Sides Argue Best Way to Fill in a ‘White Hole’

Robert London Moore Jr. surveyed his 23 acres of undeveloped coastal property near Pacific Coast Highway last week and declared it a wasteland, not wetlands.

Moore, whose grandfather, Hansen Moore, bought the property with associates at the turn of the century, has been waiting for permission to develop his land--part of a 232-acre expanse known as the “white hole”--for as long as he can remember.

With ecologically sensitive wetlands vanishing in the state, the coastal land has become the focus of debate between landowners, questioning whether the wetlands are viable and restorable, and environmentalists and others, who contend that what is left is invaluable wetlands that must be protected.

“The undeveloped portions are completely devoid of the environmental and ecological conditions that create a wetlands and a marsh,” said Moore, president of Mills Land and Water Co. “Except for periods after rains, the Mills property is as dry as the Sahara desert.”

But Gary Gorman, executive director of Huntington Beach Wetlands Conservancy, disagrees. He said Moore’s property, along with about 100 more acres of other undeveloped coastal land along Pacific Coast Highway from Beach Boulevard to the Santa Ana River, is restorable wetlands.

Restored wetlands would provide for native plant and wildlife, including endangered species such as the California least tern, Belding’s savannah sparrow and the light-footed clapper rail.

“Our goal has been to acquire and restore the area as best we can,” Gorman said, pointing to the nonprofit land trust’s restoration of 25 acres, known as the Talbert Marsh, next to the Santa Ana River.

On Monday, the Huntington Beach City Council will consider a zoning plan that would protect the wetlands and minimize development.

The area has long been referred to as the “white hole” because throughout the impasse over its zoning, the property has appeared as a blank spot on the city’s color-coded land use plan.

Councilman Victor Leipzig, who has followed the issue over the years, said, “I’m delighted to see this day come. . . . These are some of the last remaining wetlands in California. They do have endangered species value, and it is important to protect them.

“The City Council and Coastal Commission have worked diligently to preserve landowners’ rights while protecting the resources.”

The coastal area, Huntington Beach’s so-called “other wetlands,” has largely been in the shadow of the Bolsa Chica wetlands controversy, but not forgotten. The state Department of Fish and Game determined in 1983 that the majority of the area is restorable wetlands.

For more than a decade, the area has been studied by the city and state agencies, defended by environmentalists and has emerged as a cause of conflict with private landowners who contend that proposed conservation zoning, which does not allow commercial or residential buildings, makes their land worthless.

The state Coastal Commission late last year reaffirmed that the area is an environmentally sensitive habitat region, giving the city justification to zone the area for conservation uses, to protect the wetlands in accord with the state Coastal Act.

Allowable uses under the proposed conservation zoning include ocean-dependent industrial activities such as power generation, aquaculture or habitat restoration.

Moore strongly opposes the zoning proposal, saying that it strips him of his rights to develop his property because it doesn’t give him an economically viable use of his land. Moore, who also holds options on another 28 acres of state-owned land south of Beach Boulevard, two years ago filed a lawsuit challenging the zoning change. It is still pending.

Under the proposed zoning plan, Moore said his development options are “extremely limited and therein lies the complaint.”

“We would like to make some reasonable economic use of the property, which our family has been paying taxes on for almost 100 years.”

Scott Hess, city senior planner, said the proposal before the council is a compromise because it protects wetlands and also recognizes private property rights. The zoning restrictions would allow officials to consider permitting commercial development, but only after landowners submitted their proposals to environmental and financial impact studies.

That is too tenuous for the landowners.

“It’s a clever mechanism intended to give the city and state a way out--to avoid paying just compensation, even though there would be no use allowed,” said Newport Beach attorney Michael Yoder, who represents landowners Pacific Enviro Design, which has 14 undeveloped acres, and Coastal Magnolia Group, owner of 45 undeveloped acres.

“My clients’ view is, if the state and city want the property to be conservation land, all that we ask is they be upfront and recognize it’s a public use” and compensate the owners, as the Constitution requires, he said.

Other “white hole” property owners include Southern California Edison, which operates the power plant on about 75 acres and also owns 17 adjacent undeveloped acres. The Edison plant will remain a permitted use, but the adjacent property is proposed to be zoned for conservation, Hess said. The state also owns 33 acres, of which five acres at Pacific Coast Highway and Beach Boulevard are proposed as a visitor-oriented commercial zone, allowing such uses as retail businesses, restaurants and related services.

In years past, Leipzig said the city’s efforts have been to get the “white hole” land zoned for development. “Only in recent years has the council recognized its obligation to work for preservation of the land, and now there’s an environmentally sensitive City Council,” he said.

“But it’s important to point out that there is potential for some development on property owners’ land.”