner, Telephone 650/363-1837

Applicant: Paul McGregor

Owner: Miramar Beach Inn, LTD; care of Mark Jamplis

Location: 131 Mirada Road, Miramar

APNs: 048-013-110, -120, -130, -150 and -160; 048-013-750, -760 and -770

Parcel Size: 0.81 acres (approximately 35,200 sq. ft.)

Existing Zoning:

048-013-110, -120, -130, -750 and -760: (Coastside Commercial Recreation/Design Review)

048-013-150, -160, -770: R-1/S-94/DR/CD (Single-Family Residential/10,000 sq. ft. minimum parcel/Design Review/Coastal Development)

Existing General Plan Designation:

048-013-110, -120, -130, -750, and -760: Commercial Recreation (Coastside)

048-013-150, -160, and -770: Medium-Low Density Residential ( d/u per acre)

Existing Land Use:

048-013-110, -120, -130, -150, -750, -760, and -770: Miramar Beach Restaurant and parking lot

048-013-160: Vacant Lot

Water Supply: Coastside County Water District

Sewage Disposal: Granada Sanitation District

Flood Zone: FEMA Flood Zone Map indicates the parcel is located in Zone V8, area of 100 year coastal flooding with velocity per Community Panel No. 060311 225 C; effective July 5, 1984.

Environmental Evaluation: Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration issued, with a public review period from August 30, 2005 to September 29, 2005.

Setting: The project site is located at the northeast corner of Mirada Road and Coronado Avenue in Miramar, west of Highway 1 and north of Half Moon Bay. Mirada Road runs north to south and has frontage along the Pacific Ocean. The project site is relatively flat and the majority of the site is developed with a 2-story building, which houses the Miramar Beach Restaurant on the first floor. The existing restaurant has 137 seats and 54 parking spaces. To the east of the restaurant is an existing parking lot and an 8,800 sq. ft. section of the property, which is undeveloped and vegetated with native grasses and weeds. The currently undeveloped section of the property is to be developed with a new expanded parking area for the restaurant, which will take access off Coronado Avenue. There are no developed parcels directly connected to the project site. However, there are developed residential properties in the area east of (behind) the Miramar Beach Restaurant. Across from the project site at the southeast corner of Mirada Road and Coronado Avenue is the Miramar Beach Inn Bed-and-Breakfast. To the south along Mirada Road are various commercial businesses, including an art gallery and other bed-and-breakfast establishments.

DISCUSSION

A.

EXPLANATION OF THE COASTAL COMMISSION’S MODIFICATIONS

Upon review of this project on May 9, 2007, the CCC conditioned its certification of the project’s GP Land Use Designation/LCP and Zoning amendments upon the Board of Supervisors’ approval of the following modifications, listed below in their full (italicized) text, followed by staff’s explanation of their relation to the proposed project. (For clarification, the current project’s compliance with the proposed LCP amendments is not part of your consideration, nor will staff discuss such compliance. That review and discussion shall occur when the project-related CDP is considered at a future and separate public hearing, i.e. at the Zoning Hearing Officer level.)

1.

Modification 1:

The County of San Mateo shall amend the LUP [Land Use Plan] map and re-designate APNs 048-0130150, -160, and -770 “Commercial Recreation (Coastside).”

Staff Explanation. This refers to the proposed GP Land Use designation for the parcels adjacent to the restaurant site to be developed as additional parking for the restaurant expansion. When this amendment was considered by both the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors, the proposed designation was erroneously stipulated as “General Commercial (Coastside)” instead of the appropriate designation of “Commercial Recreation (Coastside).” While staff always intended and communicated at the hearings the correct (latter) proposed designation, a mapping error perpetuated the mistake onto the Board-approved resolution. Upon transmittal to the CCC, staff acknowledged the error and clarified the intended and correct designation. In response, the CCC’s May 9, 2007 decision included the subject modification to correct that error upon the Board’s reconsideration. While the difference between the two designations appears minor, the proper designation (even though the property’s to be used and developed as parking) should match that of the parcels fronting onto Mirada Road, especially since the parking is associated with the restaurant use. The attached resolution (Attachment F) corrects this error and indicates the proper, intended land use designation.

2.

Modification 2:

1.34 Development of APNs 048-013-150, -160, and -770 (Miramar Beach Restaurant Property)

Any new development, as defined in Section 30106 of the Coastal Act, on APNs 048-013-150, -160, and -770, shall require:

a.

The development and implementation of a traffic impact analysis and mitigation plan which includes Transportation Demand Measures designed to offset new vehicle trips generated by the project on Highway One, Magellan Avenue, and Medio Avenue, during commuter peak periods and recreation periods. Calculation of new vehicle trips generated shall assume maximum occupancy of any approved development. The traffic impact analysis and mitigation plan shall also include specific provisions to access, and mitigate for, the project’s significant adverse cumulative impacts on public access to, and recreational use of, the beaches of the Mid-coast region of San Mateo County. This latter component of the traffic impact analysis and mitigation plan shall include, but not be limited to, consideration of the following:

(1)

Notwithstanding LUP Policy 10.22(b), the necessity of providing public access parking that is not time restricted to the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., so that the public may park and recreate at the beach in the early morning and evening hours.

(2)

The necessity of signage located on the appropriate surrounding streets, indicating that public access parking is available in the Miramar Beach Restaurant parking lot.

(3)

An assessment of project impacts combined with other projects causing related impacts, including all reasonably foreseeable future projects as defined in 14 CCR § 15130(b).

b.

Prior to the approval of any coastal development permit application involving any development as defined in Section 30106 of the Coastal Act information necessary for the analysis and implementation of all components of the traffic analysis and mitigation plan shall be submitted in support of any CDP application.

c.

To minimize the offsite transport of pollutants, the following design criteria are required for any development of APNs 048-013-770, -150, and -160, including expansion of the parking area for the Miramar Beach Restaurant. All development shall:

(1)

Incorporate Site Design and Source Control Best Management Practices (BMPs) to the maximum extent practicable, to minimize polluted runoff and water quality impacts resulting from the development. BMPs shall be selected to mitigate both construction-phase and post-construction water quality impacts. Where required, structural Treatment Control BMPs shall supplement Site Design and Source Control BMPs as necessary to protect coastal water quality. The applicant shall submit information that details how Site Design, Source Control, and where required, structural Treatment Control BMPs will manage or mitigate polluted runoff and water quality impacts resulting from proposed development.

The definitions of Site Design, Source Control, and Treatment Control BMPs are as follows:

Site Design BMPs: Project design features that reduce the generation of pollutants or reduce the alteration of natural landscape features that protect water quality (e.g., minimizing impervious surfaces, or minimizing grading).

Source Control BMPs: Practices that reduce the entrainment of pollutants in runoff (e.g., covering trash receptacles, or minimizing the use of landscaping chemicals and irrigation).

Treatment Control BMPs: Structural systems designed to remove pollutants from runoff (using processes such as gravity settling, filtration, biological uptake, media adsorption, or any other physical, chemical, biological process) and/or to reduce runoff volume and peak flow rates (using systems such as grassy swales, infiltration basins, detention ponds, or dry wells).

(2)

Maximize pervious surface land coverage of all new development.

(3)

Maximize pervious surface land coverage of parking areas through the use of porous/permeable pavement to the maximum extent practicable.

(4)

Incorporate best management practices (BMPs) in parking areas to minimize runoff of oil, grease, car battery acid, coolant, gasoline, sediments, trash, and other pollutants to the beach and coastal waters.

(5)

Infiltrate runoff before it reaches storm drain system or receiving waters by protecting the absorption, purification, and retention functions of natural drainage systems that exist onsite, designing drainage and project plans to complement and utilize existing drainage systems and patterns, diverting runoff through planted areas, conveying drainage from the developed area of the site in a non-erosive manner, and restoring disturbed or degraded natural drainage systems, where feasible.

(6)

Treat runoff before it reaches storm drain system or receiving waters to remove oil, petroleum hydrocarbons, and other pollutants if the combination of Site Design and Source Control BMPs is insufficient to protect water quality.

(7)

Ensure adequate operation and maintenance of treatment systems particularly sludge and oil removal, and system fouling and plugging prevention control.

Staff Explanation. This second modification includes three elements as follows: (a) the need for any future development on this parcel (this includes the subject, present proposal) to include submittal of a traffic analysis and mitigation plan, including adequate Transportation Demand Measures (TDMs), to offset new project-generated vehicle trips on Highway 1, Magellan Avenue and Medio Avenue during peak commute and recreation periods; (b) the additional need for the traffic analysis and mitigation plan to include provisions to mitigate the project’s significant adverse cumulative (generated both by the currently proposed project expansion and by potential future development in the Midcoast area) impacts on the public access to, and recreational use of, the Midcoast area beaches; and (c) the need to incorporate site design and Source Control Best Management Practices (BMPs) to minimize polluted runoff and water quality impacts resulting from development of the parking on APNs 048-013-150, -160 and -770.

a.

Traffic Analysis and Mitigation Plan. Upon its initial receipt of the County’s Board of Supervisors-approved amendment package, the CCC concluded that GP Land Use Designation change to “Commercial Recreation (Coastside)” (to accommodate the new parking lot necessitated by the restaurant expansion) triggered potential traffic impacts onto local streets and intersections leading to the restaurant. In response, the applicant prepared and submitted two traffic analysis reports to the CCC, dated September 28, 2006 and February 2, 2007.

The restaurant is accessible via two County streets intersecting off Highway 1 on the west side: Medio Avenue to the south and Magellan Avenue to the north. Both traffic reports acknowledged that these intersections currently have, respectively, a Level of Service (LOS) of E and F at peak commute hours (6:00-10:00 a.m. and 3:00-7:00 p.m., with the latter period somewhat including the beginning of the restaurant’s peak dining hours). The LOS designation indicates how well or how poorly a street or intersection is operating as defined by six levels of service. This County-adopted methodology analyzes traffic by the average control delay per vehicle (measured in seconds) for each controlled movement, incorporating associated deceleration, acceleration, stopping and moving up in the queue. In overview, LOS A represents a traffic condition whereby the average control delay is very low (<10 seconds per vehicle; e.g. free flowing or minimum slow downs) whereas LOS E and F (the noted LOS at the two intersections) represent average control delays ranging from 25.1 to over 50 seconds per vehicle, e.g. critical “stop-&-go,” stalled traffic flow.

The submitted traffic analysis essentially concluded that neither intersection would be adversely impacted beyond its respective LOS because the vehicle trips going to and leaving from the restaurant--in its expanded capacity--would not typically be concentrated within the critical peak commute hours. Instead, customers and employees would more likely go to and leave the restaurant over more variable time periods, especially given the variable weather on the coast (the expansion occurs in a outdoor patio setting) and the variable business that the restaurant does depending on the day. Additionally, the analysis included Transportation Demand Measures (TDMs) as stipulated in the guidelines of the City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (C/CAG) that the restaurant could implement to minimize any traffic it generates. While C/CAG’s policy would not hold such a project to such guidelines because it generates less than 100-peak period vehicle trips, the project traffic analysis did list several TDMs.

Despite the submittal of the traffic analysis and inclusion of TDMs, the CCC questioned the project’s compliance with LCP Policy 2.49 (Desired Level of Service) in the Public Works Component, which states:

“In assessing the need for road expansion, consider Service Level D acceptable during commuter peak periods and Service Level E acceptable during recreation peak periods.”

While the project does not include any proposal for road expansion, the CCC concluded that the restaurant’s expansion needed to be assessed under the assumption of “maximum occupancy,” e.g. the restaurant could add vehicle trips to the two cited intersections during peak commute periods. The CCC assumed that the restaurant’s expansion could potentially generate vehicle trips of all its additional customers/employees during peak commute periods regardless of the weather or day of the week. Thus, it mandated that the project-associated CDP be evaluated against this element of proposed LCP Policy 1.34.

b.

Mitigation of the project impacts on public access to, and recreational use of, the Midcoast area beaches. The CCC further concluded that the restaurant expansion could produce adverse impacts to the public’s ability to access and use coastside beaches, including the need for associated parking and beach access and parking signage. Thus, it has mandated that mitigation of these impacts be included in proposed LCP Policy 1.34.

The applicant’s submitted traffic analysis included a brief section on cumulative conditions in the area to the year 2011, stating that there were no foreseen developments expected to occur in the project study area to the year 2011. Specifically, the section reviewed traffic volume data for Highway 1 south of the Capistrano Road intersection, citing “Peak Hour Volume (vehicles/hour)” and “Average Annual Daily Traffic (vehicles/day)” figures for the years 1994, 2000, 2004 and 2005 at the Highway 1 intersections with Magellan and Medio Avenues. Assuming an annual traffic increase of ½% per year through the cumulative conditions year of 2011 and assuming the restaurant’s expanded outdoor seating is fully occupied, the analysis concluded that three of the 24 intersection movements would shift from LOS “E” to “F” and one would shift from LOS “D” to “E” during select Friday and Saturday PM peak hours.

Additionally, the project as initially approved by the Board included a condition requiring that the restaurant parking lot designate a minimum of 20% of their total required parking spaces for beach user parking between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. daily, in compliance with LCP Policy 10.22.

However, the CCC voiced concerns over the restaurant expansion’s impacts on the public’s ability to access the beach areas triggered by the project (in terms of both traffic delays getting to and finding adequate parking associated with beach access. However, it chose not to specifically evaluate the applicant’s analysis relative to consideration of the project-associated CDP. Instead, as with the previously discussed traffic analysis element, the CCC mandated that this element of proposed LCP Policy 1.34 be adopted to ensure that both the present project and any future enlargements or other uses on the subject property shall be evaluated against this standard.

c.

Mitigation to minimize the offsite transport of pollutants. The CCC proposed this element of LCP Policy 1.34 due to the project’s inclusion of a new asphalted parking lot to accommodate the restaurant expansion. The project plans included a drainage analysis and approved drainage plan to be incorporated into the parking lot to ensure that vehicle-generated pollutants were controlled and properly drained. In addition, the conditions of approval had been previously added to the project which would ensure that all requirements of the County’s Stormwater Management Control Program would be adhered to upon issuance of the building permit for and construction of the parking lot. However, again, the CCC chose not to evaluate these measures as part of their consideration, instead leaving the project-associated CDP (as well as any future expansions or uses to this property) to be evaluated against this formally required element of proposed LCP Policy 1.34.

B.

CONFORMANCE WITH LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM

Proposed LCP Policy 1.34, which is parcel-specific, would be applied only to the project property, which is located in the Coastal Development Overlay District and must comply with the County’s LCP. The added policy appears as the last policy in the LCP’s “Locating and Planning New Development” Component. While it is unusual for LCP Policies to be proposed and applicable only to specific parcels, there are several LCP policies, maps and tables that are applicable only to select sites, i.e. Pillar Point Marsh, Denniston Dam, Ox Mountain Landfill facility, El Granada School, and Historic Johnson House.

While the proposed LCP policy amendment includes elements and mitigations typically covered by other elements of planning review (including CEQA compliance) and project conditions of approval, the proposed policy does not conflict with any other LCP policies. Instead, it dictates formally that such analysis and mitigation shall be required as part of consideration for a CDP for both the present project and any future expansions or uses on the subject property.

C.

REZONING, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, AND LOCAL COASTAL PLAN AMENDMENTS

In addition to the CCC’s mandated LCP amendment, the project still includes the previously considered rezoning three of the project parcels from R-1/S-94/DR (Single-Family Residential/10,000 sq. ft. minimum parcel size/Design Review) to P/DR (Parking/Design Review) and changing the current GP designations from “Medium-Density Residential” to “Commercial Recreation (Coastside)”. The existing restaurant parking lot is located on two of the existing Parcels 048-013-150 and -770, directly east of the restaurant. The proposed expanded parking lot will be located on 048-013-160, which is currently a vacant lot and will be connected to the existing parking lot via a proposed walkway. In order to approve the proposed amendments, the following finding must be made:

The Rezoning, General Plan Amendment and Local Coastal Program Amendments [including new LCP Policy 1.34] are in harmony with the surrounding area and will not be in conflict with the San Mateo County General Plan or Local Coastal Program.

As previously discussed, the proposed project is in full conformance will all applicable GP and LCP Policies regarding the location of commercial activities in the urban area of the Coastal Zone. The proposed rezoning will allow an existing historical use in the neighborhood to expand and provide additional parking for the proposed expansion. Staff has found no evidence to indicate that the proposal will be a nuisance to the surrounding neighborhood, as no community complaints have been received regarding the existing restaurant operation and no objections have been received regarding the current proposal, therefore staff feels that the proposal will be in harmony with the surrounding area. Thus, the required finding for the Rezoning, GP, and LCP Amendments can be made.

D.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

The previously circulated Initial Study/Negative Declaration for this project was certified by the Board of Supervisors on March 7, 2006. While the CCC did not certify the subject GP and Zoning amendments, the project has not changed, thus the Negative Declaration need not be revised or recirculated. However, it is included as Attachment H for the Board’s reference. The subject change to the project as reflected in this report (adding site-specific LCP Policy 1.34) is exempt from CEQA review under Section 15282 relative to approvals by a local government necessary for the preparation of a GP amendment, which in this case is an amendment to the LCP.

FISCAL IMPACT

The approval by the Board of Supervisors and certification by the CCC of the subject GP, LCP and zoning amendments will allow the other pending planning permits for the restaurant expansion to be considered. Upon final approval of those permits and construction of the project, the restaurant’s enlargement will increase the assessed tax revenue on the project parcels.

ATTACHMENTS

A.

Recommended Findings

B.

Location and Existing Conditions Map

C.

Existing and Proposed Zoning Designation

D.

Existing and Proposed General Plan Designation

E.

Project Site Plan

F.

Board of Supervisors Resolution to Adopt Zoning and General Plan Amendments (including new LCP Policy 1.34), with Map & Text Exhibits

G.

Board of Supervisors Ordinance to Change Parcel Zoning Designation

H.

Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

I.

New LCP Policy 1.34 Excerpt Handout for Public

J.

California Coastal Commission May 9, 2007 Hearing Decision Letter